the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessing human-caused wildfire ignition likelihood across Europe
Abstract. This study features a cohesive modelling approach of human-caused wildfire ignitions applied to a set of representative regions in terms of fire activity across Europe (pilot sites, PS). Our main goal was to develop a common approach to model human-caused ignition probability at a fine-grained spatial resolution (100 m) and identify the main drivers of their emerge. Specifically, we (i) ascertain which factors influence ignitions in each PS; (ii) deliver a spatial-explicit representation of ignition probability, and (iii) provide a framework for comparison with regional-scale models among PS. To do so, we calibrated Random Forest models from historical fire records compiled by local fire agencies, and geospatial layers of land cover, accessibility, population density and dead fine-fuel moisture content (DFMC). Models were built individually for each PS, comparing them with a full model constructed from all PS. Furthermore, special attention was given to the effect of spatial autocorrelation in model performance. All models achieved sufficient predictive performance (AUCs from 0.70 to 0.89). For all PS models, the yearly anomaly in DFMC was the most influential variable. Among human-related factors, distance to the Wildland Urban Interface emerged as the most relevant variable, followed by proximity to roads, population density, and the fraction of wildland coverage. The performance of the full model achieved an AUC value of 0.81, with mean DFMC and anomaly being the main ignition factors, modulated by distance to roads and population density. The local performance of the full model dropped by 0.10 for AUC in both Southern Sweden and Attica (Greece) regions. The wildfire occurrence models developed in this study are essential for understanding wildfire ignition hazard and may help implement integrated wildfire risk management strategies and mitigation policies in fire-prone EU landscapes.
- Preprint
(1123 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-143', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Mar 2025
reply
Overall
The paper presents a spatially explicit modeling approach for human-caused wildfire ignitions across various European regions. The study applies machine learning techniques, specifically Random Forest models, to analyze historical fire records and environmental variables such as land cover, population density, accessibility, and dead fine-fuel moisture content (DFMC). The results highlight that the most influential variables in predicting ignition probability are DFMC anomalies, proximity to the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and road accessibility.
The study emphasizes the role of anthropogenic factors in fire ignition and provides valuable insights into human-caused wildfire ignitions. However, it faces challenges related to model generalizability, temporal dynamics, and policy application.
Major comments
- One major comment regarding this paper is that a big portion of the core of this study has been already published as a conference paper https://doi.org/10.23919/SpliTech58164.2023.10193249 with a high degree of overlap in content, methodology, and key findings of the current article under review. Here it seems that there is an extended and refined version of the previously published material, thus I leave it up to the editors to make a decision about that.
- Although the study acknowledges spatial autocorrelation effects, does not fully resolve them, leading to reduced model performance in regions with fewer fire records (e.g., Attica). This undermines the reliability of the model when applied to areas with limited historical data, reducing its effectiveness for wildfire prediction.
- In this study the authors develop separate models for different pilot sites and then compare them to a full model. While this approach helps capture local variations, it may lead to overfitting within specific regions, limiting the model’s ability to generalize ignition likelihood across broader areas. Although the authors discuss some of these aspects (e.g., Section 4) they could provide a more detailed discussion and clearly state all the limitations of their approach.
- For further improvement: Although the authors state some of these issues in Section 4.4, their study focuses on static environmental and anthropogenic variables but does not incorporate seasonal or real-time human activity variations (e.g., increased tourism in summer, agricultural burning periods). Since human behavior significantly influences fire ignition, integrating temporal dynamics would improve model accuracy.
- Although the temporal coverage is short in most areas, did the authors consider any temporal trends in DFMC?Minor comments
- Line 28: AUC abbreviation is not introduced earlier.
- Line 105: Needs to be revised-error message.
- Line 115: Maybe “seasonal” instead of “annual”?
- Lines: 104-116: Some references to the related statements are necessary here.
- Lines 128-132: The native resolution of the fuel type is missing here.
- Lines 183-185: Could the authors be more specific about the terms reclassifying and merging? Does this also involve any regrid method and if yes, which one?
- Line 191-194: Is this daily-mean or daily-max DFMC? Could you please clarify what do you mean by aggregating daily values to annual products? Furthermore, could the authors specify the time scale of the 5th percentile and the anomalies? Are these multi-year daily climatological values or something else?
- Lines 239-240: Needs to be revised-error message.
- Line 258: needs to be revised.
- Lines 259-276: Could authors provide some further explanation for the limited importance of DFMC in PS4 and especially in PS5? Is this related only to the more frequent low DFMC conditions compared to the northern sites?
- Could the authors provide some explanation for the limited role of fuel type as a predictor? The study finds that fuel type is not a significant factor in human-caused ignitions, which contradicts existing research. This could indicate potential data quality issues or model design limitations. A sensitivity analysis on fuel-related variables would clarify this discrepancy.
- The study uses multiple terms for similar human-related ignition factors (e.g., "human pressure on wildlands," "accessibility," "population influence"). Standardizing terminology throughout the paper would improve clarity and coherence.
- Figures illustrating ignition probability (Fig. 4) distributions lack sufficient annotation or explanation (e.g., annotations of subfigures). Enhancing the clarity of these visuals would make the findings more accessible. Furthermore, the colobar for the probabilities could be revised to better communicate the results.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-143-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
139 | 47 | 6 | 192 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 139
- PDF: 47
- XML: 6
- Total: 192
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 57 | 27 |
Spain | 2 | 21 | 10 |
China | 3 | 11 | 5 |
France | 4 | 8 | 3 |
Greece | 5 | 8 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 57