The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Science, technology, and human factors in fire danger rating: the Canadian experience.
Open accessAbstract
The present paper reviews the development of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS) and its implementation in Canada and elsewhere, and suggests how this experience can be applied in developing fire danger rating systems in other forest or wildland environments. Experience with the CFFDRS suggests that four key scientific, technological, and human elements need to be developed and integrated in a national forest fire danger rating system. First among these is a sustained program of scientific research to develop a system based on relationships between fire weather, fuels, and topography, and fire occurrence, behavior, and impact appropriate to the fire environment. Development of a reliable technical infrastructure to gather, process, and archive fire weather data and to disseminate fire weather forecasts, fire danger information, and fire behavior predictions within operational agencies is also important. Technology transfer and training in the use of fire danger information in fire operations are necessary, as are cooperation and communication between fire management agencies to share resources and set common standards for information, resources, and training. These elements must be appropriate to the needs and capabilities of fire managers, and must evolve as fire management objectives change. Fire danger systems are a form of media; system developers should be careful not to overemphasize scientific and technological elements at the expense of human and institutional factors. Effective fire danger systems are readily assimilated by and influence the organizational culture, which in turn influences the development of new technologies. Most importantly, common vision and a sense of common cause among fire scientists and fire managers are needed for successful implementation of a fire danger rating system.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
Cited by
Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 2: Empirical and quasi-empirical models
Sullivan, A. L. (2009) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf06142 · Cited by 408
Wildfire management in Canada: Review, challenges and opportunities
Tymstra, C., Stocks, B. J., Cai, X., & Flannigan, M. D. (2020) · Progress in Disaster Science · doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100045 · Cited by 312
Global patterns in the sensitivity of burned area to fire-weather: implications for climate change
Bedia, J., Herrera, S., Gutiérrez, J. M., Benali, A., Brands, S., Mota, B., & Moreno, J. M. (2015) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.09.002 · Cited by 276
Modeling fire danger in data-poor regions: a case study from the Russian Far East
Loboda, T. V. (2009) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf07094 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, S. W., & Alexander, M. E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Wildland Fire
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2006-03-06
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 121-135
- ISSN
- 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
- 1448-5516
- OpenAlex
- W2170452676
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Science, technology, and human factors in fire danger rating: the Canadian experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/wf05021
- The paper
- Taylor, S. W., & Alexander, M. E. (2006). Science, technology, and human factors in fire danger rating: the Canadian experience. International Journal of Wildland Fire. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf05021
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.