4.7 Article

A Multistage Stochastic Program to Optimize Prescribed Burning Locations Using Random Fire Samples

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f13060930

Keywords

fire behavior; fuel treatment; fire suppression; wildfire management; spatial optimization; sample average approximation

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam
  2. Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship at Colorado State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a multistage stochastic mixed integer program with recourse for optimizing prescribed burning decisions. The results show that using larger fire samples can lead to better solutions, but the benefit diminishes after reaching a certain threshold.
Selecting the optimal locations and timing for prescribed burning is challenging when considering uncertainties in weather, fire behavior, and future fire suppression. In this study, we present a sample average approximation (SAA) based multistage stochastic mixed integer program with recourse to optimize prescribed burning decisions. The recourse component of the SAA model considers post-fuel-treatment suppression decisions to manage fire spreads in multiple future planning periods. Our research aims at studying how an SAA model may benefit from using random fire samples to find good locations for prescribed burning during the first planning period. Two hypothetical test cases are designed to compare the impact of fire sample sizes on solution quality, and to illustrate how to identify high-quality period-one prescribed burning solutions. Results suggest that running SAA models using larger fire sample sizes can lead to better period-one solutions, but this benefit will diminish after the sample size reaches to certain thresholds. We found multiple period-one prescribed burning decisions that may result in similar effects in mitigating future wildfire risks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available