4.7 Article

Green firebreaks as a management tool for wildfires: Lessons from China

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 233, 期 -, 页码 329-336

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.043

关键词

Fire-management; Green firebreaks; Wildfire

资金

  1. Lincoln University Blended Learning Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wildfire is a widespread natural hazard that is expected to increase in areal extent, severity and frequency with ongoing changes in climate and land-use. One tool that has been used in an effort to reduce the damage caused by wildfires is green firebreaks: strips of low-flammability vegetation grown at strategic locations in the landscape. Green firebreaks are increasingly being recommended for wildfire management and have been implemented in many countries. The approach is particularly widely used in China, where more than 364,000 km of green firebreaks have been planted and a further 167,000 km are planned for construction before 2025. China is not only a world leader in the implementation of green firebreaks but has also led the way in testing the effectiveness of green firebreaks and in providing guidelines for green firebreak construction. However, most of this research has been reported in the non-English literature, and so is inaccessible to many readers. Here we review the extensive research on the construction and effectiveness of green firebreaks in China and examine how the lessons learned from this research could contribute to the effective implementation of green firebreaks globally. Chinese studies suggest that the ideal species for green firebreaks should meet trait requirements from three perspectives: ecological, silvicultural and economic. Green firebreaks with a multi-layered structure and a closed canopy have the potential to be an effective, long-term, biodiversity-friendly and low-cost tool for fire suppression, although they complement rather than replace other more traditional fire suppression approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据