Live trial performance of the Australian Fire Danger Rating System - Research Prototype

被引:4
|
作者
Grootemaat, S. [1 ,3 ]
Matthews, S. [1 ,4 ]
Kenny, B. J. [1 ,5 ]
Runcie, J. W. [1 ]
Hollis, J. J. [1 ,6 ]
Sauvage, S. [2 ]
Fox-Hughes, P. [2 ]
Holmes, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] New South Wales Rural Fire Serv, 4 Murray Rose Ave, Sydney Olymp Pk, NSW 2127, Australia
[2] Bur Meteorol, Res Program, 7-111 Macquarie St, Hobart, Tas 7000, Australia
[3] NSW Natl Pk & Wildlife Serv, 4PS,12 Darcy St, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia
[4] Nova Syst, 100 William St, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011, Australia
[5] Nat Conservat Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
[6] Dept Biodivers Conservat & Attract, Brain St, Manjimup, WA 6258, Australia
关键词
bushfire risk; fire behaviour; fire behaviour models; fire danger forecast; fire management; forecast system; fuel types; system evaluation; INITIAL-ATTACK; EXPERT-JUDGMENT; MODEL; PRODUCTIVITY; SUPPRESSION; INTEGRATION; VARIABLES; BEHAVIOR; INDEXES; FOREST;
D O I
10.1071/WF23143
中图分类号
S7 [林业];
学科分类号
0829 ; 0907 ;
摘要
Background. The Australian Fire Danger Rating System program (AFDRS) has built a new fire danger rating system for Australia. A live trial of the system's Research Prototype (AFDRSRP), based on fire behaviour thresholds, was run and evaluated between October 2017 and March 2018. Aims. Live trial results are critically analysed, and knowledge gaps and recommendations for future work discussed. Methods. Australian bushfire experts assessed wildfires and prescribed burns across a range of vegetation types and weather conditions. Forecast fire danger ratings calculated using: (1) AFDRSRP; and (2) Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) and Grassland Fire Danger Index (GFDI) were compared against ratings derived by expert opinion for each evaluation fire (n = 336). Key results. Overall performance of AFDRSRP was superior to the FFDI/GFDI system (56 vs 43% correct), with a tendency to over-predict rather than under-predict fire potential. AFDRSRP also demonstrated its value to assess fire danger in fuel types not conforming to current grassland or forest models; e.g. for fuels that were grouped to use mallee-heath, spinifex and shrubland fire spread models. Conclusions. The AFDRSRP live trial was successful, outperforming the existing operational fire danger system. Implications Identified improvements would further enhance AFDRSRP performance, ensuring readiness for operational implementation.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Using the Oklahoma Mesonet in developing a near-real-time, next-generation fire danger rating system
    Carlson, JD
    Burgan, RE
    Engle, DM
    22ND CONFERENCE ON AGRICULTURAL & FOREST METEOROLOGY WITH SYMPOSIUM ON FIRE & FOREST METEOROLOGY/12TH CONFERENCE ON BIOMETEOROLOGY & AEROBIOLOGY, 1996, : 249 - 252
  • [42] THE AUSTRALIAN SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH BIOBANK (ASRB): IT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF A LIVE E-RESEARCH SYSTEM
    Henskens, Frans
    Paul, David
    Loughland, Carmel
    Bridge, Jason
    McCabe, Kathryn
    Catts, Stanley
    Jablensky, Assen
    Michie, Patricia
    Mowry, Bryan
    Pantelis, Christos
    Schal, Ulrich
    Tooney, Paul
    Duffy, Liesl
    Carr, Vaughan
    SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH, 2012, 136 : S250 - S250
  • [43] Preliminary study on the validation of ECMWF with the ground-based data for the Indonesia Fire Danger Rating System (Ina-FDRS)
    Sulistyowati, Reni
    Meliani, Fanny
    Frederik, Marina C. G.
    Amaliyah, Rizki
    Permata, Zilda Dona Okta
    Purwandani, Andri
    Sumargana, Lena
    Sadmono, Heri
    2021 IEEE ASIA-PACIFIC CONFERENCE ON GEOSCIENCE, ELECTRONICS AND REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY (AGERS-2021), 2021, : 109 - 114
  • [44] A case-study of wildland fire management knowledge exchange: the barriers and facilitators in the development and integration of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in Ontario, Canada
    McFayden, Colin B.
    George, Colleen
    Johnston, Lynn M.
    Wotton, Mike
    Johnston, Daniel
    Sloane, Meghan
    Johnston, Joshua M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, 2022, 31 (09) : 835 - 846
  • [45] Estimating Spatially Varying Severity Thresholds of a Forest Fire Danger Rating System Using Max-Stable Extreme-Event Modeling
    Stephenson, Alec G.
    Shaby, Benjamin A.
    Reich, Brian J.
    Sullivan, Andrew L.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY, 2015, 54 (02) : 395 - 407
  • [46] Rapid prototype of a portable long-term live-cell imaging system for biomedical research and education
    Mofrad, S. Abolpour
    Walzik, M.
    Volmar, V.
    Lachnit, T.
    Bachmann, H.
    Aschenbrenner, D.
    Friedrich, O.
    Gilbert, D.
    ACTA PHYSIOLOGICA, 2014, 210 : 184 - 184
  • [47] ERP System Implementation and Sustainability Performance Rating and Reputation Emergent Research Forum (ERF)
    Simmonds, Daphne
    Tadesse, Amanuel Fekade
    Murthy, Uday
    AMCIS 2018 PROCEEDINGS, 2018,
  • [48] Optical Coherence Tomography Applications for Dental Diagnostic Imaging: Prototype System Performance and Preclinical Trial
    Choi, Eun Seo
    Yi, Won-Jin
    Kim, Chang-Seok
    Song, Woosub
    Lee, Byeong-il
    CURRENT OPTICS AND PHOTONICS, 2023, 7 (03) : 283 - 296
  • [49] Application of the Nelson model to four timelag fuel classes using Oklahoma field observations: model evaluation and comparison with National Fire Danger Rating System algorithms
    Carlson, J. D.
    Bradshaw, Larry S.
    Nelson, Ralph M., Jr.
    Bensch, Randall R.
    Jabrzemski, Rafal
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, 2007, 16 (02) : 204 - 216
  • [50] Optimization and integration of high-performance ground penetrating imaging radar system: A research prototype
    Lee, M
    Ono, S
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMAGING SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY, 2005, 15 (04) : 220 - 223