4.7 Article

A Probabilistic Method Predicting Forest Fire Occurrence Combining Firebrands and the Weather-Fuel Complex in the Northern Part of the Daxinganling Region, China

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 9, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f9070428

Keywords

fire danger rating; NFDRS; ignition probability

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fire danger rating method currently used in the northern part of the Daxinganling Region with the most severe forest fires in China only uses weather variables without considering firebrands. The discrepancy between fire occurrence and fire risk by FFDWR (Forest Fire-Danger Weather Rating, a method issued by the National Meteorological Bureau, that is used to predict forest fire probability through links between forest fire occurrence and weather variables) in the northern part is more obvious than that in the southern part. Great discrepancy has emerged between fire danger predicted by the method and actual fire occurrence in recent years since a strict firebrand prohibition policy has significantly reduced firebrands in the region. A probabilistic method predicting fire probability by introducing an Ignition Component (IC) in the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) adopted in the United States to depict effects of both firebrand and weather-fuel complex on fire occurrence is developed to solve the problem. The suitability and accuracy of the new method in the region were assessed. Results show that the method is suitable in the region. IC or the modified IC can be adopted to depict the effect of the weather-fuel complex on fire occurrence and to rate fire danger for periods with fewer firebrands. Fire risk classes and corresponding preparedness level can be determined from IC in the region. Methods of the same principle could be established to diminish similar discrepancy between actual fire occurrence and fire danger in other countries.

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