IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i4p1569-d1338181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison between Post-Fire Analysis and Pre-Fire Risk Assessment According to Various Geospatial Data

Author

Listed:
  • Cumhur Güngöroğlu

    (Faculty of Forestry, Karabük University, Karabük 78050, Türkiye)

  • İrem İsmailoğlu

    (Center for Satellite Communications and Remote Sensing, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Türkiye)

  • Bekir Kapukaya

    (Center for Satellite Communications and Remote Sensing, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Türkiye)

  • Orkan Özcan

    (Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences, Istanbul Technical University, İstanbul 34469, Türkiye)

  • Mustafa Yanalak

    (Department of Geomatics Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, İstanbul 34469, Türkiye)

  • Nebiye Musaoğlu

    (Department of Geomatics Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, İstanbul 34469, Türkiye)

Abstract

Wildfires in forest ecosystems exert substantial ecological, economic, and social impacts. The effectiveness of fire management hinges on precise pre-fire risk assessments to inform mitigation efforts. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between predictions from pre-fire risk assessments and outcomes observed through post-fire burn severity analyses. In this study, forest fire risk was assessed through the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP), in which fire-oriented factors were used as input. The degree of burn was determined by the Random Forest method using 11,519 training points and 400 test points on Sentinel-2 satellite images under three different classes. According to the results obtained from 266 selected test points located within the forest, all primary factors put forth increased high burn severity. Climate, in particular, emerged as the most significant factor, accounting for 52% of the overall impact. However, in cases of high fire severity, climate proved to be the most effective risk factor, accounting for 67%. This was followed by topography with 50% accuracy at a high fire intensity. In the risk assessment based on the FAHP method, climate was assigned the highest weight value among the other factors (32.2%), followed by topography (27%). To evaluate the results more comprehensively, both visually and statistically, two regions with different stand canopy characteristics were selected within the study area. While high burn severity had the highest accuracy in the Case 1 area, moderate burn severity had the highest in the Case 2 area. During the days of the fire, the direction of spreading was obtained from the MODIS images. In this way, the fire severity was also interpreted depending on the direction of fire progression. Through an analysis of various case studies and literature, this research underlines both the inherent strengths and limitations of predicting forest fire behavior-based pre-fire risk assessments. Furthermore, it emphasizes the necessity of continuous improvement to increase the success of forest fire management.

Suggested Citation

  • Cumhur Güngöroğlu & İrem İsmailoğlu & Bekir Kapukaya & Orkan Özcan & Mustafa Yanalak & Nebiye Musaoğlu, 2024. "Comparison between Post-Fire Analysis and Pre-Fire Risk Assessment According to Various Geospatial Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:4:p:1569-:d:1338181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/4/1569/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/4/1569/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Santos Daniel Chicas & Jonas Østergaard Nielsen, 2022. "Who are the actors and what are the factors that are used in models to map forest fire susceptibility? A systematic review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(3), pages 2417-2434, December.
    2. Kahraman, Cengiz & Ertay, Tijen & Buyukozkan, Gulcin, 2006. "A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(2), pages 390-411, June.
    3. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    2. Harsha Cheemakurthy & Karl Garme, 2022. "Fuzzy AHP-Based Design Performance Index for Evaluation of Ferries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, March.
    3. Pacheco, Ricardo Rodrigues & Fernandes, Elton & Domingos, Eduardo Marques, 2014. "Airport airside safety index," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 86-92.
    4. Jianghong Feng, 2022. "An integrated multi-criteria decision-making method for hazardous waste disposal site selection," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8039-8070, June.
    5. Pasura Aungkulanon & Walailak Atthirawong & Woranat Sangmanee & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon, 2023. "Fuzzy Techniques and Adjusted Mixture Design-Based Scenario Analysis in the CLMV (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam) Subregion for Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the Apparel Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-32, November.
    6. Chen-Hui Chou & Gin-Shuh Liang & Hung-Chung Chang, 2013. "A fuzzy AHP approach based on the concept of possibility extent," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-14, January.
    7. Pınar Kaya Samut, 2017. "Integrated FANP-f-MIGP model for supplier selection in the renewable energy sector," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 427-450, May.
    8. Chunsheng Wu & Gaohuan Liu & Chong Huang & Qingsheng Liu & Xudong Guan, 2018. "Ecological Vulnerability Assessment Based on Fuzzy Analytical Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process in Yellow River Delta," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, April.
    9. Ozalp Vayvay & Yigit Ozcan & Maria Manuela Cruz-Cunha, 2012. "ERP consultant selection problem using AHP, fuzzy AHP and ANP: A case study in Turkey," E3 Journal of Business Management and Economics., E3 Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 106-117.
    10. Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh & Ahmadi, Hossein & Ahani, Ali & Ravangard, Ramin & Ibrahim, Othman bin, 2016. "Determining the importance of Hospital Information System adoption factors using Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (ANP)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 244-264.
    11. Toni Lupo & Seyyed Ali Delbari, 2018. "A knowledge-based exploratory framework to study quality of Italian mobile telecommunication services," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 129-144, May.
    12. Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader & Tarek Zayed & Hassan El Fathali & Ghasan Alfalah & Abobakr Al-Sakkaf & Osama Moselhi, 2023. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for the Assessment of Public Private Partnerships in Transportation Projects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-41, August.
    13. Chatterjee, Kajal & Bandyopadhyay, Abhirup & Ghosh, Amitava & Kar, Samarjit, 2015. "Assessment of environmental factors causing wetland degradation, using Fuzzy Analytic Network Process: A case study on Keoladeo National Park, India," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 1-13.
    14. Yang Liu & Xiaoxue Ma & Weiliang Qiao & Huiwen Luo & Peilong He, 2021. "Human Factor Risk Modeling for Shipyard Operation by Mapping Fuzzy Fault Tree into Bayesian Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-31, December.
    15. Benyou Jia & Slobodan P. Simonovic & Pingan Zhong & Zhongbo Yu, 2016. "A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation Operations of Multi-Reservoir System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3363-3387, August.
    16. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.
    17. Juan Carlos Martín & Veronika Rudchenko & María-Victoria Sánchez-Rebull, 2020. "The Role of Nationality and Hotel Class on Guests’ Satisfaction. A Fuzzy-TOPSIS Approach Applied in Saint Petersburg," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-24, September.
    18. Iranmanesh, Hossein & Thomson, Vince, 2008. "Competitive advantage by adjusting design characteristics to satisfy cost targets," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 64-71, September.
    19. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    20. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:4:p:1569-:d:1338181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.