Assessing post-fire values-at-risk with a new calculation tool
Open accessAbstract
Wildfire effects include loss of vegetative cover and changes to soil properties that may lead to secondary effects of increased runoff, erosion, flooding, sedimentation, and vulnerability to invasive weeds.These secondary effects may threaten human life and safety, cultural and ecological resources, land use, and existing infrastructure.Current Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) assessment procedures require identification and valuation of values-at-risk (VAR) from the potential secondary effects of wildfires.However, guidelines to estimate the monetary value of these resources are limited and difficult to apply.This project examined current methods for post-fire assessment of VAR and sought methodologies to standardize and simplify the complex valuation task.A spreadsheet-based "VAR Calculation Tool" supports this valuation framework.It is expected to improve defensibility of VAR valuation and post-fire emergency treatment decisions.
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
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.
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?
Whether a constituent is deemed a contaminant depends on the ecosystem service evaluated, such as human consumption, industrial use, or aquatic ecosystem health.
“whether a constituent is deemed a contaminant depends on the ecosystem service evaluated (e.g., human consumption, industrial use, and aquatic ecosystem health; Calkin et al., 2007).”
From Assessing water contamination risk from vegetation fires: Challenges, opportunities and a framework for progress (2018) · cites this paper as Calkin et al., 2007
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
Pigou, A. C., & Aslanbeigui, N. (1933) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2224491 · Cited by 5,142 · see citing works
The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire
Finney, M. A. (2005) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.010 · Cited by 451 · see citing works
Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treatments
Robichaud, P. R., Beyers, J. L., & Neary, D. G. (2000) · doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-63 · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Self-citationRosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2001) · doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-72 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Level I Stability Analysis (LISA) documentation for version 2.0
Hammond, C. L., Hall, D. H., Miller, S. M., et al. (1992) · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) user manual (version 2006.01.18)
Robichaud, P. R., Elliot, W. J., Pierson, F. B., et al. (2007) · doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-188 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationErosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT)
Robichaud, P. R. (2008) · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationVenn, T. J., & Calkin, D. E. (2007) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Chapter 2523 -Watershed protection and management. In: Forest Service Manual. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
- In: Harrison, S.R., Bosch, A. and Herbohn, J.L. (eds.), Improving the Triple Bottom Line Returns from Small-scale Forestry. Proceedings from IUFRO Working Groups 3.08 Small- scale Forestry and 6.11.02 Forestry and Rural Development in Industrialized Countries, 17 to 21 June 2007, Ormoc City, the Philippines, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 383-396.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nunes, J. P., Doerr, S. H., Sheridan, G., Neris, J., Santín, C., Emelko, M. B., Silins, U., Robichaud, P. R., Elliot, W. J., & Keizer, J. (2018) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.11434 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Self-citationWilliams, C. J., Pierson, F. B., Robichaud, P. R., & Boll, J. (2014) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf12161 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Self-citationProbabilistic assessment of wildfire hazard and municipal watershed exposure
Scott, J., Helmbrecht, D., Thompson, M. P., Calkin, D. E., & Marcille, K. (2012) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0265-7 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Calkin, D. E., Hyde, K. D., Robichaud, P. R., Jones, J. G., Ashmun, L. E., & Dan, L.
- Affiliations
- US Forest Service (US)
- Published
- 2007
- OpenAlex
- W3127067831
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Joint Fire Science Program
- U.S. Forest Service
- Rocky Mountain Research Station
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Keywords
- post-fire assessment, soil erosion, sedimentation, invasive weeds, runoff
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
