Challenges 2015, 6, 282-293; doi:10.3390/challe6020282
OPEN ACCESS

challenges
ISSN 2078-1547
www.mdpi.com/journal/challenges
Review

Wildfire Likelihood’s Elements: A Literature Review
Mario Mhawej 1,2,*, Ghaleb Faour 1 and Jocelyne Adjizian-Gerard 2
1

2

National Center for Remote Sensing, National Council for Scientific Research (CNRS),
Riad al Soloh, Beirut 1107 2260, Lebanon; E-Mail: gfaour@cnrs.edu.lb
Department of Geography, St Joseph University, Damascus Street, Mar Mickael, Beirut 1104 2020,
Lebanon; E-Mail: jgerard@usj.edu.lb* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: mario.mhawej@gmail.com;
Tel.: +961-4-409-845; Fax: +961-4-409-846.
Academic Editor: Palmiro Poltronieri
Received: 21 September 2015 / Accepted: 2 December 2015 / Published: 8 December 2015

Abstract: Wildfires occur in different climatic zones, forest cover types and eras.
Wildfire or forest fire has always shaped the landscape. Different methodologies and indexes
have emerged to determine the likelihood of wildfire, commonly confused with the wildfire
hazard. However, none of these are universal or portable. In this paper, we have gone throughseveral articles, projects and books. The aim was to identify factors related to the ignitionof a wildfire. Consequently, 28 factors were presented and categorized into climatic,
topographic, in-situ, historical and anthropogenic factors. It is the first step in building
a generalized, acceptable and portable method to determine the wildfire risk. Its creation isstrongly related to the prevention and better assessment of this phenomenon.
Keywords: wildfire; likelihood; hazard; ignition factors; fire occurrence

1. Introduction
The first thought that might cross our minds when talking about a wildfire is the image of destruction,
pain and suffering. While some authors [1–4] and local dwellers classify its occurrence as a disaster,
wildfire is a natural phenomenon. By definition, wildfire is generally the fire that spreads over aminimum area of one hectare [5], where one or more types of vegetation are concerned. Actually, several
terms were used across the globe to describe vegetation fires in areas outside the urban environment [6].

Challenges 2015, 6

283

In the United States, wildland fire defines “any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland and includes
wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire” [7]. In Australia, the term bushfire is being used todescribe any vegetation fire [8], whereas, the generic term wildfire describes “any unplanned vegetation
fire, including grass fires, forest fires and scrub fires” [8]. The term forest fire is currently used by theEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability [9], alreadyfound in their annual report on fires in European countries. In Canada, forest fire and wildfire are definedby the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center [10]. According to them, forest fire is “any wildfire orprescribed fire that is burning in forested areas, grass, or alpine/tundra vegetation”, while wildfire means“an unplanned or unwanted natural or human-caused fire, as contrasted with a prescribed fire.” In thisreview, we considered and discussed all these described fires except for the prescribed fire.
Wildfires occur worldwide, but in the United States alone there are an estimated 60,000–80,000
wildfires per year according to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in 2015. Actually,worldwide forest areas are presenting a fluctuating trend over the years. Before the Industrial Revolution(1760–1840), almost half of the terrestrial surfaces were covered with forests (i.e., 5.9 billion hectares).
This area was diminished by half then by a fifth in 1955 and 1980, respectively. In 2000, while a further
decline was expected, it was found that forest areas increased from 2.5 to 4.08 billion hectares.
It was mainly the consequence of major reforestation efforts. Anyhow, in 2010, these areas decreased by 50
million hectares [11]. Accordingly, the transition from primary forests to forest stands has been made.
Wildfire might be beneficial. By reducing fuel loads, it minimizes the intensity of each fire that occurs
in subsequent years, consequently decreasing the impact of fire on fire-tolerant plants and burrowing
animals. Furthermore, wildfire allows more open spaces for new and different kinds of vegetation to
grow and receive sunlight, promoting the sustainable development of the forest. An increase of species
resiliency might perhaps be achieved by eliminating insects and diseases [12]. Moreover, somevegetative species, especially mushrooms (e.g., Geopyxis carbonaria, Ascobolus carbonarius Peziza
petersii, Pyronema confluens), benefit from forest fires, since they grow on burnt trunks [13].
Even though the wildfire is a natural phenomenon, it has many undesirable impacts on human safety andhealth, regional economies as well as climate change. In addition, the secondary effects of wildfires,
including erosion, landslides, introduction of invasive species, and changes in water quality, are often
more disastrous than the fire itself [14,15].
Currently, several countries are researching fire management systems, such as Canada, South America,
Mexico, and South Africa [16]. On a global scale, different systems are present to map and forecast nearreal time event information (e.g., Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Experimental Climate
Prediction Center (ECPC), Global Fire Information Management System (GFIMS), Global Early
Warning System for Wildland Fires, etc.). Their purpose is to reduce the wildfire risk. In fact, wildfire
risk is divided into two components: Likelihood, which is the probability of ignition or burning,and hazard, including intensity and effects—which can be positive or negative [17–19]. This definition
did not emerge until 2005, where a conference was held in Portland, USA, which highlighted thesubstantial interest in the wildfire science community to standardize and operationalize definitions suchas risk, hazard, and fire danger. Despite those efforts, these terms are interchanging constantly.
By definition, hazard describes the potential for loss given a fire event; however, it does not refer to thelikelihood of the event occurring. Fire danger illustrates the short-term outlook for fire occurrence while
using short-term weather forecasts [19].

Challenges 2015, 6284

In many parts of the world, local communities are often blamed for what are considered harmful
forest fires. Because dwellers usually have most at stake in an extreme event—such as a wildfire—theyshould clearly be involved in mitigating these unwanted events. Fire and forest management institutions
should perceive local communities as part of the solution, and certainly not part of the problem. At theend, the best way to stop a wildfire is to make sure it never starts.
While developed countries spend billions each year in order to reduce the impact of forest fires, thecreation of a wildfire likelihood map may be a critical tool to predict, prevent and better assess the areas
with the highest exposure to wildfire. It shall contribute to the development of sustainable forest
management plans. Similarly, this map shall provide an attractive image to motivate the general public
to join forces with decision-makers. For the reasons outlined above, an identification of the causes behind
the ignition of the wildfire is crucial to protect and save the international natural forest heritage.
The wildfire likelihood, commonly confused with the wildfire hazard, has been determined via
different type of factors and methodologies. In this report, we discussed the diverse approaches used in
the literature worldwide. Then, we pinpointed each factor found throughout the collected references.
It is important to note that only the ignition factors, defining the probability of ignition or burning, arerequired—not the initial and the free propagation factors which are defined as the second and third
phases in a wildfire, respectively.
2. The Methodologies behind the Wildfire Likelihood
A first attempt to identify ignition factors was developed by the US and Canadian forest services
nearly 50 years ago; this saw the establishment of the “physical evidence” method [20]. However, thisapproach was tested initially in 1989, by Sérgio Correia in Portugal [20]. As a result, seven investigationbrigades were formed in 1990 in the northern and central parts of Portugal, and in 1991 in Spain [21].
This method involves an analysis of the boundary’s geometry of the burnt area and an examination ofphysical evidence on stones, vegetation, tree trunks, posts, fences, etc. [22,23], to establish the direction
movement behavior of fire, which leads to the determination of the causes for its occurrence. It examined
carefully the place where the fire ignites to exhaust all possibilities of finding one or more material clues
that could be identified as the heat source. This method does not allow the determination of the cause of
all fires [20], though. Anyhow, France and Italy joined the initiative of creating a wildfire likelihood
map in 1997 and 2000, respectively [20]. The Prefect is leading the research in France, and Corpo
Forestale in Italy [24].
Classifications of the driving forces of wildfires into several categories are presented in numerous
studies (e.g., [25–28]). These categories could be as follows: climatic factors (including temperature,humidity, wind), topographic factors (including slope and aspect), vegetation factors (including droughtstate, vegetation type), and finally, human factors (including road network, Wildfire–Urban Interface(WUI)). However, Dauriac et al. [27] extended the vegetation factors by adding vegetation moisture:
He used the Mid Infrared (MIR) spectrum (1300–1800 nm) to calculate the Foliar Moisture Content(FMC). Later, weighting factors were introduced. Setiawan [29], for instance, evaluates the forest firerisk in peatlands in Malaysia. In his research, factors affecting the ignition of a forest fire were weighted
with an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Most studies one may encounter are found to follow this typeof methodology.

Challenges 2015, 6285

Another study conducted by the forest fighter team of Cemagref Institute in Aix-en-Provence, France
has developed a spatial assessment method for the forest fire likelihood across the Maures Moutains [30].
They have proposed to classify the driving forces into three categories (i.e., those that affect the ignitionof the wildfire, its initial spread and its free propagation). The first set of likelihood categories includes
the presence or absence of human activities and the presence or absence of fuel. The second set of
likelihood categories consists of the wind direction. The third set of likelihood categories is mainly
related to wind speed. It also defines an index reflecting the angle of incidence of the wind on
the earth’s surface.
Gonzalez et al. [31] provided new insight in establishing the wildfire likelihood. They used theprobabilities of occurrence of forest fire. In his study, driving factors were divided on one hand into
controllable and uncontrollable variables, and on the other hand, into known and unknown variables’
values. An example of variables that are both controllable and known are the density and species
composition of the vegetative population, as well as the vertical structure of the canopy. The predictionof the exact weather conditions in a forest is often inaccurate (uncontrollable and unknown). Long-term
averages of climatic factors are known (uncontrollable and known). In addition, new variables wereconsidered in this study—i.e., basal area, tree diameter at breast height (DBH), and the hardwood
proportion of the total surface. According to his findings, the probability of a forest to be affected by afire increases with low altitude, higher DBH, smaller basal diameter, denser hardwood fraction,higher proportion of conifers and an increase in the variation of trees’ diameter.
Jappiot et al. [32] introduced a top-down approach that was described as “based on the needs.”
The authors distinguished between three types of representation of each element of likelihood categories:
The probabilistic mode, which is based solely on statistical data to represent an element of likelihood;
The semi-probabilistic method, which mainly uses historical data to adjust non-historical components,
but also includes the expertise and experimentations; Deterministic mode, which requires a goodknowledge of the mechanisms related to fire’s outbreak and spreading.
Furthermore, several authors (e.g., [33–36]) linked the outbreak of forest fires to the arrangement oflocal houses and existing vegetation. As a result, numerous studies [37,38] discussed the effect of the
Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) on the wildfire likelihood determination. The result was anestablishment of 12 kinds of typologies concerning the Wildland–Urban Interface, diverse vegetation
and urban densities. Among these types, the isolated Wildland–Urban Interface, which is characterized
by a low-density housing, represents the highest level of fire risk.
In 2009, Ganteaume et al. [39] chose to investigate the ground fuel flammability and its ability tocause a fire. They concluded that at higher density and moisture content of the carburant, an increase of
the time until ignition of a fire is observed.
Most recently, some researchers have used a “back trajectory analysis” or have studied the “wildfire
synoptic climatology”, in order to provide ensemble weather factors to be included in a forest firelikelihood identification [40].
Studies relating land-cover types to wildfire have been conducted as well. Results show that for mostland-cover classes, fire behaves selectively. In Europe, for instance, shrublands and grasslands were themost preferred by fire, whereas, artificial surfaces and agricultural areas were less fire prone [41]. It wasalso the case in Portugal [42,43]. In Italy, the number of fire occurrences was higher than expected inChallenges 2015, 6286

urban and agricultural areas, while in grasslands and shrublands, mean fire size was significantly larger
than expected [44].
Other authors adapted universal indexes such as the Fire Weather Index (FWI) (e.g., [45–47]), theFire Potential Index (FPI) (e.g., [48–50]), the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) (e.g., [51,52]),
the Forest Fire Risk Index (ICRIF) (e.g., [53]), and the Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) (e.g., [54–56]).
The most documented index is the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI). It integrates the temperature,
the relative humidity, the wind, and the rain. This index is an important part of the Canadian Forest Fire
Danger Rating System (CFFDRS). Flannigan et al. [57] for instance, used a model based on the FWI
to study fire in Canada since 1850.
Table 1. Preliminary classification of different factors deduced from literature.
Preliminary Classification

A. Climatic Factors

B. Topographic Factors

C. In-situ Factors

D. Historical Factor

E. Anthropogenic Factors

Factors
Precipitation 1
Temperature 1
Air humidity 1
Wind speed 1
Wind direction 1
Current drought 1
Long-term drought 1
Evapotranspiration 1
Illumination time 1
Illumination intensity 1
Slope 1
Aspect 1
Altitude 1
Fuel type 2
Fuel density 1
Soil moisture 1
Soil texture 2
Soil organic matter 1
Trees age 1
Basal area 1
Hardwood proportion 1
Tree diameter at breast height 1
Disease/illness index 2
Probability of occurrence of a wildfire 1
Proximity to agricultural land 1
Proximity to roads 1
Proximity to urban areas (Wildland-Urban Interface) 1
Proximity to recreation areas, breeding grounds, exploitation zones, etc. 1
1

quantitative variable; 2 qualitative variable.

While a huge amount of researchers discussed wildfire ignition, what we noticed, after consulting
over 100 manuscripts worldwide, is that there is a lack of generalization of the driving forces behind theoccurrence of wildfires. Several authors had this same thought (e.g., [58–61]). Hence, we collected everyChallenges 2015, 6287

factor found in the literature. Consequently, 28 factors were identified and classified into five different
categories (i.e., climatic, topographic, in-situ, historical and anthropogenic factors) and were presented
in Table 1. These classifications were based on the logical distribution of factors. In fact, climatic factors
include climate-related driving forces such as precipitation, temperature, humidity, etc. Topographic
factors encompass elements related directly to topography (i.e., altitude, slope and aspect). In-situ factors
are those that need ground measurements. They correspond to fuel type and density, soil moisture andtexture, trees age, hardwood proportion, etc. Historical factors are the historical/archived databases(i.e., number or probability of occurrence of a wildfire). Anthropogenic factors encompass the proximity
to human-disturbance areas. They define the constant human interference regions without considering
intentional wildfires and arsons.
The exhaustive and systemic identification of ignition-related factors is important in terms of defining
a standard set of elements used worldwide that any wildfire study should begin with. Due to the lack ofdata in some regions, for some classifications, some of the missing factors had to be substituted withothers that could be related to them. Ultimately, when factors for a study area were defined, models orindexes could be generated: This should facilitate the monitoring of this phenomenon as well as thebuilding of an early warning system.
According to the fire triangle, any fire needs three inevitable components (i.e., fuel, oxygen and heat)to be initiated. In wildfire, fuel is generally a form of vegetation. High water content creates an adverse
effect. Then, higher precipitation and humidity (i.e., air humidity or soil moisture) decrease thelikelihood of a wildfire. In contrast, greater temperature diminishes water content, increasing the
likelihood of forest fires. Wind speed and direction affect fire ignition by altering the quantity ofoxygen—a primary component in the fire triangle—existing at a predefined location. These factors areincluded almost in any study related to wildfire. Drought and long term drought could also affectwildfire. In fact, in hot and dry conditions, early and extended fire seasons are noticed. It is what studies
such as those by Flannigan et al. [57], Swetnam et al. [62], Skinner et al. [63], Bachelet et al. [64],showed by successfully correlating long-term weather anomalies and forest fires. Evapotranspiration isclosely related to the remaining water content in the vegetation cover. It is actually a combination of
evaporation and transpiration. Higher evapotranspiration increases the likelihood of a wildfire.
Steeper slope means that a fire burns not only at high speed, but more vigorously. In addition,
heat transfers by convection are encouraged. More importantly, slope can change the soil infiltration
properties by reducing the amount of interception material that protects the soil against the impact ofrain drops and slow runoff [65–68]. Different aspects result in different vegetation covers, temperatures,and illumination time. The likelihood of a wildfire could be affected in relation to the extent ofdifferent aspects. South and southwest aspects are the regions with the highest probability of wildfire
occurrence [69,70]. As elevation increases, both precipitation and humidity increases while temperature
decreases, and the vegetation cover becomes sparse. The likelihood of a wildfire is low.
Fuels constitute the organic matter needed for the ignition of a fire. They represent one of the factorsthat are included in forest fires’ assessment and a factor that humans can control [71,72]. The reductionof the fuel density and depth, particularly to less than 8 cm deep, allows a decrease in the probability of
wildfire [70]. Furthermore, several authors (e.g., [31,73]) noted that the fuel type, quantity anddistribution affect the frequency of fires. Trees age, basal area, hardwood proportion, and tree diameterat breast height were included in numerous studies (e.g., [31,73]). Disease/illness index (e.g., [64,74]),

Challenges 2015, 6288

soil texture (e.g., [68,74,75]), the probability of occurrence (e.g., [29,59,76,77]), illumination time andintensity (e.g., [57,74,78,79]) are all parameters found throughout the literature that assist ininvestigating the likelihood of a wildfire. In addition, according to the UNFAO, the apparent increase incatastrophic forest fires worldwide [80] is related to human interference [81]. In Europe, for instance,with its high population density, over 95% of fires are caused by human activities [82]. The presence of
certain infrastructure such as roads, power lines, waste deposits, and railroads significantly increases theapparition of wildfire [27]. Increases in agricultural, industrial and recreation areas, etc. are also
increasing the likelihood of wildfire. On the other hand, the Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) has
received increasing attention since the 1980s [83] and has been featured in several studies related towildfires (e.g., [84–87]).
3. Conclusions
Wildfire is a natural phenomenon. Its numerous and complex consequences threaten human welfare
and wellbeing. A determination of the likelihood of wildfire generates various positive outcomes,
particularly in terms of prediction, prevention and better assessment of the affected areas.
While several methodologies and variables have been used to determine the likelihood of wildfire,
each research study has developed its own approach. Defining factors that are related to the ignition ofa wildfire is the first step to establishing an easy-to-apply and portable methodology. We have identified
28 factors that can be divided into climatic, topographic, in-situ, historical and anthropogenic factors.
Of course, each driving factor has different influence according to the season and the environmental andsocioeconomic context, including legislation and human behavior. The next step is to prove theirstatistical significance in each selected region. A universal model should be created in each climaticzone, followed by the use of weighting factors. The statistical methods/tests recommended to build thesemodels are as follows: Adjusted R-Squared, Akaike’s Information Criterion, Jarque-Bera p-value,
Koenker (BP) Statistic p-value, Max Variance Inflation Factor, and Global Moran’s I p-value. The useof remote sensing techniques in such studies plays a vital role. They provide reliable datasets for someof the proposed variables with high spatial, spectral and temporal precision.
Author Contributions
Jocelyne Adjizian-Gerard and Ghaleb Faour had the original idea for the study, and together with thelead author, Mario Mhawej, supervised the research work and was responsible for revising the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.

Jones, R.T.; Ribbe, D.P.; Cunningham, P. Psychosocial correlates of fire disaster among children
and adolescents. J. Trauma. Stress 1994, 7, 117–122.
Kumagai, Y.; Carroll, M.S.; Cohn, P. Coping with interface wildfire as a human event:Lessons from the disaster/hazards literature. J. Forest 2004, 102, 28–32.

Challenges 2015, 6
3.

289

Shafran, A.P. Risk externalities and the problem of wildfire risk. J. Urban Econ. 2008, 64,
488–495.
4. Pausas, J.G.; Llovet, J.; Rodrigo, A.; Vallejo, R. Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterraneanbasin?—A review. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2009, 17, 713–723.
5. Zammit, O. Detection of burned areas after a forest fire from a single SPOT 5 satellite image by
SVM technology. (Master, Ph.D) Thesis, The UniversitéNice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France, 2008.
6. Bento-Gonçalves, A.; Vieira, A.; Úbeda, X.; Martin, D. Fire and soils: Key concepts and recent
advances. Geoderma 2012, 191, 3–13.
7. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Glossary of Wildland. Fire Terminology, PMS 205;
National Wildfire Coordinating Group: Boise, ID, United States, 2015; p. 189.
8. Australasian Fire Authorities Council. Bushfire Glossary, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;
Australasian Fire Authorities Council: East Melbourne, Australia, 2010; p. 27.
9. European Commission. Forest Fires in Europe 2009, EUR 24502 EN; Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2010.
10. Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center. Glossary of Forest Fire Management Terms, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada; Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2013; p. 61.
11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment
2010: Main Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010.
12. Tishkov, A.A. Forest fires and dynamics of forest cover. In Natural Disasters, Encyclopedia of Life
Support Systems (EOLSS), UNESCO; Eolss Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2004.
13. Claridge, A.W.; James, M.T.; Hansen, K. Do fungi have a role as soil stabilizers and remediators
after forest fire? Forest Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 1063–1069.
14. Neary, D.G.; Ryan, K.C.; de Bano, L.F. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on soils andwater. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2005, 4, 171–178.
15. USGS (U.S. geological survey) mounting. In Wildfire Hazards—A National Threat; USGS:
Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
16. Zommers, Z.A.; Singh, A. Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems for Climate Change;
Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
17. Hardy, C.C.; Hardy, C.E. Fire danger rating in the United States of America: An evolution since1916. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2007, 16, 217–231.
18. Vasilakos, C.; Kalabokidis, K.; Hatzopoulos, J.; Kallos, G.; Matsinos, Y. Integrating new methods
and tools in fire danger rating. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2007, 16, 306–316.
19. Miller, C.; Ager, A.A. A review of recent advances in risk analysis for wildfire management.
Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2013, 22, 1–14.
20. Eira, J.M.P.; Rui, M.N. Study of the causes of forest fires in seven municipalities in the region
Central Portugal. Opt. Méditerr. 1995, 25, 79–98.
21. Colin, P.Y.; Jappiot, M.; Mariel, A. Protection of Forests Against Fire; Cahier FAO Conservation:
Rome, Italy, 2001.
22. Papadopoulos, A.; Paschalidou, A.K.; Kassomenos, P.A.; McGregor, G. Investigating the relationshipof meteorological/climatological conditions and wildfires in Greece. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2013,
112, 113–126.

Challenges 2015, 6290

23. Papadopoulos, A.; Paschalidou, A.K.; Kassomenos, P.A.; McGregor, G. On the association between
synoptic circulation and wildfires in the Eastern Mediterranean. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2014, 115,
483–501.
24. Long, M.; Ripert, C.; Piana, C.; Jappiot, M.; Lampin-Maillet, C.; Ganteaume, A.; Alexandrian, D.;
Rouch, L. Improved knowledge of forest fire causes and implementation of a georeferenced database.
Forest Méditerr. 2009, 30, 221–230.
25. Margerit, J. Modeling and numerical simulation of the spread of forest fires. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Lorraine, Lorraine, France, 1998.
26. Jappiot, M.; Blanchi, R.; Alexandrian, D. Mapping risk of wildfire: Needs, methods and data
standardization test. Forest Méditerr. 2000, 24, 427–434.
27. Dauriac, F.; Deshayes, M.; Gillon, D.; Roger, J.-M. Monitoring the water content of theMediterranean vegetation by remote sensing. Application to the risk of forest fire. In Colloque
SIRNAT Systèmes d’Information et Risques Naturels: Paris, France, 2001; pp. 6–7.
28. Carrega, P. The risk of forest fires in the Mediterranean Region: Understanding and evolution.
Ph.D. Thesis, The Universitéde Nice/UMR Espace/CNRS, Nice Cedex, France, 2008.
29. Setiawan, I.; Mahmud, A.R.; Mansor, S.; Shariff, A.R.M.; Nuruddin, A.A. GIS-grid-based andmulti-criteria analysis for I dentifying and mapping peat swamp forest fire hazard in Pahang,
Malaysia. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2004, 13, 379–386.
30. Jappiot, M. Evaluation and mapping of the risk of forest fire. In Rapport Final Division Agriculture
et Foret Méditerranéennes CEMAGREF; Groupement d’Aix en Provence: Massif des Maures,France, 1998; p. 32.
31. Gonzalez, J.R.; Palahi, M.; Trasobares, A.; Pukkala, T. A fire probability model for forest stands inCatalonia (north-east Spain). Ann. Forest Sci. 2006, 63, 169–176.
32. Jappiot, M. Developed applications in different themes concerning the Mediterranean forest.
Forest Méditerr. 2000, 11, 99–103.
33. Cardille, J.A.; Ventura, S.J.; Turner, M.G. Environmental and social factors influencing wildfires
in the Upper Midwest, United States. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 111–127.
34. Haight, R.G.; Cleland, D.T.; Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Rupp, T.S. Assessing fire risk in the
wildland-urban interface. J. Forest 2004, 102, 41–48.
35. Badia-Perpinya, A.; Pallares-Barbera, M. Spatial distribution of ignitions in Mediterranean
periurban and rural areas: The case of Catalonia. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2006, 15, 187–196.
36. Syphard, A.D.; Radeloff, V.C.; Keeley, J.E.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Clayton, M.K.; Stewart, S.I.;
Hammer, R.B. Human influence on California fire regimes. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17, 1388–1402.
37. Chandioux, O.; Lampin-Maillet, C.; Jappiot, M. Development of a typology of fuel for limetsone
Provence Basse. Forest Méditerr. 2009, 3, 209–220.
38. Lampin-Maillet, C.; Jappiot, M.; Long, M.; Bouillon, C.; Morge, D.; Ferrier, J. Mapping wildland-urban
interfaces at large scales integrating housing density and vegetation aggregation for fire prevention
in the South of France. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 732–741.
39. Ganteaume, A.; Lampin-Maillet, C.; Guijarro, M.; Hernando, C.; Jappiot, M.; Fonturbel, T.;
Pérez-Gorostiaga, P.; Vega, J.A. Spot fires: Fuel bed flammability and capability of firebrands toignite fuel beds. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2010, 18, 951–969.

Challenges 2015, 6291

40. Paschalidou, A.K.; Kassomenos, P.A. What are the most fire-dangerous atmospheric circulationsin the Eastern-Mediterranean? Analysis of the synoptic wildfire climatology. Sci. Total Environ.
2016, 539, 536–545.
41. Oliveira, S.; Moreira, F.; Boca, R.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Pereira, J.M.C. Assessment of fire
selectivity in relation to land cover and topography: A comparison between southern European
countries. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2014, 23, 620–630.
42. Nunes, M.C.S.; Vasconcelos, M.J.; Pereira, J.M.C.; Dasgupta, N.; Alldredge, R.J.; Rego, F.C.
Land cover type and fire in Portugal: Do fires burn land cover selectively? Landsc. Ecol. 2005, 20,
661–673.
43. Barros, A.M.G.; José, M.C.P. Wildfire selectivity for land cover type: Does size matter? PLoS ONE
2014, 9, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084760.
44. Bajocco, S.; Ricotta, C. Evidence of selective burning in Sardinia (Italy): Which land-cover classes
do wildfires prefer? Landsc. Ecol. 2008, 23, 241–248.
45. Van Wagner, C.E. The Development and Structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index
System; Forest Technical Report 35; Canadian Forest Service: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1987.
46. Alexander; E.M.; de Groot, W.J. Fire Behavior in Jack Pine Stands: As Related to the Canadian
Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System; Northern Forestry Centre: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1988.
47. De Groot, W.J. Interpreting the Canadian forest fire weather index (fwi) system. In Proceedings ofthe 4th Central Region Fire Weather Committee Scientific and Technical Seminar, Winnipeg, MB,
Cananda, 2 April 1987.
48. Burgan, R.E.; Klaver, R.W.; Klaver, J.M. Fuel models and fire potential from satellite and surface
observations. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 1998, 8, 159–170.
49. López, A.S.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Burgan, R.E. Integration of satellite sensor data, fuel type maps
and meteorological observations for evaluation of forest fire risk at the pan-European scale.
Int. J. Remote Sens. 2002, 23, 2713–2719.
50. Schneider, P.; Roberts, D.A.; Kyriakidis, P.C. A VARI-based relative greenness from MODIS datafor computing the Fire Potential Index. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 1151–1167.
51. Williams, A.A.J.; Karoly, D.J.; Tapper, N. The sensitivity of Australian fire danger to climatechange. Clim. Chang. 2001, 49, 171–191.
52. Dowdy, A.J.; Graham, A.M.; Finkele, K.; de Groot, W. Index sensitivity analysis applied to the
Canadian forest fire weather index and the McArthur forest fire danger index. Meteorol. Appl. 2010,17, 298–312.
53. Bugalho, L; Pessanha, B.C.; Tavares, R.; Sanchez, J. Monitoring forest fire in Portugal with the
Combined Forest Fire Risk Index; ICRIF: Munich, Germany, 2008.
54. Janis, M.J.; Johnson, M.B.; Forthun, G. Near-real time mapping of Keetch-Byram drought index in
the south-eastern United States. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2002, 11, 281–289.
55. Dolling, K.; Chu, P.-S.; Fujioka, F. A climatological study of the Keetch/Byram drought index andfire activity in the Hawaiian Islands. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 2005, 133, 17–27.
56. Xanthopoulos, G.; Maheras, G.; Gouma, V.; Gouvas, M. Is the Keetch-Byram drought index(KBDI) directly related to plant water stress? Forest Ecol. Manag. 2006, 234, S27–S36.
57. Flannigan, M.D.; Harrington, J.B. A study of the relation of meteorological variables to monthly
provincial area burned by wildfire in Canada (1953–1980). J. Appl. Meteorol. 1988, 27, 441–452.

Challenges 2015, 6292

58. Masri, T. Forest fire impact assessment, Lebanon. In Towards a Sustainable Mechanism for Forest
Fire Fighting in Lebanon; National Council for Scientific Research: Jnah, Lebanon, 2005; p. 51.
59. Faour, G.; Kheir, R.B.; Verdeil, E. Characterization of forest fires using GIS: The example ofLebanon. Forest Méditerr. 2006, 27, 339–352.
60. Faour, G.; Kher, R.B.; Darwish, A. Comprehensive evaluation method of the risk of forest fires
using remote sensing and GIS: A case study of Lebanon. Télédétection 2006, 5, 359–377.
61. Stone, K.R.; Pilliod, D.S.; Dwire, K.A.; Rhoades, C.C.; Wollrab, S.P.; Young, M.K. Fuel reduction
management practices in riparian areas of the western USA. Environ. Manag. 2010, 46, 91–100.
62. Swetnam, T.W.; Betancourt, J.L. Fire-southern oscillation relations in the southwestern United States.
Science 1990, 249, 1017–1020.
63. Skinner, W.R.; Flannigan, M.D.; Stocks, B.J.; Martell, D.L.; Wotton, B.M.; Todd, J.B.; Mason, J.A.;
Logan, K.A.; Bosch, E.M. A 500 hPa synoptic wildland fire climatology for large Canadian forest
fires, 1959–1996. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2002, 71, 157–169.
64. Bachelet, D.; James M.L.; Ronald P.N. The Importance of Climate Change for Future Wildfire
Scenarios in the Western United States. Available online: http://fusee.org/sandbox/docs/
ClimateChange/Wildfires_climate_change.pdf?lbisphpreq=1 (accessed on 7 December 2015).
65. De Bano, L.F. Observations on water-repellent soils in western United States. In Proceedings of a
Conference on Water Repellent Soils, Riverside, CA, USA, 6–10 May, 1969.
66. De Bano, L.F.; Dunn, P.H.; Conrad, C.E. Fire’s effect on physical and chemical properties ofchaparral soils. In USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-3; USDA Forest Service:
Washington, DC, USA, 1977.
67. Giovannini, G.; Lucchesi, S.; Giachetti, M. Effect of heating on some physical and chemicalparameters related to soil aggregation and erodibility. Soil Sci. 1988, 146, 255–261.
68. Moody, J.A.; Deborah A.M. Initial hydrologic and geomorphic response following a wildfire in the
Colorado Front Range. Earth Surf. Processes Landforms 2001, 26, 1049–1070.
69. Jo, M.H., Lee, M.B.; Lee, S.Y.; Jo, Y.W.; Baek, S.R. The development of forest fire forecasting
system using internet GIS and satellite remote sensing. In Proceedings of the 21st Asian Conference
on Remote Sensing, Taipei, Taiwan, 4–8 December 2000; pp. 1161–1166.
70. Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify
Wildfire Behavior and Severity; Utah State University: Logan, UT, USA, 2004.
71. Rothermel, R.C. A Mathematical Model for Predicting Fire Spread in Wildland Fuels;
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA; Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 1972.
72. Prestemon, J.P.; Pye, J.M.; Butry, D.T.; Holmes, T.P.; Mercer, D.E. Understanding broadscale
wildfire risks in a human-dominated landscape. Forest Sci. 2002, 48, 685–693.
73. Loehle, C. Applying landscape principles to fire hazard reduction. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2004, 198,
261–267.
74. Drouet, J.C. Forest fires in the Mediterranean region. Theory of propagation and effective control
methods. Méditerranée 1973, 12, 29–53.
75. Beeson, P.C.; Scott, N.M.; Breshears, D.D. Simulating overland flow following wildfire:
Mapping vulnerability to landscape disturbance. Hydrol. Processes 2001, 15, 2917–2930.

Challenges 2015, 6

293

76. Malamud, B.D.; Millington, J.D.A.; Perry, G.L.W. Characterizing wildfire regimes in the United States.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 4694–4699.
77. Eidenshink, J.; Schwind, B.; Brewer, K.; Zhu, Z.-L.; Quayle, B.; Howard, S. Project for monitoring
trends in burn severity. Fire Ecol. 2007, 3, 3–21.
78. Millington, J.D.A. Wildfire risk mapping: Considering environmental change in space and time.
J. Mediterr. Ecol. 2005, 6, 33–42.
79. Bhandari, S.; Stuart P.; Tony G. Assessing viewing and illumination geometry effects on the
MODIS vegetation index (MOD13Q1) time series: Implications for monitoring phenology anddisturbances in forest communities in Queensland, Australia. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 7513–7538.
80. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. Global forest fire assessment 990–2000(Forest Resources Assessment—WP 55); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2001.
81. Liu, Y.; Stanturf, J.; Goodrick, S. Trends in global wildfire potential in a changing climate.
Forest Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 685–697.
82. Doerr, S.; Santín, C. “Wildfire: A Burning Issue for Insurers?” Available online:
http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/library/natural-environment/wildfire-report(accessed on 7 December 2015).
83. Staychock, E.S. Understanding Elements Contributing to the Collaborative Development ofCommunity Wildfire Protection Plans. Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO,
USA, 2008.
84. Cohen, J.D. Preventing disaster: Home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. J. Forest 2000,
98, 15–21.
85. Winter, G.J.; Vogt, C.; Fried, J.S. Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban interface: Common
concerns in diverse regions. J. Forest 2002, 100, 15–21.
86. Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.; Fried, J.S.; Holcomb, S.S.; McKeefry, J.F.
The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 799–805.
87. Theobald, D.M.; Romme, W.H. Expansion of the US wildland—Urban interface. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2007, 83, 340–354.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).