Modeling the potential hazard of wildfires under the influence of climatic, vegetative and anthropogenic factors in the Andean and Amazonian regions of Peru

Ccanchi, Yerson; Zubieta, Ricardo; Prado, Josep; Sinticala, Jose

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-1902

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1902

Preprints

14 Apr 2026

| 14 Apr 2026

Modeling the potential hazard of wildfires under the influence of climatic, vegetative and anthropogenic factors in the Andean and Amazonian regions of Peru

Yerson Ccanchi, Ricardo Zubieta, Josep Prado, and Jose Sinticala

Abstract. Wildfires and their associated impacts have increased significantly over the past two decades, heightening the risk to human life and causing substantial damage to forest ecosystems in the Amazon and Andean regions. To mitigate these impacts, the assessment of both seasonal and intra-seasonal wildfire hazard is of critical importance. The availability of satellite data, together with the implementation of regional wildfire early warning systems based on hazard indices, represents a key component in reducing wildfire risk. This study aims to develop a new short-term wildfire hazard model based on both observational and satellite-derived datasets, including data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM). The proposed Wildfire Hazard Index (WHI) is derived from Dry-Day Frequency (DDF), the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), cultivated area (CA), and forest fuel (FF). A wildfire hazard classification scheme (extreme, very high, high, moderate, and low) is introduced to generate hazard maps. The results indicate that DDF, NDVI, CA, and FF are key variables for analyzing the spatial and temporal variability of wildfire hazard. Lower WHI values correspond to lower wildfire hazard, and vice versa. The findings suggest that the model adequately represents seasonal wildfire hazard, demonstrating consistency among WHI values, wildfire occurrence, and MODIS-derived hotspots. Overall, this study shows that the proposed method can support hazard classification and contribute to the implementation of regional wildfire early warning systems based on precipitation forecasts in the Amazon and Andean regions.

Received: 03 Apr 2026 – Discussion started: 14 Apr 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Yerson Ccanchi, Ricardo Zubieta, Josep Prado, and Jose Sinticala

Status: final response (author comments only)

AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1902', Ricardo Zubieta, 14 Apr 2026

ERRATUM

Page 17, Figure 8 :

It says:
(a) 16–23 November 2026

It should say:

(a) 16–23 November 2016

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1902-AC1
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1902', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 May 2026

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic: the assessment of wildfire hazard in the Andean and Amazonian regions of Peru, where fire activity has important ecological, social, and operational implications. The proposed Wildfire Hazard Index (WHI) has potential value for regional wildfire monitoring and early warning applications.
The study is clearly motivated and uses datasets that are broadly appropriate for this type of regional hazard assessment. The attempt to develop an interpretable index, rather than relying only on complex data-driven methods, is also a positive aspect, particularly for operational use in data-limited regions.
However, the manuscript would benefit from substantial revision before publication. In particular, the methodological choices behind the construction of the WHI, its weighting scheme, hazard classification, and validation need to be explained more clearly and justified more rigorously (I don't think “calibration” is the best word to describe what you did). I also recommend reorganizing the Results section so that the model outputs are first presented as results of the proposed WHI, followed by a separate section dedicated to model validation or evaluation. This would make the distinction between model results and model performance clearer.
Overall, the manuscript has potential and addresses an important regional gap, but its scientific robustness and presentation need to be strengthened. I’ll go over the specific comments (in the attachment). I know they might seem like a lot (or a bit long), but it’s just to explain why I think the way I do, and also to have a little “discussion” of ideas among us.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1902-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1902', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jun 2026

The manuscript addresses an important and regionally relevant topic, and the proposed WHI could be useful for wildfire hazard monitoring in the Andean and Amazonian regions of Peru. However, the Introduction, terminology, and methodology require clarification.
The Introduction provides useful background on wildfire activity, drought, vegetation conditions, and agricultural fire use, but the progression from the broad regional context to the specific research gap is not yet sufficiently sharp. The authors should state more clearly what is missing in the existing literature, why current wildfire hazard indices are insufficient or not directly transferable to the Peruvian Andean-Amazonian context, and what is novel about the proposed WHI compared with previous approaches.
The manuscript requires clearer and more consistent terminology. The authors frequently use the term “risk” throughout the manuscript, including in the abstract, but the analysis does not explicitly account for the additional components of risk beyond hazard, namely exposure and vulnerability. Therefore, the use of “risk” appears inappropriate unless these components are properly incorporated or discussed. Moreover, the term “hazard” may also be problematic in this context. In wildfire science, “fire hazard” is often associated with relatively static assessments of ignition and spread potential, fuel conditions, and potential fire behaviour. By contrast, the dynamic component of fire-prone conditions, particularly when driven by short- to medium-term environmental variability, is more commonly referred to as “fire danger.” The analysis presented by the authors seems to be more closely aligned with this latter concept (see for example the discussion at: https://jgpausas.blogs.uv.es/2017/08/05/fire-danger-fire-hazard-fire-risk/) These distinctions are important because the proposed WHI combines static and dynamic environmental variables with an anthropogenic fire-use proxy, and is validated against wildfire emergencies and MODIS hotspots, which represent observed fire activity rather than hazard or risk itself. As a result, the terminology used in the manuscript should be revised carefully. This issue appears throughout the manuscript, which is why I have not highlighted every occurrence individually. The authors should systematically review the use of terms such as “risk,” “hazard,” “danger”, ensuring that each term is used consistently and in line with the actual scope of the analysis.
In the methodological section, several aspects should be clarified in greater detail. This applies especially to some choices related to the indices, such as their rescaling to the 0-3 range and the thresholds used to assign values within this range. Although these choices may be plausible, they should be better justified and, where relevant, explicitly related to the Peruvian context. This would make the methodology more robust, transparent, and potentially replicable. Similarly, the final choice of weights assigned to the different components of the index should be more clearly justified, as noted in a more specific comment. Addressing these issues would substantially improve the conceptual clarity, reproducibility, novelty statement, and scientific robustness of the proposed index.
I added some specific comments in the attachment.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1902-RC2

Yerson Ccanchi, Ricardo Zubieta, Josep Prado, and Jose Sinticala

Viewed

Total article views: 389 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
296	71	22	389	26	24

HTML: 296
PDF: 71
XML: 22
Total: 389
BibTeX: 26
EndNote: 24

Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Apr 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2026	172	49	17	238
May 2026	100	17	1	118
Jun 2026	24	5	4	33

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Apr 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2026	172	49	17	238
May 2026	100	17	1	118
Jun 2026	24	5	4	33

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 385 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 385 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 20 Jun 2026

Short summary

Wildfires and their associated impacts have increased significantly over the past two decades. To mitigate these impacts, the assessment of both seasonal and intra-seasonal wildfire hazard is of critical importance. In this study, a wildfire hazard index (WHI) is proposed. The results demonstrate consistency between the WHI and fire activity. The analysis further suggests that the model adequately captures the seasonal variability of wildfire hazard.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0