Jack D. Cohen

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

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. Recent fire seasons in the western United States are some of the most damaging and costly on record. Wildfires in the wildland-urban interface on the Colorado Front Range, resulting in thousands of homes burned and civilian fatalities, although devastating, are not without historical reference. These fires are consistent with the characteristics of large, damaging, interface fires that threaten communities across much of the western United States. Wildfires are inevitable, but the destruction of homes, ecosystems, and lives is not. We propose the principles of risk analysis to provide land management agencies, first responders, and affected communities who face the inevitability of wildfires the ability to reduce the potential for loss. Overcoming perceptions of wildland-urban interface fire disasters as a wildfire control problem rather than a home ignition problem, determined by home ignition conditions, will reduce home loss.

On the need for a theory of wildland fire spread

We explore the basis of understanding wildland fire behaviour with the intention of stimulating curiosity and promoting fundamental investigations of fire spread problems that persist even in the presence of tremendous modelling advances. Internationally, many fire models have been developed based on a variety of assumptions and expressions for the fundamental heat transfer and combustion processes. The diversity of these assumptions raises the question as to whether the absence of a sound and coherent fire spread theory is partly responsible. We explore the thesis that, without a common understanding of what processes occur and how they occur, model reliability cannot be confirmed. A theory is defined as a collection of logically connected hypotheses that provide a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality. Models implement theory for a particular purpose, including hypotheses of phenomena and practical uses, such as prediction. We emphasise the need for theory and demonstrate the difference between theory and modelling. Increasingly sophisticated fire management requires modelling capabilities well beyond the fundamental basis of current models. These capabilities can only be met with fundamental fire behaviour research. Furthermore, possibilities as well as limitations for modelling may not be known or knowable without first having the theory.

Role of buoyant flame dynamics in wildfire spread

Significance Wildfires burn millions of hectares per year on every inhabited continent, but the physical mechanism governing spread is not known. Models of wildfire spread are widely used for prediction, firefighter training, and ecological research but have assumed various formulations of known heat transfer processes (radiation and convection) absent a definitive theory of their organization. New experimental evidence reported here reveals how buoyancy generated by the fire induces vorticity and instabilities in the flame zone that control the convective heating needed to ignite fuel particles and produce spread. Large wildfires of increasing frequency and severity threaten local populations and natural resources and contribute carbon emissions into the earth-climate system. Although wildfires have been researched and modeled for decades, no verifiable physical theory of spread is available to form the basis for the precise predictions needed to manage fires more effectively and reduce their environmental, economic, ecological, and climate impacts. Here, we report new experiments conducted at multiple scales that appear to reveal how wildfire spread derives from the tight coupling between flame dynamics induced by buoyancy and fine-particle response to convection. Convective cooling of the fine-sized fuel particles in wildland vegetation is observed to efficiently offset heating by thermal radiation until convective heating by contact with flames and hot gasses occurs. The structure and intermittency of flames that ignite fuel particles were found to correlate with instabilities induced by the strong buoyancy of the flame zone itself. Discovery that ignition in wildfires is critically dependent on nonsteady flame convection governed by buoyant and inertial interaction advances both theory and the physical basis for practical modeling.

The ability of winter grazing to reduce wildfire size and fire-induced plant mortality was not demonstrated: a comment on Davies et al. (2015)

A recent study by Davies et al. sought to test whether winter grazing could reduce wildfire size, fire behaviour and intensity metrics, and fire-induced plant mortality in shrub–grasslands. The authors concluded that ungrazed rangelands may experience fire-induced mortality of native perennial bunchgrasses. The authors also presented several statements regarding the benefits of winter grazing on post-fire plant community responses. However, we contend that the study by Davies et al. has underlying methodological errors, lacks data necessary to support their conclusions, and does not provide a thorough discussion on the effect of grazing on rangeland ecosystems. Importantly, Davies et al. presented no data on the post-fire mortality of the perennial bunchgrasses or on the changes in plant community composition following their experimental fires. Rather, Davies et al. inferred these conclusions based on their observed fire behaviour metrics of maximum temperature and a term described as the ‘heat load’. However, we contend that neither metric is appropriate for describing the heat flux impacts on plants. This lack of post-fire data, several methodological errors and the use of inappropriate thermal metrics limit the authors’ ability to support their stated conclusions.