↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Land Management Practices Associated with House Loss in Wildfires

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
Title
Land Management Practices Associated with House Loss in Wildfires
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0029212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Gibbons, Linda van Bommel, A. Malcolm Gill, Geoffrey J. Cary, Don A. Driscoll, Ross A. Bradstock, Emma Knight, Max A. Moritz, Scott L. Stephens, David B. Lindenmayer

Abstract

Losses to life and property from unplanned fires (wildfires) are forecast to increase because of population growth in peri-urban areas and climate change. In response, there have been moves to increase fuel reduction--clearing, prescribed burning, biomass removal and grazing--to afford greater protection to peri-urban communities in fire-prone regions. But how effective are these measures? Severe wildfires in southern Australia in 2009 presented a rare opportunity to address this question empirically. We predicted that modifying several fuels could theoretically reduce house loss by 76%-97%, which would translate to considerably fewer wildfire-related deaths. However, maximum levels of fuel reduction are unlikely to be feasible at every house for logistical and environmental reasons. Significant fuel variables in a logistic regression model we selected to predict house loss were (in order of decreasing effect): (1) the cover of trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses, (2) whether trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses was predominantly remnant or planted, (3) the upwind distance from houses to groups of trees or shrubs, (4) the upwind distance from houses to public forested land (irrespective of whether it was managed for nature conservation or logging), (5) the upwind distance from houses to prescribed burning within 5 years, and (6) the number of buildings or structures within 40 m of houses. All fuel treatments were more effective if undertaken closer to houses. For example, 15% fewer houses were destroyed if prescribed burning occurred at the observed minimum distance from houses (0.5 km) rather than the observed mean distance from houses (8.5 km). Our results imply that a shift in emphasis away from broad-scale fuel-reduction to intensive fuel treatments close to property will more effectively mitigate impacts from wildfires on peri-urban communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 4 2%
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 201 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 45 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 14%
Student > Master 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Other 20 9%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 48 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 58 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 16%
Social Sciences 17 8%
Engineering 14 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 4%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 59 27%