Advertisement

Contain and Control: Wildfire Suppression Effectiveness at Incidents and Across Landscapes

  • 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

Containing and controlling wildfire incidents is one of the main functions of fire management. Understanding how this can be done effectively and efficiently informs many of the preparatory activities undertaken by fire management agencies to limit the impact of wildfires. This second article within a two-part series summarizing the current understanding of wildfire suppression effectiveness details research undertaken at incident and landscape scales and discusses their motivations and implications. The series is concluded with a discussion of the major suppression effectiveness knowledge gaps at all scales with suggestions for addressing them.

Recent Findings

Research across incidents has been undertaken as case studies of specific events and economic analyses of productivity during the containment of large fires. Some recent case studies have demonstrated the benefits of fuel management for suppression effectiveness, while economic analyses have identified the contributions of different resource types to containment and found that productivity models developed using non-wildfire data grossly overpredict operational productivity. Research at the landscape scale has identified the variables important for fire outcomes, such as initial attack success and the effectiveness of fuel management programs, and has also identified the benefits of suppression policy changes using long-term datasets.

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. Suppression effectiveness evaluation is challenging at most scales as it is can be undertaken for a range of objectives, is affected by many dynamic broad ranging variables, and because data is difficult to acquire. As a result, there are still many gaps in our understanding and new methods are required to capture the data required to fill these.

Keywords

Firefighting Fire containment Fire management Incident response 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful for the knowledge he has 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, Keith Stockmann, Matthew Thompson (US Forest Service), Jim Gould (CSIRO), and Steven Hvenegaard (FPInnovations Wildfire Operations) and Marty Alexander (Fire Science and Management Section Editor) provided helpful suggestions on draft versions of the manuscript.

Funding Information

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.
    Plucinski MP. Fighting flames and forging firelines: wildfire suppression effectiveness at the fire edge. Curr Forestry Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00084-5.
  2. 2.
    •• 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 The first major study applying economic modelling to determined and compare operational productivity rates with published standard rates. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • 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.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16137 An excellent summary of the issues affecting large fire management particularly regarding decision making and uncertainties.
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexander ME, Thomas DA. Wildland fire behavior case studies and analyses: value, approaches and practical uses. Fire Manag Today. 2003;63(3):4–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexander ME, Thomas DA. Wildland fire behavior case studies and analyses: other examples, methods, reporting standards, and some practical advice. Fire Manag Today. 2003;63(4):4–12.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eburn M, Dovers S. Learning lessons from disasters: alternatives to royal commissions and other quasi-judicial inquiries. Aust J Public Adm. 2015;74(4):495–508.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Douglas DR. Minimum needs for effective suppression of grass fires. Aust Forest Res. 1966;2(3):54–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buckley AJ. Fire behaviour and fire suppression in an elevated fuel type in East Gippsland: patrol track wildfire. Research report. East Melbourne VIC: Victoria, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Fire Management Branch1994. Report No.: 42.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rasmussen JH, Fogarty LG. A case study of grassland fire behaviour and suppression: The Tikokino Fire of 31 January 1991. Forest Research Bulletin No. 197, Forest and Rural Fire Scientific and Technical Series, Report. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Forest Research Institute in association with the National Rural Fire Authority1997. Report No.: 2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graham RT. Hayman Fire case study: summary. General Technical Report - Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 2003(RMRS-GTR-115):32 pp.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cruz MG, Plucinski MP. Billo road fire: report on fire behaviour phenomena and suppression activities. Technical Report. Melbourne: Bushfire CRC 2007. Report No.: Technical Report A0702 Contract No.: A0702.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moghaddas JJ, Craggs L. A fuel treatment reduces fire severity and increases suppression efficiency in a mixed conifer forest. Int J Wildland Fire. 2007;16(6):673–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graham RTJ, Theresa B.; Loseke, Mark. Fuel treatments, fire suppression, and their interaction with wildfire and its impacts: the Warm Lake experience during the Cascade Complex of wildfires in central Idaho, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station2009 Contract No.: RMRS-GTR-229.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson MP, Freeborn P, Rieck JD, Calkin DE, Gilbertson-Day JW, Cochrane MA, et al. Quantifying the influence of previously burned areas on suppression effectiveness and avoided exposure: a case study of the Las Conchas Fire. Int J Wildland Fire. 2016;25(2):167–81.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF14216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Countryman CM. Use of air tankerspays off ... A case study. PSW-188. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Berkeley, California: USDA Forest Service; 1969.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luke RH, McArthur AG. Bushfires in Australia. Canberra: Australian government publishing service; 1978.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Finney M, Grenfell IC, McHugh CW. Modeling containment of large wildfires using generalized linear mixed-model analysis. For Sci. 2009;55(3):249–55 First major study identifying factors influencing the containment of large wildfires. Established the importance of periods of low fire growth for containment. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    • 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 Presents an analysis of large fire suppression that demonstrates the need to take advantage of breaks in weather and areas with reduced fuel hazard. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tedim F, Remelgado R, Borges C, Carvalho S, Martins J. Exploring the occurrence of mega-fires in Portugal. For Ecol Manag. 2013;294:86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hesseln H, Amacher GS, Deskins A. Economic analysis of geospatial technologies for wildfire suppression. Int J Wildland Fire. 2010;19(4):468–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodríguez y Silva F, González-Cabán A. Contribution of suppression difficulty and lessons learned in forecasting fire suppression operations productivity: a methodological approach. J For Econ. 2016;25:149–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2016.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    • 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 Present a metric that links fire perimeter with resource fireline building capacity that can indicate the level of firefighter exposure over the course of a fire. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Broyles G. Fireline production rates. Fire Management Report. San Dimas, CA.: USDA Forest Service, National Technology & Development Program 2011 Contract No.: 1151–1805.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    •• Thompson M, Lauer C, Calkin D, Rieck J, Stonesifer C, Hand M. Wildfire response performance measurement: current and future directions. Fire. 2018;1(2):21 Thompson et al 2018 [28] presents a range of useful suppression performance metrics and discusses the need for them. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O'Connor C, Thompson M, Rodríguez y Silva F. Getting ahead of the wildfire problem: quantifying and mapping management challenges and opportunities. Geosciences. 2016;6(3):35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rodríguez y Silva F, Molina Martínez JR, González-Cabán A. A methodology for determining operational priorities for prevention and suppression of wildland fires. Int J Wildland Fire. 2014;23(4):544–54.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mendes I. A theoretical economic model for choosing efficient wildfire suppression strategies. Forest Policy Econ. 2010;12(5):323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loane IT, Gould JS. Aerial suppression of bushfires: cost-benefit study for Victoria. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Forest Research; 1986.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hand M, Katuwal H, Calkin DE, Thompson MP. The influence of incident management teams on the deployment of wildfire suppression resources. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):615–29.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Riley K, Thompson M, Scott J, Gilbertson-Day J. A model-based framework to evaluate alternative wildfire suppression strategies. Resources. 2018;7(1):4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Plucinski MP. Factors affecting containment area and time of Australian forest fires featuring aerial suppression. For Sci. 2012;58(4):390–8.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 Forest Res. 2006;36(12):3155–66 A great study examining the factors influencing initial attack success in boreal forests. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    • 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 Investigated the role of aircraft for reducing the containment time during initial attack. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Collins KM, Price OF, Penman TD. Suppression resource decisions are the dominant influence on containment of Australian forest and grass fires. J Environ Manag. 2018;228:373–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.031.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tremblay P-O, Duchesne T, Cumming SG. Survival analysis and classification methods for forest fire size. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0189860.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mccarthy GJ, Tolhurst KG. Effectiveness of firefighting first attack operations by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment from 1991/92–1994/951998. Report No.: 45.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    McCarthy GJ, Tolhurst KG, Chatto K. Overall fuel hazard guide, Third Edition. Melbourne, Victoria: Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Fire Management Branch1999. Report No.: Research Report Number 47.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McCarthy GJ, Tolhurst KG. Effectiveness of broadscale fuel reduction burning in assisting with wildfire control in parks and forests in Victoria. Research Report: NRE, Victoria2001. Report No.: No 51.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    McCarthy GJ. Effectiveness of aircraft operations by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Country Fire Authority 1997–1998: Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria 2003. Report No.: Research Report No. 52.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Van Wagner CE. Development and structure of the Canadian forest fire weather index system. Forestry Technical Report. Ottawa: Canadian Forestry Service1987. Report No.: 35.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    McCarthy GJ, Plucinski MP, Gould JS. Analysis of the resourcing and containment of multiple remote fires: the great divide complex of fires, Victoria, December 2006. Aust For. 2012;75(1):54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gould JS, McCaw WL, Cheney NP, Ellis PF, Matthews S. Field guide—fuel assessment and fire behaviour prediction in dry eucalypt forest. Perth WA: Ensis-CSIRO, Canberra ACT, and Department of Environment and Conservation; 2007.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McArthur AG. Fire behaviour in eucalypt forests. Leaflet. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia Forestry and Timber Bureau 1967. Report No.: Number 107.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    McArthur AG. Weather and grassland fire behaviour. Leaflet. Canberra, ACT: Department of Natural Development, Forestry and Timber Bureau 1966. Report No.: Number 100.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Beverly JL. Time since prior wildfire affects subsequent fire containment in black spruce. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(11):919–29.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Butry DT. Fighting fire with fire: estimating the efficacy of wildfire mitigation programs using propensity scores. Environ Ecol Stat. 2009;16(2):291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Taylor SW, Alexander ME. Science, technology, and human factors in fire danger rating: the Canadian experience. Int J Wildland Fire. 2006;15(1):121–35.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF05021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gould JS, McCaw WL, Cheney NP. Quantifying fine fuel dynamics and structure in dry eucalypt forest (Eucalyptus marginata) in Western Australia for fire management. For Ecol Manag. 2011;262(3):531–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fried JS, Gilless JK, Spero J. Analysing initial attack on wildland fires using stochastic simulation. Int J Wildland Fire. 2006;15(1):137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Parks GM. Development and application of a model for suppression of forest fires. Manag Sci. 1964;10(1):760–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Haight RG, Fried JS. Deploying wildland fire suppression resources with a scenario-based standard response model. Inform. 2007;45(1):31–9.  https://doi.org/10.3138/infor.45.1.31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hirsch KG, Martell DL. A review of initial attack fire crew productivity and effectiveness. Int J Wildland Fire. 1996;6(4):199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cumming SG. Effective fire suppression in boreal forests. Can J For Res. 2005;35(4):772–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Calef MP, Varvak A, McGuire AD, III FSC, Reinhold KB. Recent changes in annual area burned in interior Alaska: the impact of fire management. Earth Interact. 2015;19(5):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1175/ei-d-14-0025.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ruffault J, Mouillot F. How a new fire-suppression policy can abruptly reshape the fire-weather relationship. Ecosphere. 2015;6(10):199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Curt T, Frejaville T. Wildfire policy in Mediterranean France: how far is it efficient and sustainable? Risk Anal. 2018;38(3):472–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Evin G, Curt T, Eckert N. Has fire policy decreased the return period of the largest wildfire events in France? A Bayesian assessment based on extreme value theory. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2018;18(10):2641–51.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2641-2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    DeWilde L, Chapin FS III. Human impacts on the fire regime of interior Alaska: interactions among fuels, ignition sources, and fire suppression. Ecosystems. 2006;9(8):1342–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Martell DL, Sun H. The impact of fire suppression, vegetation, and weather on the area burned by lightning-caused forest fires in Ontario. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For. 2008;38(6):1547–63.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x07-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Thompson MP, MacGregor DG, Dunn CJ, Calkin DE, Phipps J. Rethinking the wildland fire management system. J For. 2018:fvy020-fvy;116:382–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvy020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gill AM, Moore PHR. Big versus small fires: the bushfires of greater Sydney, January 1994. In: Moreno JM, editor. Large forest fires. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers; 1998. p. 49–68.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Page WG, Butler BW. An empirically based approach to defining wildland firefighter safety and survival zone separation distances. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(8):655–67.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Leuschen T, Frederick K. The consumption strategy: increasing safety during mopup. Fire Manag Notes. 1999;59(4):30–4.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    McLennan J, Holgate AM, Omodei MM, Wearing AJ. Decision making effectiveness in wildfire incident management teams. J Conting Crisis Manag. 2006;14(1):27–37.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2006.00478.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Canton-Thompson J, Thompson B, Gebert K, Calkin D, Donovan G, Jones G. Factors affecting fire suppression costs as identified by incident management teams. Rocky Mountain Research Station: USDA Forest Service2006. Report No.: RMRS-RN-30.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zimmerman T. Wildland fire management decision making. J Agric Sci Technol B2. 2012;2012(2):169–78.  https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-6264/2012.02B.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    van der Merwe M, Ozlen M, Hearne JW, Minas JP. Dynamic rerouting of vehicles during cooperative wildfire response operations. Ann Oper Res. 2017;254:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2473-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Syphard AD, Keeley JE, Brennan TJ. Factors affecting fuel break effectiveness in the control of large fires on the Los Padres National Forest, California. Int J Wildland Fire. 2011;20(6):764–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Barnett K, Parks S, Miller C, Naughton H. Beyond fuel treatment effectiveness: characterizing interactions between fire and treatments in the US. Forests. 2016;7(10):237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Price OF, Pausas JG, Govender N, Flannigan M, Fernandes PM, Brooks ML, et al. Global patterns in fire leverage: the response of annual area burnt to previous fire. Int J Wildland Fire. 2015;24(3):297–306.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF14034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Cruz MG, Alexander ME, Plucinski MP. The effect of silvicultural treatments on fire behaviour potential in radiata pine plantations of South Australia. For Ecol Manag. 2017;397:27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.04.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wotton BM, Flannigan MD, Marshall GA. Potential climate change impacts on fire intensity and key wildfire suppression thresholds in Canada. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12(9):095003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Mitsopoulos I, Mallinis G, Zibtsev S, Yavuz M, Saglam B, Kucuk O, et al. An integrated approach for mapping fire suppression difficulty in three different ecosystems of Eastern Europe. J Spat Sci. 2017;62(1):139–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2016.1169952. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cheney NP. Quantifying bushfires. Math Comput Model. 1990;13(12):9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Alexander ME, Cruz MG. Interdependencies between flame length and fireline intensity in predicting crown fire initiation and crown scorch height. Int J Wildland Fire. 2012;21(2):95–113.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Catchpole EA, de Mestre NJ, Gill AM. Intensity of fire at its perimeter. Aust For Res. 1982;12(1):47–54.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    McArthur AG. Control burning in eucalypt forests. Leaflet. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia Forestry and Timber Bureau 1962. Report No.: Number 80.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hodgson A. Control burning in eucalypt forests in Victoria, Australia. J For. 1968;66:601–5.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Gude PH, Jones K, Rasker R, Greenwood MC. Evidence for the effect of homes on wildfire suppression costs. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(4):537–48.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Donovan GH, Prestemon JP, Gebert K. The effect of newspaper coverage and political pressure on wildfire suppression costs. Soc Nat Resour. 2011;24(8):785–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Calkin DE, Venn T, Wibbenmeyer M, Thompson MP. Estimating US federal wildland fire managers’ preferences toward competing strategic suppression objectives. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(2):212–22.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Martell D. The development and implementation of forest fire management decision support systems in Ontario, Canada: personal reflections on past practices and emerging challenges. Math Comput For Nat Res Sci. 2011;3(1):18–26.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    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
  102. 102.
    Cheney NP, Fenwick R, Hutchings PT, Nicholson AJ. Aerial suppression of bushfires : assessment of MAFFS/Hercules operations. Canberra, ACT: CSIRO Division of Forest Research; 1982.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    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, Montana: International Association of Wildland Fire; 2018.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Plucinski MP. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the 10 tanker air carrier DC-10 air tanker, Victoria 2010. Technical report. East Melbourne, Victoria: Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre 2010.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Christensen BR. Use of UAV or remotely piloted aircraft and forward-looking infrared in forest, rural and wildland fire management: evaluation using simple economic analysis. NZ j For Sci. 2015;45(1):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40490-015-0044-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zajkowski TJ, Dickinson MB, Hiers JK, Holley W, Williams BW, Paxton A, et al. Evaluation and use of remotely piloted aircraft systems for operations and research—RxCADRE 2012. Int J Wildland Fire. 2016;25(1):114–28.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF14176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Twidwell D, Allen CR, Detweiler C, Higgins J, Laney C, Elbaum S. Smokey comes of age: unmanned aerial systems for fire management. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14(6):333–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Calkin DE, Thompson MP, Finney MA. Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management. For Ecosyst. 2015;2(9):1–10.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Ingalsbee T. Whither the paradigm shift? Large wildland fires and the wildfire paradox offer opportunities for a new paradigm of ecological fire management. Int J Wildland Fire. 2017;26(7):557–61.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Collins RD, de Neufville R, Claro J, Oliveira T, Pacheco AP. Forest fire management to avoid unintended consequences: a case study of Portugal using system dynamics. J Environ Manag. 2013;130(Supplement C):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Schoennagel T, Balch JK, Brenkert-Smith H, Dennison PE, Harvey BJ, Krawchuk MA, et al. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114(18):4582–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Houtman RM, Montgomery CA, Gagnon AR, Calkin DE, Dietterich TG, McGregor S, et al. Allowing a wildfire to burn: estimating the effect on future fire suppression costs. Int J Wildland Fire. 2013;22(7):871–82.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF12157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Martell DL. A review of recent forest and wildland fire management decision support systems research. Curr Forestry Rep. 2015;1(2):128–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-015-0011-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Thompson MP. Modeling wildfire incident complexity dynamics. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63297.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Riley K, Thompson M. An uncertainty analysis of wildfire modeling. In: Riley K, Webley P, Thompson M, editors. Natural hazard uncertainty assessment: modeling and decision support. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2017. p. 193–213.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Thompson MP, Calkin DE. Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review. J Environ Manag. 2011;92(8):1895–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Petrovic N, Carlson JM. A decision-making framework for wildfire suppression. Int J Wildland Fire. 2012;21:927.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Couto-Vázquez A, García-Marco S, González-Prieto SJ. Long-term effects of fire and three firefighting chemicals on a soil–plant system. Int J Wildland Fire. 2011;20(7):856–65.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Hartskeerl K, Simmons D, Adams R. Does firefighting foam affect the growth of some Australian native plants? Int J Wildland Fire. 2004;13(3):335–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Sullivan AL. Inside the inferno: fundamental processes of wildland fire behaviour. Part 1: combustion chemistry and heat release. Curr Forestry Rep. 2017;3(2):132–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0057-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Rein G. Smouldering fires and natural fuels. Fire phenomena and the earth system. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Pastor E, Perez Y, Agueda A, Miralles M, Planas E. Pile burning of cutting debris in stands of hazel (Corylus avellana): an experimental study of smouldering combustion towards the validation of a burning protocol. Fire Saf J. 2010;45(1):69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Rakowska J, Prochaska K, Twardochleb B, Rojewska M, Porycka B, Jaszkiewicz A. Selection of surfactants as main components of ecological wetting agent for effective extinguishing of forest and peat-bog fires. Chem Pap. 2014;68(6):823–33.  https://doi.org/10.2478/s11696-013-0511-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Ramadhan ML, Palamba P, Imran FA, Kosasih EA, Nugroho YS. Experimental study of the effect of water spray on the spread of smoldering in Indonesian peat fires. Fire Saf J. 2017;91(Supplement C):671–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    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-102.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Cheney P, Sullivan A. Grassfires, fuel, weather and fire behaviour. 2nd Edition ed. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing; 2008.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Sullivan AL. Inside the inferno: fundamental processes of wildland fire behaviour. Part 2: heat transfer and interactions. Curr Forestry Rep. 2017;3(2):150–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0058-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Cheney NP, Gould JS. Fire growth in grassland fuels. Int J Wildland Fire. 1995;5(4):237–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    McAlpine RS, Wakimoto RW. The accelaration of fire from a point source to equilibrium spread. For Sci. 1991;67(5):1314–37.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    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 Service2013. Report No.: 1796.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Plucinski MP, McCaw WL, Gould JS, Wotton BM. Predicting the number of daily human-caused bushfires to assist suppression planning in south-west Western Australia. Int J Wildland Fire. 2014;23(4):520–31.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    McAlpine RS, Hirsch KG. An overview of leopards: the level of protection analysis system. For Chron. 1999;75(4):615–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    McLennan J, Birch A. A potential crisis in wildfire emergency response capability? Australia’s volunteer firefighters. Environ Hazard. 2005;6(1):101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    McLennan J, Birch A, Cowlishaw S, Hayes P. Maintaining volunteer firefighter numbers: adding value to the retention coin. Aust J Emerg Manag. 2009;24(2):40–7.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Lin Z, Liu HHT. Topology-based distributed optimization for multi-UAV cooperative wildfire monitoring. Optimal Control Appl Methods. 2018;39(4):1530–48.  https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.2424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bushfire Behaviour and RisksCSIRO Land and Water, Black Mountain LaboratoriesCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations