Advertisement

Current Forestry Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Fighting Flames and Forging Firelines: Wildfire Suppression Effectiveness at the Fire Edge

  • Matt P. PlucinskiEmail author
Fire Science and Management (ME Alexander, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Fire Science and Management

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The effectiveness of wildfire suppression is difficult to define as it can be assessed against different objectives and at a range of scales. The influence of multiple variables make it a challenge to research. This two-part series presents a synthesis of the current understanding of the effectiveness of wildfire suppression determined from studies of observational data and incident records. Effectiveness is considered on four scales: flames, firelines, whole incidents, and landscapes. This first part provides an overview of wildfire suppression followed by a synthesis of research undertaken at flame and fireline scales.

Recent Findings

Wildfire suppression research has been undertaken at flame and fireline scales for different reasons. Laboratory experiments have been the main means for investigating suppression at the flame scale. These have been used to compare wildfire suppression chemicals and identify those that are most effective. Field observations of sections of fire perimeter have been used to investigate resource productivity and the effects that suppression efforts have on fire behavior to evaluate specific resource types and tactics.

Summary

There are many ways that wildfire suppression effectiveness can be defined and measured. These depend on the scale and purpose that they are considered. Wildfire suppression effectiveness research conducted at flame and fireline scales has provided a means for comparing and evaluating wildfire suppression chemicals and firefighting resources. These scales provide an opportunity for many variables to be closely examined. Laboratory experiments, typically conducted in combustion wind tunnels, allow some variables to be investigated in isolation and provide a means for repeated testing at the flame scale. Field observations and measurements made at the fireline scale can provide a realistic setting representative of the wildfire conditions where their findings will be applied.

Keywords

Firefighting Fire containment Fire management Incident response 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful for the knowledge he gained from the many operational firefighters and fire managers that he has worked with over the years, particularly his volunteer colleagues who continue to educate and inspire him. Wesley Page, Matthew Thompson, Keith Stockmann (US Forest Service), Jim Gould, Sadanandan Nambiar (CSIRO), Steven Hvenegaard (FPInnovations Wildfire Operations) and Marty Alexander (Fire Science and Management Section Editor) provided helpful suggestions on draft versions of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been funded by CSIRO.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Stephens SL, Agee JK, Fulé PZ, North MP, Romme WH, Swetnam TW, et al. Managing forests and fire in changing climates. Science. 2013;342(6154):41–2.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240294.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moritz MA, Batllori E, Bradstock RA, Gill AM, Handmer J, Hessburg PF, et al. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature. 2014;515(7525):58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13946.
  3. 3.
    • Martell DL. A review of recent forest and wildland fire management decision support systems research. Curr For Rep. 2015;1(2):128–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-015-0011-y A good explanation of decision support systems and the need for a good understanding of suppression effectiveness. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunn CJ, Calkin DE, Thompson MP. Towards enhanced risk management: planning, decision making and monitoring of US wildfire response. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):551–6.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17089.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riley K, Thompson M, Scott J, Gilbertson-Day J. A model-based framework to evaluate alternative wildfire suppression strategies. Resources. 2018;7(1):4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calkin DE, Thompson MP, Finney MA. Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management. For Ecosyst. 2015;2(9):1–10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calkin DE, Cohen JD, Finney MA, Thompson MP. How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(2):746–51.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315088111.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thompson MP, MacGregor DG, Dunn CJ, Calkin DE, Phipps J. Rethinking the wildland fire management system. J For. 2018;116(4):382–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvy020.
  9. 9.
    Thompson M, Dunn C, Calkin D. Wildfires: systemic changes required. Science. 2015;350(6263):920.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.350.6263.920-b.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jolly WM, Cochrane MA, Freeborn PH, Holden ZA, Brown TJ, Williamson GJ, et al. Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat Commun. 2015;6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8537.
  11. 11.
    Tedim F, Leone V, Amraoui M, Bouillon C, Coughlan M, Delogu G, et al. Defining extreme wildfire events: difficulties, challenges, and impacts. Fire. 2018;1(1):9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calkin DE, Gebert KM, Jones JG, Neilson RP. Forest service large fire area burned and suppression expression trends, 1970-2002. J For. 2005;103(4):179–83.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abt KL, Prestemon JP, Gebert KM. Wildfire suppression cost forecasts for the US Forest Service. J For. 2009;107(4):173–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stocks BJ, Martell DL. Forest fire management expenditures in Canada: 1970–2013. For Chron. 2016;92(03):298–306.  https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2016-056.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liang J, Calkin DE, Gebert KM, Venn TJ, Silverstein RP. Factors influencing large wildland fire suppression expenditures. Int J Wildland Fire. 2008;17(5):650–9.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF07010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Attiwill P, Binkley D. Exploring the mega-fire reality: a forest ecology and management conference. For Ecol Manag. 2013;294(0):1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.025.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ingalsbee T, Raja U. The rising costs of wildfire suppression and the case for ecological fire use. In: DellaSala DA, Hanson CT, editors. The ecological importance of mixed-severity fires: nature’s Phoenix. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press; 2015. p. 348–71.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hope ES, McKenney DW, Pedlar JH, Stocks BJ, Gauthier S. Wildfire suppression costs for Canada under a changing climate. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0157425.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157425.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merrill DF, Alexander ME, editors. Glossary of forest fire management terms. Fourth ed. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada, Canadian Committee on Forest Fire Management; 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    NWCG. Glossary of wildland fire terminology. Boise, ID: National Wildfire Coordinating Group2011 Contract No.: PMS 205.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    •• Hirsch KG, Martell DL. A review of initial attack fire crew productivity and effectiveness. Int J Wildland Fire. 1996;6(4):199–215 This comprehensive review summarizes all of the early work on resource productivity and rules of thumb that relate fire suppression effectiveness to intensity. There have only been a few productivity models developed since its publication over 20 years ago. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson MP, Calkin DE, Herynk J, McHugh CW, Short KC. Airtankers and wildfire management in the US Forest Service: examining data availability and exploring usage and cost trends. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(2):223–33.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11041.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thompson M, Lauer C, Calkin D, Rieck J, Stonesifer C, Hand M. Wildfire response performance measurement: current and future directions. Firehouse. 2018;1(2):21.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Minas JP, Hearne JW, Handmer JW. A review of operations research methods applicable to wildfire management. Int J Wildland Fire. 2012;21(3):189–96.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10129.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pacheco AP, Claro J, Fernandes PM, de Neufville R, Oliveira TM, Borges JG, et al. Cohesive fire management within an uncertain environment: a review of risk handling and decision support systems. For Ecol Manag. 2015;347(0):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.033.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thompson MP, Calkin DE. Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review. J Environ Manag. 2011;92(8):1895–909.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duff TJ, Tolhurst KG. Operational wildfire suppression modelling: a review evaluating development, state of the art and future directions. Int J Wildland Fire. 2015;24(6):735–48.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF15018.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thompson MP, Rodríguez y Silva F, Calkin DE, Hand MS. A review of challenges to determining and demonstrating efficiency of large fire management. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):562–73.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16137.
  29. 29.
    Dunn CJ, Thompson MP, Calkin DE. A framework for developing safe and effective large-fire response in a new fire management paradigm. For Ecol Manag. 2017;404(Supplement C):184–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.08.039.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Plucinski MP. Contain and control: wildfire suppression effectiveness at incidents and across landscapes. Curr For Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00085-4.
  31. 31.
    Fried JS, Fried BD. Simulating wildfire containment with realistic tactics. For Sci. 1996;42:267–81.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haight RG, Fried JS. Deploying wildland fire suppression resources with a scenario-based standard response model. Infor. 2007;45(1):31–9.  https://doi.org/10.3138/infor.45.1.31.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wei Y, Belval EJ, Thompson MP, Calkin DE, Stonesifer CS. A simulation and optimisation procedure to model daily suppression resource transfers during a fire season in Colorado. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):630–41.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16073.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wei Y, Rideout DB, Hall TB. Toward efficient management of large fires: a mixed integer programming model and two iterative approaches. For Sci. 2011;57(5):435–47.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ntaimo L, Gallego-Arrubla JA, Gan J, Stripling C, Young J, Spencer T. A simulation and stochastic integer programming approach to wildfire initial attack planning. For Sci. 2013;59(1):105–17.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hu XL, Sun Y, Ntaimo L. DEVS-FIRE: design and application of formal discrete event wildfire spread and suppression models. Simul-Trans Soc Model Simul Int. 2012;88(3):259–79.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luke RH, McArthur AG. Bushfires in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1978.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parks GM. Development and application of a model for suppression of forest fires. Manag Sci. 1964;10(1):760–6.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hirsch KG, Corey PN, Martell DL. Using expert judgement to model initial attack fire crew effectiveness. For Sci. 1998;44(4):539–49.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arienti MC, Cumming SG, Boutin S. Empirical models of forest fire initial attack success probabilities: the effects of fuels, anthropogenic linear features, fire weather, and management. Can J For Res. 2006;36(12):3155–66.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cumming SG. Effective fire suppression in boreal forests. Can J For Res. 2005;35(4):772–86.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Plucinski MP. Factors affecting containment area and time of Australian forest fires featuring aerial suppression. For Sci. 2012;58(4):390–8.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Plucinski MP. Modelling the probability of Australian grassfires escaping initial attack to aid deployment decisions. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(4):459–68.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF12019.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    • Alexander ME. Fire behaviour as a factor in forest and rural fire suppression. Christchurch: forest research, Rotorua, in association with the New Zealand Fire Service Commission and the National Rural Fire Authority, Wellington.2000. Report No.: Forest Research Bulletin No. 197. Forest and Rural Fire Scientific and Technical Series, Report No. 5. A practical guide detailing the influence of fire behavior on suppression. Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fernandes PM, Pacheco AP, Almeida R, Claro J. The role of fire-suppression force in limiting the spread of extremely large forest fires in Portugal. Eur J For Res. 2016;135(2):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0933-8.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gill AM, Allan G. Large fires, fire effects and the fire-regime concept. Int J Wildland Fire. 2008;17(6):688–95.  https://doi.org/10.1071/wf07145.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wei Y, Thompson MP, Haas JR, Dillon GK, O’Connor CD. Spatial optimization of operationally relevant large fire confine and point protection strategies: model development and test cases. Can J For Res. 2018;48(5):480–93.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0271.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    North MP, Stephens SL, Collins BM, Agee JK, Aplet G, Franklin JF, et al. Reform forest fire management. Science. 2015;349(6254):1280–1.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Strauss D, Bednar L, Mees R. Do one percent of fires cause ninety-nine percent of the damage? For Sci. 1989;35(2):319–28.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mateus P, Fernandes PM. Forest fires in Portugal: dynamics, causes and policies. In: Reboredo F, editor. Forest context and policies in Portugal: present and future challenges. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 97–115.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Podur JJ, Martell DL. A simulation model of the growth and suppression of large forest fires in Ontario. Int J Wildland Fire. 2007;16(3):285–94.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thompson M, Calkin D, Scott JH, Hand M. Uncertainty and probability in wildfire management decision support. In: Riley K, Webley P, Thompson M, editors. Natural hazard uncertainty assessment. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2017. p. 31–41.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Katuwal H, Calkin DE, Hand MS. Production and efficiency of large wildland fire suppression effort: a stochastic frontier analysis. J Environ Manag. 2016;166:227–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.030.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Finney M, Grenfell IC, McHugh CW. Modeling containment of large wildfires using generalized linear mixed-model analysis. For Sci. 2009;55(3):249–55.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Calkin D, Katuwahl H, Hand M, Holmes T. The effectiveness of suppression resources in large fire management in the US: a review. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra; 2014.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Finney M, McHugh C, Grenfell I, Riley K, Short K. A simulation of probabilistic wildfire risk components for the continental United States. Stoch Env Res Risk A. 2011:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-011-0462-z.
  57. 57.
    San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Moreno JM, Camia A. Analysis of large fires in European Mediterranean landscapes: lessons learned and perspectives. For Ecol Manag. 2013;294(0):11–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.10.050.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Alexander ME, Mutch RW, Davis KM, Bucks CM. Wildland fires: dangers and survival. In: Auerbach PS, editor. Auerbach’s Wilderness Medicine, Volume 1. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thorburn R, Alexander M. LACES versus LCES: adopting an ‘A’ for ‘anchor points’ to improve wildland firefighter safety. In: Butler B, Mangan D, editors. Proceedings of the 2001 International Wildland Fire Safety Summit; 6–8 November 2001. Missoula: International Association of Wildland Fire; 2001.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cheney P, Sullivan A. Grassfires, fuel, weather and fire behaviour. 2nd ed. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing; 2008.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gleason P. LCES—a key to safety in the wildland fire environment. Fire Manag Notes. 1991;52(4):9.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Alexander ME, Thorburn WR. LACES: adding an "A" for anchor point(s) to the LCES wildland firefighter safety system. In: Leblon B, Alexander M, editors. Current international perspectives on wildland fires, mankind and the environment. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2015. p. 121–44.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rothermel RC. Mann Gulch fire: a race that couldn’t be won. Gen. Tech. Rep. Ogden: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station1993. Report No.: INT-299Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cheney P, Gould J, McCaw L. The dead-man zone—a neglected area of firefighter safety. Aust For. 2001;64(1):45–50.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Cardil A, Molina DM. Factors causing victims of wildland fires in Spain (1980–2010). Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J. 2013;21(1):67–80.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.871995.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lahaye S, Sharples J, Matthews S, Heemstra S, Price O, Badlan R. How do weather and terrain contribute to firefighter entrapments in Australia? Int J Wildland Fire. 2018;27(2):85–98.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17114.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Butler BW. Wildland firefighter safety zones: a review of past science and summary of future needs. Int J Wildland Fire. 2014;23(3):295–308.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13021.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Campbell MJ, Dennison PE, Butler BW. Safe separation distance score: a new metric for evaluating wildland firefighter safety zones using lidar. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 2017;31(7):1448–66.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2016.1270453.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Adams T, Butler BW, Brown S, Wright V, Black A. Bridging the divide between fire safety research and fighting fire safely: how do we convey research innovation to contribute more effectively to wildland firefighter safety? Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(2):107–12.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16147.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Calkin D, Phipps J, Holmes T, Rieck J, Thompson M. The exposure index: developing firefighter safety performance measures. Fire Manag Today. 2011;71(4):24–7.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Stonesifer CS, Calkin DE, Thompson MP, Kaiden JD. Developing an aviation exposure index to inform risk-based fire management decisions. J For. 2014;112(6):581–90.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Leuschen T, Frederick K. The consumption strategy: increasing safety during mopup. Fire Manag Notes. 1999;59(4):30–4.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Martell DL. Forest fire management. In: Johnson EA, Miyanishi K, editors. Forest fires. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001. p. 527–83.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    García Egido JB, O’Brien S. Wildland fire suppression operations with heavy equipment. FORMEC2018—improved forest mechanisation: mobilizing natural resources and preventing wildfires; September 25th–27th; Madrid, Spain; 2018. p. 1–25.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Brown AA, Davis KP. Forest fire: control and use McGraw-Hill series in forest resources, vol accessed from http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn431636. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1973.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Chandler C, Cheney P, Thomas P, Trabaud L, Williams D. Fire in forestry, volume II: forest fire management and organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1983.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pyne SJ, Andrews PL, Laven RD. Introduction to wildland fire. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1996.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Murphy PJ, Woodard PM, Quintilio D, Titus SJ. Exploratory analysis of the variables affecting initial attack hot-spotting containment rate. Can J For Res. 1991;21:540–4.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Quintilio D, Murphy PJ, Woodard PM. Production guidelines for initial attack hotspotting. Fire Manag Notes. 1988;49(3):24–7.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Byram GM. Combustion of forest fuels. In: Davis KP, editor. Forest fire: control and use. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959. p. 61–89.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Loane IT, Gould JS. Aerial suppression of bushfires: cost-benefit study for Victoria. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Forest Research; 1986.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Deeming JE, Burgan RE, Cohen JD. The National Fire Danger Rating System - 1978. General technical report. Odgen: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station; 1977. Report No.: INT-39Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Andrews PL, Rothermel RC. Charts for interpreting wildland fire behavior characteristics. General Technical Report. Ogden: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station; 1982. Report No.: INT-131Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Alexander ME, de Groot WJ. Fire behavior in jack pine stands as related to the Canadian forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System. Edmonton: Canadian Forestry Service, Northwest Region; 1988.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Alexander ME, Lanoville RA. Predicting fire behavior in the black spruce-lichen woodland fuel type in western and northern Canada. Poster (with text). Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton: Forestry Canada, Alberta and Government of Northwest Territories, Department of Renewable Resources, Territorial Forest Fire Centre, Fort Smith, Northwest Territories; 1989.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Budd GM, Brotherhood JR, Hendrie AL, Jeffery SE, Beasley FA, Costin BP, et al. Project Aquarius 4. Experimental bushfires, suppression procedures, and measurements. Int J Wildland Fire. 1997;7(2):99–104.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    NWCG. Glossary of wildland fire terminology. Boise, ID: National Wildfire Coordinating Group; 2018. https://www.nwcg.gov/glossary/a-z. Accessed 21 Jan 2019.
  88. 88.
    Stonesifer CS, Calkin DE, Hand MS. Federal fire managers’ perceptions of the importance, scarcity and substitutability of suppression resources. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):598–603.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16124.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Cooper RW. Preliminary guidelines for using suppression fires to control wildfires in the southeast. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: USDA Forest Service; 1969. Report No.: SE-102Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fryer GK, Dennison PE, Cova TJ. Wildland firefighter entrapment avoidance: modelling evacuation triggers. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(7):883–93.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF12160.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    O’Connor CD, Calkin DE, Thompson MP. An empirical machine learning method for predicting potential fire control locations for pre-fire planning and operational fire management. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):587–97.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16135.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Fried JS, Gilless JK, Spero J. Analysing initial attack on wildland fires using stochastic simulation. Int J Wildland Fire. 2006;15(1):137–46.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Manzello SL, Park SH, Suzuki S, Shields JR, Hayashi Y. Experimental investigation of structure vulnerabilities to firebrand showers. Fire Saf J. 2011;46(8):568–78.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Glenn GM, Bingol G, Chiou BS, Klamczynski AP, Pan ZL. Sodium bentonite-based coatings containing starch for protecting structures in wildfire emergency situations. Fire Saf J. 2012;51:85–92.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Syphard AD, Brennan TJ, Keeley JE. The role of defensible space for residential structure protection during wildfires. Int J Wildland Fire. 2014;23(8):1165–75.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13158.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Syphard AD, Brennan TJ, Keeley JE. The importance of building construction materials relative to other factors affecting structure survival during wildfire. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;21:140–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.11.011.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bar Massada A, Radeloff VC, Stewart SI. Allocating fuel breaks to optimally protect structures in the wildland-urban interface. Int J Wildland Fire. 2011;20(1):59–68.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Maranghides A, McNamara D, Mell W, Trook J, B T. A case study of a community affected by the Witch and Guejito fires: report# 2 – evaluating the effects of hazard mitigation actions on structure ignitions. Technical Note National Institute of Standards and Technology-US Department of Commerce and US Forest Service; 2013. Report No. 1796. https://www.nist.gov/publications/case-study-community-affected-witch-and-guejito-fires-report-2-150-evaluating-effects. Accessed 21 Jan 2019.
  99. 99.
    Roozbeh I, Ozlen M, Hearne JW. An adaptive large neighbourhood search for asset protection during escaped wildfires. Comput Oper Res. 2018;97:125–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.05.002.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    van der Merwe M, Minas JP, Ozlen M, Hearne JW. A mixed integer programming approach for asset protection during escaped wildfires. Can J For Res. 2015;45(4):444–51.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0239.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    van der Merwe M, Ozlen M, Hearne JW, Minas JP. Dynamic rerouting of vehicles during cooperative wildfire response operations. Ann Oper Res. 2017:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2473-8.
  102. 102.
    González-Cabán A. Costs of firefighting mopup activities. Research Note, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Berkeley; 1984. Contract No.: PSW-367Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    • Page WG, Alexander ME, Jenkins MJ. Wildfire’s resistance to control in mountain pine beetle-attacked lodgepole pine forests. For Chron. 2013;89(6):783–94 Great demonstration of the application resistance to control and the influence of fuel on suppression. Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Sullivan AL, Knight IK, Cheney NP. Predicting radiant heat flux from burning logs in a forest following a fire. Aust For. 2002;65(1):59–67.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Plucinski MP, McCarthy GJ, Hollis JJ, Gould JS. The effect of aerial suppression on the containment time of Australian wildfires estimated by fire management personnel. Int J Wildland Fire. 2012;21(3):219–29.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11063.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pacheco AP, Claro J, Oliveira T. Simulation analysis of the impact of ignitions, rekindles, and false alarms on forest fire suppression. Can J For Res. 2014;44(1):45–55.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0257.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Martell DL. A review of operational research studies in forest fire management. Can J For Res. 1982;12(2):119–40.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Mees RM, Strauss D. Allocating resources to large wildland fires: a model with stochastic production rates. For Sci. 1992;38(4):842–53.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Canton-Thompson J, Gebert KM, Thompson B, Jones G, Calkin D, Donovan G. External human factors in incident management team decision making and their effect on large fire suppression expenditures. J For. 2008;106(8):416–24.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Holmes TP, Calkin DE. Econometric analysis of fire suppression production functions for large wildland fires. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(2):246–55.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11098.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Katuwal H, Dunn CJ, Calkin DE. Characterising resource use and potential inefficiencies during large-fire suppression in the western US. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):604–14.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17054.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    •• Plucinski MP, Pastor E. Criteria and methodology for evaluating aerial wildfire suppression. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(8):1144–54.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13040 This study provides a practical framework for evaluating the effectiveness of aerial suppression in the field with detailed examples presented from field experiments. Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Giménez A, Pastor E, Zárate L, Planas E, Arnaldos J. Long-term forest fire retardants: a review of quality, effectiveness, application and environmental considerations. Int J Wildland Fire. 2004;13(1):1–15.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    •• Àgueda A, Pastor E, Planas E. Different scales for studying the effectiveness of long-term forest fire retardants. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2008;34(6):782–96 This review neatly summarizes and categorizes all previous retardant effectiveness research undertaken at flame and fireline scales. Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Bearman C, Bremner PA. A day in the life of a volunteer incident commander: errors, pressures and mitigating strategies. Appl Ergon. 2013;44(3):488–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.10.011.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Thompson MP. Social, institutional, and psychological factors affecting wildfire incident decision making. Soc Nat Resour. 2014;27(6):636–44.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.901460.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Owen C, Brooks B, Bearman C, Curnin S. Values and complexities in assessing strategic-level emergency management effectiveness. J Conting Crisis Manag. 2016;24(3):181–90.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12115.
  118. 118.
    Aisbett B, Wolkow A, Sprajcer M, Ferguson SA. “Awake, smoky, and hot”: providing an evidence-base for managing the risks associated with occupational stressors encountered by wildland firefighters. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(5):916–25.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Brotherhood JR, Budd GM, Hendrie AL, Jeffery SE, Beasley FA, Costin BP, et al. Project Aquarius 2. Limitations of maximum oxygen uptake for predicting the strains of building fireline with a rakehoe. Int J Wildland Fire. 1997;7(2):77–85.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF9970077.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Vincent GE, Aisbett B, Wolkow A, Jay SM, Ridgers ND, Ferguson SA. Sleep in wildland firefighters: what do we know and why does it matter? Int J Wildland Fire. 2018;27(2):73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17109.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Vincent GE, Ridgers ND, Ferguson SA, Aisbett B. Associations between firefighters’ physical activity across multiple shifts of wildfire suppression. Ergonomics. 2016;59(7):924–31.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    George CW. An update on the Operational Retardant Effectiveness (ORE) program. In: Alexander ME, Bisgrove GF, editors. The art and science of fire management. Proceedings of the First Interior West Fire Council Annual Meeting and Workshop. Edmonton, Information Report NOR-X-309: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre; 1990. p. 114–22.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Plucinski MP, Sullivan AL, Hurley RJ. A methodology for comparing the relative effectiveness of suppressant enhancers designed for the direct attack of wildfires. Fire Saf J. 2017;87:71–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2016.12.005.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Hardy CE, Rothermel RC, Davis JB. Evaluation of forest fire retardants: a test of chemicals on laboratory fires. Research Paper. Intermountain Research Station: USDA Forest Service; 1962. Report No.: 64Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Rothermel RC, Hardy CE. Influence of moisture on effectiveness of fire retardants. Intermountain Research Station: USDA Forest Service; 1965. Report No.: INT-18Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Rothermel RC, Philpot CW, editors. Reducing fire spread in wildland fuels. Experimental methods in fire research 1975. Proceedings of the meeting to honor Clay Preston Butler; 1975 May 9–10, 1974: Stanford Research Institute. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/documents/Reducting_Fire_Spread_in_Wildland_Fuels.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2019.
  127. 127.
    George CW. An operational retardant effectiveness study. Fire Manag Notes. 1985;46(2):18–23.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Blakely AD. Flammability reduction comparisons of four forest fire retardants. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; 1988. Report No.: INT-381Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    US Forest Service. Standard test procedures for the evaluation of wildland fire chemical products. San Dimas, California: USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program; 2000. Report No.: 5100-Fire Management Contract No.: 0051 1807—SDTDC.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Blakely AD. Combustion recovery: a measurement of fire retardant extinguishment capability. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: USDA Forest Service; 1985. Report No.: INT-352Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Blakely AD. Combustion recovery of flaming pine needle fuel beds sprayed with water/MAP mixtures. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: USDA Forest Service; 1990. Report No.: INT-421Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Xanthopoulos G, Noussia P. Small scale evaluation of the width of a retardant-reinforced firebreak required to stop a forest fire. Crete: Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania; 2000. Report No.: ENV4-CT98-0729.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Pastor E, Planas E, Ribeiro LM, Viegas DX, editors. Modelling the effectiveness of long-term forest fire retardants. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Forest Fire Research; 2006; 27–30 November. Figueira da Foz, Portugal: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Agueda A, Pastor E, Perez Y, Viegas DX, Planas E. Characterization of laboratory-scale fires propagating under the effect of a long-term retardant. Combust Sci Technol. 2010;182(8):1083–103.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00102201003639292.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Àgueda A, Pastor E, Pérez Y, Viegas DX, Planas E. Fire intensity reduction in straw fuel beds treated with a long-term retardant. Fire Saf J. 2011;46(1–2):41–7.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Stechishen E. Measurement of the effectiveness of water as a fire suppressant. Ottawa: Canadian Forestry Service. Report No.: FF-X-23: Forest Research Institute; 1970.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Stechishen E, Little EC. Water application depths required for extinguishment of low intensity fire in forest fuels. Ottawa: Canadian Forestry Service. Report No.: FF-X-29: Forest Fire Research Institute; 1971.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Hansen R. Estimating the amount of water required to extinguish wildfires under different conditions and in various fuel types. Int J Wildland Fire. 2012;21(5):525–36.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Taylor D, Swift S, Roach K. A preliminary trial of Phos-Check AquaGel-K for aerial and ground application by DPI Forestry in exotic pine plantation fire management. Brisbane: Queensland Government, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries; 2005.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Gibos K, Ault R. Exploring a method to evaluate the ability of water enhancing gel to stop wildfire spread Hinton. Alberta: FPInnovations Wildfire Operations Research; 2007.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Refai R, Hsieh R, McDonald A. Quantification of relationship between fuel load, coverage level and energy emitted from treated wildland vegetative fuels. Progress report. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta; 2016.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Refai R. Quantification of performance of wildfire chemicals using a custom-built sensible enthalpy rise calorimeter [Master of Science]: University of Alberta; 2017.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Rawet D, Smith R, Kravainis G. A comparison of water additives for mopping-up after forest fires. Int J Wildland Fire. 1996;6(1):37–43.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Schlobohm P, Rochna R. Foam as a fire suppressant, an evaluation. In: Davis JB, Martin RE, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on Wildland Fire 2000, April 27–30, 1987. South Lake Tahoe: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1987.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Budd G, Brotherhood J, Hendrie L, Cheney P, Dawson M. Safe and productive bushfire fighting with hand tools. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1996.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Budd GM, Brotherhood JR, Hendrie AL, Jeffery SE, Beasley FA, Costin BP, et al. Project Aquarius 1. Stress, strain, and productivity in men suppressing Australian summer bushfires with hand tools: background, objectives, and methods. Int J Wildland Fire. 1997;7(2):69–76.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Budd GM, Brotherhood JR, Hendrie AL, Jeffery SE, Beasley FA, Costin BP, et al. Project Aquarius 5. Activity distribution, energy expenditure, and productivity of men suppressing free-running wildland fires with hand tools. Int J Wildland Fire. 1997;7(2):105–18.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF9970105.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Broyles G. Fireline production rates. Fire Management Report, USDA Forest Service, National Technology & Development Program. San Dimas; 2011. Contract No.: 1151–1805Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    McCarthy GJ, Tolhurst KG, Wouters M. Prediction of firefighting resources for suppression operations in Victoria’s parks and forests. Victoria: Department of Sustainability and Environment, Forest Science Centre; 2003. Report No.: 56Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Hirsch KG, Podur JJ, Janser RF, McAlpine RS, Martell DL. Productivity of Ontario initial-attack fire crews: results of an expert-judgement elicitation study. Can J For Res. 2004;34(3):705–15.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Fried JS, Gilless JK. Expert opinion estimation of fireline production rates. For Sci. 1989;35(3):870–7.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Quintilio D, Van Nest TA, Murphy PJ, Woodard PM, editors. Determining production rates of initial attack crews. The art and science of fire management. Proceedings of the First Interior West Fire Council Annual Meeting and Workshop. Kananaskis Village: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre; 1990. Information Report NOR-X-309Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Parker R, Vitalis A, Walker R, Riley D, Pearce HG. Measuring wildland fire fighter performance with wearable technology. Appl Ergon. 2017;59:34–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.018.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Plucinski M, Gould J, McCarthy G, Hollis J. The effectiveness and efficiency of aerial firefighting in Australia, Part 1. Technical Report. Melbourne: Bushfire CRC; 2007. Report No.: Technical Report A.07.01 Contract No.: A.07.01Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Stonesifer CS, Calkin DE, Thompson MP, Stockmann KD. Fighting fire in the heat of the day: an analysis of operational and environmental conditions of use for large airtankers in United States fire suppression. Int J Wildland Fire. 2016;25(5):520–33.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF15149.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    McArthur AG. Weather and grassland fire behaviour. Leaflet. Canberra: Department of Natural Development, Forestry and Timber Bureau; 1966. Report No.: Number 100Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Stockmann K, Becker R, Holder Z. Assessing aerial firefighting use and the continuum of effectiveness with probabilities of success at nested incident management scales to improve future fire response. The fire Continuum Conference: Preparing for the Future of Wildland Fire; May 21–24, 2018. Missoula: International Association of Wildland Fire; 2018.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    George CW, Ewart GF, Friauf WC. FLIR: a promising tool for air-attack supervisors. Fire Manag Notes. 1989;50(4):26–9.Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    USDA Forest Service. Comprehensive status report on the operational retardant evaluation (ORE) study. Intermountain Research Station: USDA Forest Service; 1990.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    George CW, Fuchs FA. Improving airtanker delivery performance. Fire Manag Notes. 1991;52(2):30–7.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    George CW. Coming soon: gum thickened fire retardants. Fire Manag Today. 2002;62(2):34–5.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    GAO. Improvements needed in information, collaboration, and planning to enhance federal fire aviation program success. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office; 2013. August 2013. Report No.: GAO-13-684Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Calkin DE, Stonesifer CS, Thompson MP, McHugh CW. Large airtanker use and outcomes in suppressing wildland fires in the United States. Int J Wildland Fire. 2014;23(2):259–71.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13031.Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Cheney NP, Fenwick R, Hutchings PT, Nicholson AJ. Aerial suppression of bushfires : assessment of MAFFS/Hercules operations. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Forest Research; 1982.Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Plucinski M. Bushfire CRC Project A3.1: Evaluation of aerial suppression techniques and guidelines Final Report June 2010. East Melbourne: Bushfire CRC; 2010.Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    McArthur AG. Fire behaviour in eucalypt forests. Leaflet. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Forestry and Timber Bureau; 1967. Report No.: Number 107Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Plucinski M, Cruz M, Gould J, Pastor E, Perez Y, Planas E, et al. Project FuSE aerial suppression experiments. Technical Report. East Melbourne: Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre; 2011.Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Pérez Y, Pastor E, Planas E, Plucinski M, Gould J. Computing forest fires aerial suppression effectiveness by IR monitoring. Fire Saf J. 2011;46(1–2):2–8.Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Ribeiro LM, Viegas DX, Batalha M. Assessment of fire retardant efficiency. For Ecol Manag. 2006;234(Supplement 1):S234–S.Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    ERAS project. Extended Retardant Application System. Internal report. Gardanne, France: L’Entente interdépartementale en vue de la protection des forêts contre l’incendie; 2005. Report No.: EVG1-CT-2001-00039.Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Vega JA, Cuíñas P, Fonturbel T, Pérez JR, Vega DJ, Pérez-Gorostiaga P, et al. Comparing the effect of polyphosphate and foam addition to water on fire propagation in shrubland. Proceedings of the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference; 13–17 May. Seville, Spain: Minister of the Environment, Madrid, Spain and Junta de Andalucia; 2007. p. 11.Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Dando M, Cheney NP, Hutchings PT. An evaluation of synthetic foam as a bushfire suppressant: Canberra, National Bushfire Research Unit; 1988.Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Burrows N, Ward B, Robinson A. Aspects of fire behaviour and fire suppression in a Pinus pinaster plantation. Como: Department of Conservation and Land Management; 1988.Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Wilson AAG. Width of firebreak that is necessary to stop grass fires—some field experiments. Can J For Res. 1988;18(6):682–7.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x88-104.Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Plucinski MP. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the 10 tanker air carrier DC-10 air tanker, Victoria 2010. Technical Report. East Melbourne: Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre; 2010.Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Rakowska J, Szczygieł R, Kwiatkowski M, Porycka B, Radwan K, Prochaska K. Application tests of new wetting compositions for wildland firefighting. Fire Technol. 2017;53(3):1379–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0640-0.Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Plucinski M, McCarthy G, Gould J. Aerial suppression experiment, Cambridge Tasmania, 21–23 February 2005. Canberra: Ensis; 2006. Report No.: 153.Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Ault R, Thomasson J, Mooney C. Determining the effectiveness of water-enhancing gel as a fire-control agent using helicopter drops on wildfire: a case study near Manning. Alberta Hinton: FPInnovations Wildfire Operations Research; 2012.Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Plucinski M, Hurley R, Nicholls D, Bessell R. The efficacy of gel suppressants in grassfires: prototype tanker field trials. Canberra: CSIRO; 2017. Contract No.: EP174696Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Hansen R. Statistical expressions on water based wildfire suppression in Sweden, 1996–2011. Int J Saf Secur Eng. 2015;5(2):124–41.Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    George CW, Blakely AD. An evaluation of the drop characteristics and ground distribution patterns of forest fire retardants. Research Paper. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: USDA Forest Service; 1973. Report No.: INT-134Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Suter A. Drop testing airtankers: a discussion of the cup-and-grid method. Technology & Development Program. Missoula: USDA Forest Service; 2000. Report No.: 0057-2868-MTDCGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Lovellette G. How to conduct static tests of aerial retardant delivery systems. Missoula Technology and Development Center: USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program; 2005. Report No.: 0557 2812-MTDC.Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Amorim JH. Numerical modelling of the aerial drop of firefighting agents by fixed-wing aircraft. Part II: model validation. Int J Wildland Fire. 2011b;20(3):394–406.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF09123.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Grant G, Brenton J, Drysdale D. Fire suppression by water sprays. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2000;26(2):79–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1285(99)00012-X.Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Yao B, Chow WK. A review of water mist fire suppression systems. J Appl Fire Sci. 2000;10(3):277–94.Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Gollner MJ. Detection and suppression of fires: a cornerstone of fire protection engineering. Fire Technol. 2016;52(5):1193–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0606-2.Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Sullivan AL, Surawski NC, Crawford D, Hurley RJ, Volkova L, Weston CJ, et al. Effect of woody debris on the rate of spread of surface fires in forest fuels in a combustion wind tunnel. For Ecol Manag. 2018;424:236–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.04.039.Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Holmes A. A reflection on the Bushfire Royal Commission—blame, accountability and responsibility. Aust J Public Adm. 2010;69(4):387–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bushfire Behaviour and Risks, CSIRO Land and Water, Black Mountain LaboratoriesCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations