4.7 Article

A firebreak placement model for optimizing biodiversity protection at landscape scale

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 342, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118087

关键词

Decision making at landscape-scale; Fire ecology; Fire risk; Mitigation of fire effects; Conservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a solution approach to optimize the selection of landscape cells for firebreaks by considering ecological values, ignition patterns, and fire spread behavior. A firebreak placement model is formulated to balance the tradeoff between biodiversity loss due to vegetation removal and protection against future forest fires. The optimal solution reduced expected biodiversity losses by 30% compared to an untreated landscape, and by 16% compared to a randomly chosen solution. These results suggest that the biodiversity loss from vegetation removal can be offset by the protective function of firebreaks.
A solution approach is proposed to optimize the selection of landscape cells for inclusion in firebreaks. It involves linking spatially explicit information on a landscape's ecological values, historical ignition patterns and fire spread behavior. A firebreak placement optimization model is formulated that captures the tradeoff between the direct loss of biodiversity due to the elimination of vegetation in areas designated for placement of firebreaks and the protection provided by the firebreaks from losses due to future forest fires. The optimal solution generated by the model reduced expected losses from wildfires on a biodiversity combined index due to wildfires by 30% relative to a landscape without any treatment. It also reduced expected losses by 16% compared to a randomly chosen solution. These results suggest that biodiversity loss resulting from the removal of vegetation in areas where firebreaks are placed can be offset by the reduction in biodiversity loss due to the firebreaks' protective function.

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