Cited by 529Disaster Management and ResilienceFire effects on ecosystemsRangeland and Wildlife Management

How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface

Open access
Calkin, David E., Cohen, Jack D., Finney, Mark A., Thompson, Matthew P.·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Recent wildfire events throughout the world have highlighted the consequences of residential development in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) including hundreds to thousands of homes burned during a single wildfire to, more tragically, firefighter and homeowner fatalities. Despite substantial investments in modifying wildland fuels near populated areas, losses appear to be increasing. In this article, we examine the conditions under which WUI wildfire disasters occur and introduce a wildfire risk assessment framework. By using this framework, we examine how prefire mitigation activities failed to prevent significant structure loss during the Fourmile Canyon fire outside Boulder, CO. In light of these results, we suggest the need to reevaluate and restructure wildfire mitigation programs aimed at reducing residential losses from wildfire.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1315088111

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Highly damaging wildfires such as the Waldo Canyon, Fourmile, and Black Forest Fires occur during the 2 percent of events where suppression is not effective.

    “Highly damaging wildfires such as the Waldo Canyon, Fourmile, and Black Forest Fires occur during the 2 percent of events where suppression is not effective (Calkin et al. 2014).”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Calkin et al. 2014

    The Significance section says suppression is effective 95%–98% of the time and that fires escaping suppression can become disastrous; this implies a 2%–5% range, not exactly 2%. The Fourmile Canyon case study describes a highly damaging fire that overwhelmed protection efforts, but the cited passages do not establish the same point for the named Waldo Canyon and Black Forest fires. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The WUI fire loss issue has been described as a home ignition problem more so than a wildland fire problem.

    “the WUI fire loss issue has been described as home ignition problem more so than a wildland fire problem (Cohen 2000; Calkin et al. 2014).”
  • Failure to consider the conditions under which loss occurs may limit the effectiveness of investments in reducing residential property loss.

    “Although wildfire risk reduction near the WUI has been targeted by public land management agencies, failure to consider the conditions under which loss occurs may limit the effectiveness of these investments in reducing residential property loss (Calkin et al. 2014).”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Calkin et al. 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Haldane M (2013) Insurers, government grapple with costs of growth in wildland- urban interface. Insurance Journal. Available at www.insurancejournal.com/news/ national/2013/08/15/301833.htm. Accessed November 13, 2013.
  2. Menakis JP, Cohen J, Bradshaw L (2003) Mapping wildland fire risk to flammable structures for the conterminous United States. Proceedings of Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management (Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL), Miscellaneous Publication No. 13, pp 41-49.
  3. Finney M, Cohen J (2003) Expectation and evaluation of fuel management objectives in Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P 29 (US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO), pp 353-366.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Calkin, D. E., Cohen, J. D., Finney, M. A., & Thompson, M. P.
Affiliations
US Forest Service (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-12-16
Volume
111
Issue
2
Pages
746-751
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2043387767
Cited by
529
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
59.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
wildfire risk management, wildland-urban interface, risk analysis, land management, first responders, western United States wildfires
MeSH terms
Cities, Colorado, Disaster Planning, Fires, Models, Theoretical, Risk Management, Wilderness

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