Assessing wildfire potential within the wildland-urban interface: A southeastern Ohio example

Spreading cities and suburbs remain a common phenomenon throughout the United States. Urban spread, and the desire to move beyond the subdivision for a more natural setting in the country creates both opportunities and challenges for natural resource managers in the path of urban expansion. Perhaps no challenge is as great as those related to wildfire risk within the lands describing the urban–wildland interface. The need to gain a better understanding of the wildland–urban interface is critical to policy makers charged with risk reduction responsibilities. The purpose of this paper is to develop a methodology that aptly characterizes the spatial distribution of wildfire risk potential in southeastern Ohio. The project goals are achieved using a geospatial technology solution to model critical hazard and risk variables associated with wildfire. The results of this study demonstrate that the association of wildfire with hazard and risk variables can be exploited to improve wildfire potential mapping and a validation assessment of the geographic information systems (GIS)-based prescriptive model displayed a strong agreement with the pattern of historic wildfire for the region.

[1]  T. Bernhardsen Geographic Information Systems: An Introduction , 1999 .

[2]  Maureen E. Austin,et al.  Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby , 2004 .

[3]  Robert G. Haight,et al.  Assessing Fire Risk in the Wildland-Urban Interface , 2004, Journal of Forestry.

[4]  E. Sutherland History of fire in a southern Ohio second-growth mixed-oak forest , 1997 .

[5]  J. Campbell Introduction to remote sensing , 1987 .

[6]  Jack D. Cohen Preventing Disaster: Home Ignitability in the Wildland-Urban Interface , 2000, Journal of Forestry.

[7]  David T. Butry,et al.  Understanding Broadscale Wildfire Risks in a Human-Dominated Landscape , 2002, Forest Science.

[8]  B. McCune Improved estimates of incident radiation and heat load using non- parametric regression against topographic variables , 2007 .

[9]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  The wildland-urban interface in the United States based on 125 million building locations. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[10]  D. V. Lear,et al.  Bringing Fire Back: The Changing Regimes of the Appalachian Mixed-Oak Forests , 2001, Journal of Forestry.

[11]  Lee E. Frelich,et al.  Forest Dynamics and Disturbance Regimes: Studies from Temperate Evergreen-Deciduous Forests , 2002 .

[12]  Emilio Chuvieco,et al.  Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Forest Fire Danger Using GIS , 1996, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[13]  S. Morris,et al.  Soil and forest floor characteristics , 2003 .

[14]  Terry A. Slocum Thematic Cartography and Geographic Visualization , 2004 .

[15]  James K. Lein Environmental decision making : an information technology approach , 1997 .

[16]  S. Mukherjee,et al.  Forest fire risk zone mapping from satellite imagery and GIS , 2002 .

[17]  J. Lein Toward the Rapid Characterization of the Built Environment within the Wildland-Urban Interface: A Soft Classification Strategy , 2006 .

[18]  Patricia L. Andrews,et al.  FIRES: Fire Information Retrieval and Evaluation System - A program for fire danger rating analysis , 1997 .

[19]  Jack D. Cohen,et al.  The Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Problem , 2010 .

[20]  Chris Webster,et al.  GIS and the Scientific Inputs to Planning. Part 2: Prediction and Prescription , 1994 .

[21]  N. Thompson Hobbs,et al.  Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat , 1997 .