Parcel-Level Risk Affects Wildfire Outcomes: Insights from Pre-Fire Rapid Assessment Data for Homes Destroyed in 2020 East Troublesome Fire
<p>Conceptual model of parcel-level risk (PLR) that shows wildfire risk to homes and residents parsed into hazard and vulnerability (gold); actions that can reduce risk by addressing its components (light blue); and categories useful for a parcel-level wildfire risk assessment such as the WiRē RA (green). PLR is embedded within broader-scale contexts (light green with dashed lines) that influence risk to homes and residents but are typically not measured at scales sufficiently refined for capturing relevant parcel-level variation.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Map of East Troublesome Fire perimeter [<a href="#B48-fire-05-00024" class="html-bibr">48</a>] and structures in the community of Columbine Lake, Grand Lake, CO that were assessed by Grand County Wildfire Council in 2019 and either destroyed (red) or not (blue) in the East Troublesome Fire. Inset shows the location within Colorado. Basemap image is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright © 2022 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Comparison of the distribution of overall risk score for structures with complete assessments that were destroyed (orange) versus not destroyed (blue) in the East Troublesome Fire, for the entire community of Columbine Lake, Grand Lake, CO (<b>a</b>) and within the fire perimeter (<b>b</b>).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Parcel-Level Wildfire Risk Assessment
2.1. Parcel-Level Hazard
2.2. Defensible Space
2.3. Access
2.4. Structure
2.5. Overall Risk
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Context
3.2. Data
3.3. Empirical Analysis
4. Results: Risk Assessment Data Help Explain Destroyed Structures
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gill, A.M.; Stephens, S.L. Scientific and social challenges for the management of fire-prone wildland–urban interfaces. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 034014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoennagel, T.; Balch, J.K.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Dennison, P.E.; Harvey, B.J.; Krawchuk, M.A.; Mietkiewicz, N.; Morgan, P.; Moritz, M.A.; Rasker, R.; et al. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 4582–4590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Moritz, M.A.; Batllori, E.; Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M.; Handmer, J.; Hessburg, P.F.; Leonard, J.; McCaffrey, S.; Odion, D.C.; Schoennagel, T.; et al. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 2014, 515, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radeloff, V.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Kramer, H.A.; Mockrin, M.H.; Alexandre, P.M.; Bar-Massada, A.; Butsic, V.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Martinuzzi, S.; Syphard, A.D.; et al. Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 3314–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Caggiano, M.D.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Gannon, B.M.; Hoffman, C.M. Building Loss in WUI Disasters: Evaluating the Core Components of the Wildland–Urban Interface Definition. Fire 2020, 3, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syphard, A.D.; Bar Massada, A.; Butsic, V.; Keeley, J.E. Land use planning and wildfire: Development policies influence future probability of housing loss. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e71708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 2006, 313, 940–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abatzoglou, J.T.; Williams, A.P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11770–11775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Finney, M.A. The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 211, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, M.P.; Calkin, D.E. Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1895–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, J.H.; Thompson, M.P.; Calkin, D.E. A Wildfire Risk Assessment Framework for Land and Resource Management; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2013; p. 83.
- Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030; United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Sendai, Japan, 2015; p. 32.
- Ludwig, K.A.; Ramsey, D.W.; Wood, N.J.; Pennaz, A.B.; Godt, J.W.; Plant, N.G.; Luco, N.; Koenig, T.A.; Hudnut, K.W.; Davis, D.K.; et al. Science for a Risky World—A U.S. Geological Survey Plan for Risk Research and Applications; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; p. 57.
- Caton, S.E.; Hakes, R.S.P.; Gorham, D.J.; Zhou, A.; Gollner, M.J. Review of Pathways for Building Fire Spread in the Wildland Urban Interface Part I: Exposure Conditions. Fire Technol. 2016, 53, 429–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syphard, A.D.; Rustigian-Romsos, H.; Keeley, J.E. Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the Wildland–Urban Interface, and Structure Loss to Wildfire in California. Fire 2021, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAC-LN. Promoting Fire Adapted Communities through Property Assessments: Data & Tools. Fire Adapted Community Learning Network: A Quick Guide for Community Leaders, Number 2.1. 2015, p. 2. Available online: https://fireadaptednetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FACQuickGuide2.1.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2022).
- Hakes, R.S.P.; Caton, S.E.; Gorham, D.J.; Gollner, M.J. A Review of Pathways for Building Fire Spread in the Wildland Urban Interface Part II: Response of Components and Systems and Mitigation Strategies in the United States. Fire Technol. 2016, 53, 475–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quarles, S.L.; Valachovic, Y.; Nakamura, G.M.; Nader, G.A.; De Lasaux, M.J. Home Survival in Wildfire-Prone Areas: Building Materials and Design Considerations; Publication 8393; University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources: St. Davis, CA, USA, 2010; 22p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Champ, P.; Barth, C.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Falk, L.; Gomez, J.; Meldrum, J. Putting people first: Using social science to reduce risk. Wildfire Magazine. International Association of Wildland Fire, Missoula, MT, USA. 2021, pp. 30–34. Available online: https://www.iawfonline.org/article/putting-people-first-using-social-science-to-reduce-risk/ (accessed on 11 February 2022).
- Maranghides, A.; McNamara, D.; Mell, W.; Trook, J.; Toman, B. 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; National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce and US Forest Service: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2013.
- Duff, T.J.; Penman, T.D. Determining the likelihood of asset destruction during wildfires: Modelling house destruction with fire simulator outputs and local-scale landscape properties. Saf. Sci. 2021, 139, 105196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syphard, A.D.; Brennan, T.J.; Keeley, J.E. The role of defensible space for residential structure protection during wildfires. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 1165–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupuy, J. Slope and Fuel Load Effects on Fire Behavior: Laboratory Experiments in Pine Needles Fuel Beds. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1995, 5, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, A.; Ribeiro, C.; Raposo, J.; Viegas, D.X.; André, J. Effect of Canyons on a Fire Propagating Laterally Over Slopes. Front. Mech. Eng. 2019, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Viegas, D.X.; Simeoni, A. Eruptive Behaviour of Forest Fires. Fire Technol. 2011, 47, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alexandre, P.M.; Stewart, S.I.; Keuler, N.S.; Clayton, M.K.; Mockrin, M.H.; Bar-Massada, A.; Syphard, A.D.; Radeloff, V.C. Factors related to building loss due to wildfires in the conterminous United States. Ecol. Appl. 2016, 26, 2323–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syphard, A.D.; Brennan, T.J.; Keeley, J.E. The importance of building construction materials relative to other factors affecting structure survival during wildfire. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 21, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, R.T. Hayman Fire Case Study; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2003.
- Penman, S.H.; Price, O.F.; Penman, T.D.; Bradstock, R.A. The role of defensible space on the likelihood of house impact from wildfires in forested landscapes of south eastern Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2019, 28, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knapp, E.E.; Valachovic, Y.S.; Quarles, S.L.; Johnson, N.G. Housing arrangement and vegetation factors associated with single-family home survival in the 2018 Camp Fire, California. Fire Ecol. 2021, 17, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J.D.; Stratton, R.D. Home Destruction Examination: Grass Valley Fire, Lake Arrowhead, California; Technol Paper R5-TP-026b; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5): Vallejo, CA, USA, 2008; 26p.
- Kolden, C.A.; Henson, C. A socio-ecological approach to mitigating wildfire vulnerability in the wildland urban interface: A case study from the 2017 Thomas fire. Fire 2019, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, J.D. Preventing disaster: Home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. J. For. 2000, 98, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, M.E.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M.; Flannigan, M.D.; Todd, J.B. The international crown fire modelling experiment: An overview and progress report. In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Fire and Forest Meteorology, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 11–16 January 1998; pp. 20–23. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbons, P.; Van Bommel, L.; Gill, A.M.; Cary, G.J.; Driscoll, D.A.; Bradstock, R.A.; Knight, E.; Moritz, M.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Price, O.F.; Whittaker, J.; Gibbons, P.; Bradstock, R. Comprehensive Examination of the Determinants of Damage to Houses in Two Wildfires in Eastern Australia in 2013. Fire 2021, 4, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cova, T.J.; Theobald, D.M.; Norman, J.B.; Siebeneck, L.K. Mapping wildfire evacuation vulnerability in the western US: The limits of infrastructure. GeoJournal 2013, 78, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cova, T.J. Public safety in the urban–wildland interface: Should fire-prone communities have a maximum occupancy? Nat. Hazards Rev. 2005, 6, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGee, T.K.; McFarlane, B.L.; Varghese, J. An examination of the influence of hazard experience on wildfire risk perceptions and adoption of mitigation measures. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2009, 22, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, K.C.; Monroe, M.C.; Johnson, J.F. The Look of the Land: Homeowner Landscape Management and Wildfire Preparedness in Minnesota and Florida. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Cova, T.J.; Dennison, P.E.; Wan, N.; Nguyen, Q.C.; Siebeneck, L.K. Why do we need a national address point database to improve wildfire public safety in the U.S.? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 39, 101237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westhaver, A. Why Some Homes Survived: Learning from the Fort Mcmurray Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Disaster; Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Quarles, S.L.; Standoher-Alfano, C.D. Wildfire Research: Ignition Potential of Decks Subjected to an Ember Exposure; Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety: Richburg, SC, USA, 2018; p. 39. [Google Scholar]
- Quarles, S.; Pohl, K. Costs of WUI Codes and Standards for New Construction. In Encyclopedia of Wildfires and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fires; Manzello, S.L., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calkin, D.E.; Cohen, J.D.; Finney, M.A.; Thompson, M.P. How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 746–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- InciWeb. East Troublesome Fire Information. Available online: https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incient/7242 (accessed on 12 October 2020).
- NIFC. Interagency Fire Perimeter History—All Years. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). 2021. Available online: https://data-nifc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/nifc::interagency-fire-perimeter-history-all-years/about (accessed on 11 February 2022).
- Warziniack, T.; Champ, P.; Meldrum, J.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Barth, C.M.; Falk, L.C. Responding to Risky Neighbors: Testing for Spatial Spillover Effects for Defensible Space in a Fire-Prone WUI Community. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018, 73, 1023–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anselin, L. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 1988; p. 284. [Google Scholar]
- Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- LeSage, J.; Pace, R.K. Introduction to Spatial Econometrics; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- CSFS. The Home Ignition Zone: A Guide to Preparing Your Home for Wildfire and Creating Defensible Space; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2021; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
- Butry, D.; Donovan, G.H. Protect thy neighbor: Investigating the spatial externalities of community wildfire hazard mitigation. For. Sci. 2008, 54, 417–428. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, J.H.; Burgan, R.E. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2005; p. 72.
- LANDFIRE. LANDFIRE 1.4.0 Scott and Burgan Fire Behavior Fuel Models (FBMF40) and Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layers. 2017. Available online: https://landfire.gov/ (accessed on 11 February 2022).
- Sisante, A.M.; Taylor, M.H.; Rollins, K.S. Understanding homeowners’ decisions to mitigate wildfire risk and create defensible space. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2019, 28, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meldrum, J.R.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Champ, P.; Gomez, J.; Falk, L.; Barth, C. Interactions between resident risk perceptions and wildfire risk mitigation: Evidence from simultaneous equations modeling. Fire 2019, 2, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paveglio, T.B.; Stasiewicz, A.M.; Edgeley, C.M. Understanding support for regulatory approaches to wildfire management and performance of property mitigations on private lands. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasemi, B.; Kyle, G.T.; Absher, J.D. An examination of the social-psychological drivers of homeowner wildfire mitigation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 70, 101442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute Name and Description | Attribute Levels | Points | Not Destroyed (n = 329) | Destroyed (n = 23) | Moran Test p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1: Distance to hazardous topography Distance from residence to ridge, steep drainage, or narrow canyon | More than 150 feet | 0 | 87.8% | 91.3% | <0.001 |
Between 50 and 150 feet | 25 | 8.2% | 8.7% | ||
Less than 50 feet | 50 | 4.0% | 0.0% | ||
2: Slope Overall slope of the property near the residence | Gentle—Less than 20% | 0 | 81.8% | 100.0% | <0.001 |
Moderate—Between 20% and 45% | 10 | 17.3% | 0.0% | ||
Steep—Greater than 45% | 20 | 0.9% | 0.0% | ||
3: Adjacent fuels Dominant vegetation on the property and those properties immediately surrounding it | Light—Grasses | 10 | 0.6% | 0.0% | <0.001 |
Medium—Light brush and/or isolated trees | 20 | 75.7% | 87.0% | ||
Dense—Dense brush and/or dense trees | 40 | 23.7% | 13.0% | ||
4: Distance to nearest home Closest distance to a neighboring residence | More than 100 feet | 0 | 1.8% | 0.0% | <0.001 |
Between 30 and 100 feet | 50 | 59.3% | 47.8% | ||
Between 10 and 30 feet | 100 | 35.6% | 39.1% | ||
Less than 10 feet | 200 | 3.3% | 13.0% | ||
5: Defensible space (vegetation) Distance to overgrown, dense, or unmaintained vegetation | More than 150 feet | 0 | 10.3% | 8.7% | <0.001 |
Between 31 and 150 feet | 50 | 43.5% | 52.2% | ||
Between 10 and 30 feet | 75 | 33.4% | 13.0% | ||
Less than 10 feet | 100 | 12.8% | 26.1% | ||
6: Defensible space (other combustibles) Distance to other combustible items (e.g., lumber, firewood, propane tank, hay bales) | More than 30 feet | 0 | 30.4% | 13.0% | 0.694 |
Between 10 and 30 feet | 40 | 45.3% | 43.5% | ||
Less than 10 feet | 80 | 24.3% | 43.5% | ||
7: Ingress/egress Roads available in case one is blocked | Two or more roads in/out | 0 | 62.9% | 60.9% | <0.001 |
One road in/out | 10 | 37.1% | 39.1% | ||
8: Driveway clearance Width of the driveway at the narrowest point | More than 26 feet wide | 0 | 9.4% | 4.4% | 0.881 |
Between 20 and 26 feet wide | 5 | 31.6% | 34.8% | ||
Less than 20 feet wide | 10 | 59.0% | 60.9% | ||
9: Address visibility Visibility of house number at the end of the driveway | House number is visible and reflective | 0 | 8.5% | 4.4% | <0.001 |
House number is visible but not reflective | 5 | 36.8% | 34.8% | ||
House number is not visible | 10 | 54.7% | 60.9% | ||
10: Roof material Most vulnerable roofing material | Tile, metal, or asphalt shingles | 0 | 99.7% | 95.7% | 0.436 |
Wood (shake shingles) | 300 | 0.3% | 4.4% | ||
11: Siding material Most vulnerable siding material | Noncombustible (e.g., stucco, brick, stone) | 0 | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.223 |
Log or heavy timbers | 35 | 13.4% | 21.7% | ||
Wood or vinyl siding | 70 | 83.9% | 78.3% | ||
12: Attachments Combustible items attached to structure | No balcony, deck, porch, or fence | 0 | 5.8% | 8.7% | 0.444 |
Combustible balcony, deck, porch, or fence | 100 | 94.2% | 91.3% |
Attribute Name and Description | Attribute Levels | Not Destroyed (n = 329) | Destroyed (n = 23) | Moran Test p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
13: Category score: Parcel-level hazard | Sum of points for attributes 1 through 4 | 102.5 | 113.9 | 0.166 |
14: Category score: Defensible space | Sum of points for attributes 5 and 6 | 97.1 | 114.1 | 0.064 |
15: Category score: Access | Sum of points for attributes 7 through 9 | 18.9 | 19.6 | 0.672 |
16: Category score: Structure | Sum of points for attributes 10 through 12 | 158.5 | 166.7 | 0.644 |
17: Overall risk score | Sum of points for attributes 1 through 12 | 277.1 | 414.3 | <0.001 |
y = 1 If Structure Destroyed; y = 0 Otherwise n = 352 | Constant (α) | Independent Variable (X) | Spatial Lag on Independent Variable (WX) | Spatial Lag on Dependent Variable (Wy) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
coef. | std.err. | p > |z| | coef. | std.err. | p > |z| | coef. | std.err. | p > |z| | coef. | std.err. | p > |z| | |
1: Distance to hazardous topography | −0.149 | 0.053 | 0.005 | −0.0015 | 0.0008 | 0.077 | 0.0178 | 0.0110 | 0.104 | 2.473 | 0.470 | <0.001 |
2: Slope | 0.000 | 0.031 | 0.998 | −0.0024 | 0.0017 | 0.155 | −0.0201 | 0.0167 | 0.229 | 1.654 | 0.337 | <0.001 |
3: Adjacent fuels | 0.506 | 0.112 | <0.001 | −0.0005 | 0.0011 | 0.635 | −0.0261 | 0.0054 | <0.001 | 3.036 | 0.448 | <0.001 |
4: Distance to nearest home | 0.253 | 0.065 | <0.001 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.273 | −0.0062 | 0.0013 | <0.001 | 3.670 | 0.584 | <0.001 |
5: Defensible space (vegetation) | 0.348 | 0.124 | 0.005 | 0.0007 | 0.0005 | 0.138 | −0.0083 | 0.0023 | <0.001 | 2.392 | 0.410 | <0.001 |
6: Defensible space (other combustibles) | 0.304 | 0.085 | <0.001 | 0.0006 | 0.0004 | 0.101 | −0.0129 | 0.0028 | <0.001 | 3.550 | 0.575 | <0.001 |
7: Ingress/egress | 0.142 | 0.062 | 0.021 | 0.0086 | 0.0026 | 0.001 | −0.0580 | 0.0177 | 0.001 | 1.545 | 0.334 | <0.001 |
8: Driveway clearance | 0.403 | 0.095 | <0.001 | 0.0014 | 0.0028 | 0.607 | −0.0749 | 0.0150 | <0.001 | 3.125 | 0.471 | <0.001 |
9: Address visibility | 0.303 | 0.093 | 0.001 | 0.0069 | 0.0033 | 0.038 | −0.0647 | 0.0147 | <0.001 | 2.738 | 0.465 | <0.001 |
10: Roof material | −0.033 | 0.013 | 0.011 | 0.0013 | 0.0011 | 0.239 | −0.0142 | 0.0068 | 0.036 | 1.942 | 0.443 | <0.001 |
11: Siding material | 0.439 | 0.116 | <0.001 | −0.0001 | 0.0008 | 0.922 | −0.0091 | 0.0018 | <0.001 | 3.036 | 0.491 | <0.001 |
12: Attachments | 0.419 | 0.105 | <0.001 | −0.0003 | 0.0006 | 0.584 | −0.0058 | 0.0012 | <0.001 | 3.209 | 0.484 | <0.001 |
13: Category score: Parcel-level hazard | 0.337 | 0.082 | <0.001 | 0.0002 | 0.0003 | 0.572 | −0.0051 | 0.0011 | <0.001 | 3.547 | 0.546 | <0.001 |
14: Category score: Defensible space | 0.337 | 0.112 | 0.003 | 0.0006 | 0.0003 | 0.071 | −0.0054 | 0.0013 | <0.001 | 2.969 | 0.466 | <0.001 |
15: Category score: Access | 0.356 | 0.105 | 0.001 | 0.0034 | 0.0015 | 0.019 | −0.0285 | 0.0060 | <0.001 | 2.611 | 0.411 | <0.001 |
16: Category score: Structure | 0.335 | 0.126 | 0.008 | 0.0005 | 0.0006 | 0.425 | −0.0035 | 0.0007 | <0.001 | 3.169 | 0.479 | <0.001 |
17: Overall risk score (100 points) | 0.284 | 0.120 | 0.018 | 0.0366 | 0.0216 | 0.090 | −0.1525 | 0.0311 | <0.001 | 3.260 | 0.502 | <0.001 |
y = 1 If Structure Destroyed; y = 0 Otherwise n = 352 | Total Impact | Direct Impact | Indirect Impact | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
dy/dx | std.err. | p > |z| | dy/dx | std.err. | p > |z| | dy/dx | std.err. | p > |z| | |
1: Distance to hazardous topography | −0.0115 | 0.0060 | 0.053 | −0.0003 | 0.0161 | 0.987 | −0.0113 | 0.0170 | 0.508 |
2: Slope | 0.0286 | 0.0307 | 0.352 | −0.0027 | 0.0018 | 0.131 | 0.0313 | 0.0294 | 0.287 |
3: Adjacent fuels | 0.0132 | 0.0023 | <0.001 | 0.0003 | 0.0052 | 0.959 | 0.0129 | 0.0042 | 0.002 |
4: Distance to nearest home | 0.0022 | 0.0003 | <0.001 | 0.0004 | 0.0006 | 0.496 | 0.0018 | 0.0004 | <0.001 |
5: Defensible space (vegetation) | 0.0057 | 0.0018 | 0.002 | 0.0005 | 0.0008 | 0.524 | 0.0052 | 0.0018 | 0.004 |
6: Defensible space (other combustibles) | 0.0049 | 0.0011 | <0.001 | 0.0009 | 0.0021 | 0.690 | 0.0041 | 0.0015 | 0.005 |
7: Ingress/egress | 0.0813 | 0.0587 | 0.166 | 0.0083 | 0.0024 | <0.001 | 0.0730 | 0.0592 | 0.218 |
8: Driveway clearance | 0.0347 | 0.0060 | <0.001 | 0.0020 | 0.0053 | 0.706 | 0.0327 | 0.0063 | <0.001 |
9: Address visibility | 0.0340 | 0.0075 | <0.001 | 0.0067 | 0.0041 | 0.104 | 0.0273 | 0.0087 | 0.002 |
10: Roof material | 0.0286 | 0.2200 | 0.897 | 0.0023 | 0.0153 | 0.879 | 0.0262 | 0.2047 | 0.898 |
11: Siding material | 0.0046 | 0.0010 | <0.001 | 0.0002 | 0.0021 | 0.926 | 0.0044 | 0.0019 | 0.021 |
12: Attachments | 0.0027 | 0.0005 | <0.001 | −0.0003 | 0.0007 | 0.649 | 0.0031 | 0.0009 | <0.001 |
13: Category score: Parcel-level hazard | 0.0020 | 0.0005 | <0.001 | 0.0003 | 0.0010 | 0.769 | 0.0017 | 0.0006 | 0.007 |
14: Category score: Defensible space | 0.0025 | 0.0007 | <0.001 | 0.0011 | 0.0140 | 0.936 | 0.0014 | 0.0135 | 0.919 |
15: Category score: Access | 0.0160 | 0.0040 | <0.001 | 0.0038 | 0.0025 | 0.128 | 0.0122 | 0.0041 | 0.003 |
16: Category score: Structure | 0.0014 | 0.0004 | <0.001 | 0.0005 | 0.0006 | 0.419 | 0.0009 | 0.0009 | 0.305 |
17: Overall risk score (100 points) | 0.0512 | 0.0120 | <0.001 | 0.0363 | 0.0222 | 0.101 | 0.0149 | 0.0321 | 0.643 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Meldrum, J.R.; Barth, C.M.; Goolsby, J.B.; Olson, S.K.; Gosey, A.C.; White, J.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Champ, P.A.; Gomez, J. Parcel-Level Risk Affects Wildfire Outcomes: Insights from Pre-Fire Rapid Assessment Data for Homes Destroyed in 2020 East Troublesome Fire. Fire 2022, 5, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5010024
Meldrum JR, Barth CM, Goolsby JB, Olson SK, Gosey AC, White J, Brenkert-Smith H, Champ PA, Gomez J. Parcel-Level Risk Affects Wildfire Outcomes: Insights from Pre-Fire Rapid Assessment Data for Homes Destroyed in 2020 East Troublesome Fire. Fire. 2022; 5(1):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5010024
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeldrum, James R., Christopher M. Barth, Julia B. Goolsby, Schelly K. Olson, Adam C. Gosey, James (Brad) White, Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Patricia A. Champ, and Jamie Gomez. 2022. "Parcel-Level Risk Affects Wildfire Outcomes: Insights from Pre-Fire Rapid Assessment Data for Homes Destroyed in 2020 East Troublesome Fire" Fire 5, no. 1: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5010024