Cited by 97Fire effects on ecosystemsForest Management and PolicyRangeland and Wildlife Management

Factors influencing large wildland fire suppression expenditures

Liang, Jingjing, Calkin, Dave E., Gebert, Krista M., Venn, Tyron J., Silverstein, Robin P.·2008·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

There is an urgent and immediate need to address the excessive cost of large fires. Here, we studied large wildland fire suppression expenditures by the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Among 16 potential non-managerial factors, which represented fire size and shape, private properties, public land attributes, forest and fuel conditions, and geographic settings, we found only fire size and private land had a strong effect on suppression expenditures. When both were accounted for, all the other variables had no significant effect. A parsimonious model to predict suppression expenditures was suggested, in which fire size and private land explained 58% of variation in expenditures. Other things being equal, suppression expenditures monotonically increased with fire size. For the average fire size, expenditures first increased with the percentage of private land within burned area, but as the percentage exceeded 20%, expenditures slowly declined until they stabilised when private land reached 50% of burned area. The results suggested that efforts to contain federal suppression expenditures need to focus on the highly complex, politically sensitive topic of wildfires on private land.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf07010

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Despite vigorous fire suppression near human communities, the number of homes destroyed by wildfire continues on an upward trend.

    “Despite the vigorous fire suppression near human communities (Gebert et al. 2007;Liang et al. 2008;Gude et al. 2013) the number of homes destroyed by wildfire continues on an upward trend.”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Liang et al. 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liang, J., Calkin, D. E., Gebert, K. M., Venn, T. J., & Silverstein, R. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Alaska Fairbanks (US)
  • BUSDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 800 East Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT 59801, USA.
  • University of Montana (US)
Corresponding author
Liang, Jingjing
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2008-10-03
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
650-659
ISSN
  • 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5516
OpenAlex
W2149913718
Cited by
97
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
wildfire suppression, fire size, private land ownership, U.S. Forest Service, burned area, fuel conditions

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