Cited by 22Fire effects on ecosystemsFire Detection and Safety SystemsFire dynamics and safety research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modeling fire danger in data-poor regions: a case study from the Russian Far East

Loboda, Tatiana V.·2009·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

Wildland fire is a widespread phenomenon that affects how many ecosystems function and often threatens human life and property. Development of fire danger rating systems, aimed at identifying critical periods of high fire danger at early stages of its occurrence, is an important step for proactive fire and resource management. Development of such systems relies on long-term records of fire occurrence as well as numerous data sources for supporting information, but accurate and spatially explicit information is not available in many regions of the world affected by fire. Global satellite systems are becoming a major source of information for data-poor regions. The present paper describes a framework for modeling fire danger at a regional scale using publicly available data sources and global satellite imaging. It details a fuzzy logic-driven fire danger model developed for the Russian Far East using remotely sensed data. Fire activity recorded by the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) active fire product was analyzed for 2001–05 as a function of various parameters. Model performance was evaluated against 2006 data. Fire danger was evaluated within the model using the ordered weighted averaging approach with fuzzification. The model produces three scenarios. All output model scenarios provide a meaningful representation of fire danger levels in the region with the ‘trade-off’ scenario being the most applicable to mapping fire danger during low fire activity seasons.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf07094

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 22

Metadata

Authors
Loboda, T. V.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Corresponding author
Loboda, Tatiana V.
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2009-02-17
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
19-35
ISSN
  • 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5516
OpenAlex
W2074379783
Cited by
22
References
2
Citations by year
2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
Funders
Panthera
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Fire Detection and Safety Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Fire dynamics and safety research
Keywords
fire danger rating, forest fires, fuzzy logic, satellite remote sensing, ordered weighted averaging, fuzzification, fire danger mapping, data-scarce regions, Russian Far East, fire management

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