In: G. Di Stefano, A. Navarra Editors: Proceedings of the RSFF'18 Workshop, L'Aquila, Italy, 19-20-July-2018, published at http://ceur-ws.org
Although some negative effects have been noted, positive effects of bush fires on the habitat for
native flora and fauna have been recorded [
For the purposes of fuel mangement, forest and national parks are often divided into treatment
units. Deciding on a schedule of treatments is a complex spatio-temporal problem [
Different spatial patterns have been studied [
Copyright c by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
Fragmenting high fire hazard fuel patches is an aim in fuel management, so that treated units
can act as a barrier between high fuel load units when a wildfire occurs. The vegetation regrows
over time, and long-term planning is necessary to minimise these high-risk connections [
The risk of catastrophic wildfires decreases [
Lowering the total fuel load has ecological consequences. Some species may rely on vegetation
that would be classified as high-risk. When choosing which units to burn, we have to take into
account the habitat quality for these species. These might need connected habitats for reducing local
extinction, increasing recolonisation and annual migration [
In this paper we consider scheduling prescribed burning of parts of a landscape to reduce the
connectivity of high-risk regions in order to reduce the fire hazards. We propose a Mixed Integer
Programming (MIP) model to break these connections, taking into account the quality of the
habitat for animals living there. Research has been done on breaking the connectivity between the
high-risk regions, but not assessing overall and local quality of the habitat. We propose a couple
of solution approaches and demonstrate these on hypothetical landscapes. A number of measures
for the quality of the habitat are considered. We use fuel accumulation curves to categorize old
burn units, or high risk ones (see [
Consider a landscape comprising a mosaic of spatial units. In the context of fuel management these are referred to as ‘burn units’. The age of the vegetation in each burn unit determines its fuel load and hence its risk of wildfire. Vegetation age also characterises the habitat suitability for particular fauna of each burn unit. In this model we consider a single vegetation type (heathland) and without specifying a species we consider invertebrates that prefer some predefined vegetation age. We formulate a model that each year selects the burn units to undergo fuel reduction through controlled burning or mechanical clearing. The sequence of selections is made so as to minimise the risk of wildfires. This is achieved by ensuring that after treatment the burn units remaining with high fuel loads are as fragmented as possible.
On the other hand we also want to take into account the species that might live in the landscape. As species have preferences for vegetation of a certain age, we assign a quality to each burn unit according to its area and the relative abundance of species supported by vegetation of that age. We can then only select a burn unit for treatment if the habitat quality of its neighbours is at least as high as the habitat quality of the burn unit itself. This way, we take into account the habitat needs of the species, although we realize that individuals might have to migrate from time to time.
Further constraints included in the model relate to the vegetation. To sustain the vegetation and associated ecosystem, fire should not occur more frequently than its ‘minimum tolerable fire interval’. On the other hand, for fire-dependent species the ‘maximum tolerable fire interval’ is also 3
For our analysis we implement the developed Mixed Integer Linear Programming model on 23 randomly generated landscapes (one instance is shown in Figure 1). Each of the landscapes has 45 burn units. We perform experiments with a treatment level of 7 percent of the total area of the landscape each year. The simulations are then solved for a planning period of 20 years, with a rolling horizon of 12 years.
The solver we use is Gurobi 7.5 with the Julia 0.6.0.1 programming language using JuMP modeller. We solve the 23 randomly generated scenarios with the rolling horizon approach (with a 12-year window) to optimality. The mean fire risk and global habitat value are shown in Figure 2.
Our objective is to get an overall minimum in the weighted connections between high-risk burn units. We see that the initial risk is quickly brought close to 0, while maintaining habitat of good quality (both local and global). For the landscape previously shown on Figure 1 we now show the initial conditions (random ages) and the solution after 3 and 19 years (Figures 3, 4 and 5). 4.1
If the rolling horizon window is too short results may be unsatisfactory. We demonstrate this fact comparing the results obtained with a rolling horizon of 12 years versus the ones in which the 40 20 0 0
rolling horizon is set up to be just two years, in both cases using the model is run without habitat constraints.
Out of the 23 scenarios three of them turned to be infeasible when solved with the myopic approach. Units have to burnt if their age will exceed the parameter maxT F I, but the myopic approach has led in some scenarios to situations in which the amount to be burnt on one year is higher than that allowed by the budget
16 17 18 19 20 On some situations it might seem unrealistic to allow a fuel management schedule that improves habitat quality while increasing the fire risk. For that purpose we have also shown that a lexicographical approach can also be used to get a good solution in terms of habitat value without increasing fire risk. 4.3
Finally we aim to show how our model can easily reflect different neighbourhood definitions. For example a landscape could be located in some place where wind primarily blows in one direction, and hence fire propagation would occur mainly in that direction. If that were the case our model could easily reflect that information by just changing a neighbourhood matrix (in the model formulation the neighbourhood information is given by the set Φi). An example of this alternative way of defining neighbours is shown in Figure 6. Another example where fire propagation might occur mainly in one direction (and thus neighbourhoods defined in a similar way) is if the landscape has a high slope and fires are primarily topographical.
With the neighbours defined as given by Figure 6 we solve the lexicographical model explained on the previous section (minimize high fuel load connectivity through all planning horizon and then maximize habitat value without increasing fire risk), and using the same parameters. Figure 7 shows the state of the landscape n the last year of the planning period. It can be seen that the model makes use of the new definition of neighbours, as fuel load is accumulated in burn units that are geographically adjacent but were not defined as neighbours, and thus they do not pose a high fire risk.
We presented a mixed integer programming model for a landscape divided into polygons representing realistic treatement units. The model aims to reduce the adjacency of high fuel load areas. We show that adopting a medium-term approach to fuel reduction using our model yields is much more effective than adopting a myopic approach. In this latter case it frequently arises that fuel reduction targets cannot be met within budget constraints.
There are ecological consequences from prescribed burning. We considered habitat quality for invertebrates on a heathland landscape. We showed that a significant range of habitat quality outcomes can be obtained without compromising the optimal fuel load goal. It is sensible therefore for habitat considerations to be included in fuel reduction plans. We show that this can be achieved for invertebrates by requiring the habitat quality in the neighbourhood of a planned burn be at least as good as the habitat quality of the area to be burnt. We also take into account landscape-level habitat quality. This consideration of local and global habitat differs from previous work. We also imposed some ecological requirements in the form of minimum and maximum tolerable fire intervals for the vegetation.
For any particular landscape, factors such as topology and prevailing winds will determine connectnedness between high fuel load areas. We have illustrated that this can be handled with a redefinition of the neighbourhood of each treatment unit. In fact where fire spread is predominantly in certain directions geographically adjacent treatment units might not be in the same neighbourhood from a fuel connectedness perspective. This creates opportunities for maintaining habitat quality for species requiring older vegetation without compromising fuel reduction plans. [1] James K Agee and Carl N Skinner, Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments, Forest ecology and management 211 (2005), no. 1, 83–96. [2] Fermín J. Alcasena, Alan A. Ager, Michele Salis, Michelle A. Day, and Cristina Vega-Garcia, Optimizing prescribed fire allocation for managing fire risk in central catalonia, Science of The Total Environment 621 (2018), 872 – 885. [3] Matthias M Boer, Rohan J Sadler, Roy S Wittkuhn, Lachlan McCaw, and Pauline F Grierson, Long-term impacts of prescribed burning on regional extent and incidence of wildfires-evidence from 50 years of active fire management in SW Australian forests, Forest Ecology and Management 259 (2009), no. 1, 132–142. [4] ND Burrows, Linking fire ecology and fire management in south-west Australian forest landscapes, Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008), no. 7, 2394–2406. [5] Henry Carey and Martha Schumann, Modifying wildfire behavior-the effectiveness of fuel treatments, The Forest Trust (2003), 16. [6] Woodam Chung, Optimizing fuel treatments to reduce wildland fire risk, Current Forestry
Reports 1 (2015), no. 1, 44–51. [7] Paulo M Fernandes and Hermínio S Botelho, A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction, International Journal of wildland fire 12 (2003), no. 2, 117–128. [8] Mark A Finney, Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior, Forest Science 47 (2001), no. 2, 219–228. [9]
, A computational method for optimising fuel treatment locations, International Journal of Wildland Fire 16 (2008), no. 6, 702–711.