# Rural Fires--Causes of Human Losses in the 2017 Fires in Portugal
## 4 Analysis of the 2017 Rural Fires in Portugal
### Analysis of Fatalities in June 2017  
The ITC report identified 64 fatalities due to the fire and carried out an exploratory analysis of the conditions and particularities of these human victims. Note that the CSFF-ADAI report counted 65 victims because this report considered an additional victim who died two days later following serious injuries. This victim was the only firefighter among the other victims, who were all civilians. It is known that one other injured person died later in the hospital, increasing the total number of fatalities to 66.  
Analysing the age of the victims, most of them were between 30 and 80 years old; they were active people without limitations in the process of escape or risk perception (Figure 1). As for gender, the number of male and female victims was very similar (35 men and 31 women), so it was not considered a risk factor or characteristic related to the cause of death.  
An important factor in this analysis is the relationship of the victims with the place where they died. According to the data of the ITC report, half of the victims were residents in the villages affected by this fire. However, it is the high number of occasional visitors that needs special attention (Figure 2).  
It should be noted that this is a very popular zone in the summer, mainly due to the river beaches and leisure activities. The violence of the fire, combined with the lack of competent authorities to give indications, significantly increased the panic of these people, and looking for escape routes led them to death. Only 4 of the 66 victims died at home.  
Figure 1: Distribution of the age of the dead victims-June 2017 [8].  
Figure 2: Relationship between the residence of the victims and the place of death-June 2017 [16].  
Regarding the distance from the place of death to the victims' homes, 55% of victims died at a distance higher than 5 km from home. These victims were tourists and visitors who, whether or not they had a relationship with this zone, were on an occasional visit (Figure 3).  
Considering the connection of the victim with the territory, it is important to analyze only the behaviour of residents. It is possible to assume from the victims who died between 100 m and 5 km from their homes that the most of residents (76%) decided to flee their villages. This indicates that the victims tried to run away in the face of the approaching fire, thinking that they were going towards safety (Figure 4).  
Additionally, regarding the circumstances of death, from the analysis of data, it is assumed that 70% of the victims were running away from the fire (Figure 5).  
In the group of victims who did not run away from the fire, the report identified evidence that in addition to the four victims who remained at their homes and who were  
Figure 4: Distance from the place of death to the home of the inhabitants-June 2017 [16].  
Figure 5: Circumstance of the death direction-June 2017 [16].  
Figure 3: Relationship between the victims and the place of death-June 2017 [16].  
cught by the fire there, the remaining victims who were not running away were passing through that area and returning home or to their accommodation after a day of sightseeing in the mountains. Regarding how the victims run away from the fire, the CSFF-ADAI report identifies that 89% of victims chose the car as a means of escape.