Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Gibbons, Philip
dc.contributor.author van Bommel, Linda
dc.contributor.author Gill, A. Malcolm
dc.contributor.author Cary, Geoffrey J.
dc.contributor.author Driscoll, Don A.
dc.contributor.author Bradstock, Ross A.
dc.contributor.author Knight, Emma A.
dc.contributor.author Moritz, Max A.
dc.contributor.author Stephens, Scott L.
dc.contributor.author Lindenmayer, David B.
dc.coverage.spatial Australia
dc.coverage.spatial Victoria
dc.date.accessioned 2012-11-05T20:13:54Z
dc.date.available 2012-11-05T20:13:54Z
dc.date.issued 2012-01-18
dc.identifier doi:10.5061/dryad.0875q1v2
dc.identifier.citation Gibbons P, van Bommel L, Gill AM, Cary GJ, Driscoll DA, Bradstock RA, Knight EA, Moritz MA, Stephens SL, Lindenmayer DB (2012) Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29212.
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10255/dryad.36849
dc.description 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 40m of houses, (2) whether trees and shrubs within 40m 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 40m 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 (0.5km) rather than the observed mean distance from houses (8.5km). 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.
dc.relation.haspart doi:10.5061/dryad.0875q1v2/1
dc.relation.isreferencedby doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029212
dc.relation.isreferencedby PMID:22279530
dc.subject wildfire
dc.subject prescribed burning
dc.subject climate change adaptation
dc.subject logging
dc.subject Black Saturday
dc.title Data from: Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires
dc.type Article *
dc.contributor.correspondingAuthor Gibbons, Philip
prism.publicationName PLoS ONE

Files in this package

Content in the Dryad Digital Repository is offered "as is." By downloading files, you agree to the Dryad Terms of Service. To the extent possible under law, the authors have waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this data. CC0 (opens a new window) Open Data (opens a new window)

Title house_loss
Downloaded 65 times
Description Covariates measured at each of 499 houses within wildfires that burnt on 7 February 2009 in Victoria, Australia
Download house_loss.txt (54.12Kb)
Details View File Details