USDA Forest Service International Visitor Program, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 5775 US Highway 10W, Missoula, MT, 59808, USA.
J Environ Manage. 2022 May 1;309:114650. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114650. Epub 2022 Feb 19.
We examined the financial efficiency and effectiveness of landscape versus community protection fuel treatments to reduce structure exposure and loss to wildfire on a large fire-prone area of central Idaho (USA). The study area contained 63,707 structures distributed in 20 rural communities and resorts, encompassing 13,804 km. We used simulation modeling to estimate expected structure loss based on burn probability and characteristics of the home ignition zone. We then designed three fuel management strategies that targeted treatments to: 1) the surrounding areas predicted to be the source of exposure to communities from large fires, 2) the home ignition zone, and 3) a combination of the landscape and home ignition zone. We evaluated each treatment scenario in terms of exposure and expected structure loss compared to a no-treatment scenario. The potential revenue from wood products was estimated for each scenario to assess the cost-efficiency. We found that the combined landscape and home ignition zone treatment scenario which treated 5.7% of the study area resulted in the highest overall reduction in predicted exposure (47.5%, 100 structures yr) and predicted loss (69.1%, 57 structures yr). Home ignition zone treatments provided the best predicted economic and per area treated performance where exposure and loss were reduced by one structure by treating 89 and 111 ha per year, respectively, with an annual cost of $33,645 and $73,672. Revenue from thinning was the highest for landscape fuel treatments and covered 16% of the required investment. This work highlighted economic and risk tradeoffs associated with alternative fuel treatment strategies to protect developed areas from large wildland fires.
我们研究了景观与社区保护燃料处理在减少易发生大火的爱达荷州中部大面积地区结构暴露和野火损失方面的财务效率和效果。研究区域包含 63707 座分布在 20 个农村社区和度假胜地的建筑物，面积达 13804 平方公里。我们使用模拟模型根据燃烧概率和家庭点火区的特征来估计预期的结构损失。然后，我们设计了三种燃料管理策略，针对：1）预计会对大火造成社区暴露的周边地区；2）家庭点火区；3）景观和家庭点火区的组合。我们评估了每种处理方案与不处理方案相比的暴露和预期结构损失。为了评估成本效益，我们估算了每个方案的木材产品潜在收入。我们发现，处理研究区域 5.7%的景观和家庭点火区联合处理方案导致预测暴露（47.5%，100 座建筑物年）和预测损失（69.1%，57 座建筑物年）的总体减少量最高。家庭点火区处理方案提供了最佳的预测经济和每处理区域性能，每年处理 89 和 111 公顷可减少一个结构的暴露和损失，年成本分别为 33645 美元和 73672 美元。景观燃料处理的收入最高，占投资需求的 16%。这项工作强调了替代燃料处理策略在保护发达地区免受大规模野火方面的经济和风险权衡。
