Wildfires pose a large and growing threat to communities across California, and understanding fire vulnerability and impacts can enable more effective risk management. Government hazard maps are often used to identify at-risk areas, but hazard zones and fire experience may have different implications for communities.
Wildfires in the western United States (US) are increasingly expensive, destructive, and deadly. Reducing wildfire losses is particularly challenging when fires frequently start on one land tenure and damage natural or developed assets on other ownerships.
Extreme wildfires extensively impact human health and the environment. Increasing vapour pressure deficit (VPD) has led to a chronic increase in wildfire area in the western United States, yet some regions have been more affected than others.
Purpose The way that disasters are managed, or indeed mis-managed, is often represented diagrammatically as a “disaster cycle”.
Wildfire is an annual threat for many rural communities in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. In some severe events, evacuation is one potential course of action to gain safety from an advancing wildfire.
In 1994, a large-tree harvest standard known as the “21-inch rule” was appliedto land and resource management plans of national forests in eastern Oregon andWashington (hereafter, the “east side”) to halt the loss of large, old, live, and deadtrees and old forest patches.
People living in the Pacific Northwest confrontrisks associated with environmentalhazards such as wildfire. Vulnerability towildfire hazard is commonly recognized as beingspatially distributed according to geographic conditionsthat collectively determine the probabilityof exposure.
The overall objective of this paper is to clarify areas of debate, clearly define and contrast disparate approaches, and synthesize findings that may help address vulnerability to wildfires and other natural hazards.
In the context of ongoing climatic warming, forest landscapes face increasing risk of conversion to non‐forest vegetation through alteration of their fire regimes and their post‐fire recovery dynamics. However, this pressure could be amplified or dampened, depending on how fire‐driven changes to vegetation feed back to alter the extent or behaviour of subsequent fires.