@article {BF-4267,
	title = {Uncertainty associated with model predictions of surface and crown fire rates of spread},
	journal = {Environmental Modelling \& Software},
	volume = {47},
	year = {2013},
	month = {2013},
	pages = {16-28},
	chapter = {16},
	abstract = {The degree of accuracy in model predictions of rate of spread in wildland fires is dependent on the
model{\textquoteright}s applicability to a given situation, the validity of the model{\textquoteright}s relationships, and the reliability of
the model input data. On the basis of a compilation of 49 fire spread model evaluation datasets involving
1278 observations in seven different fuel type groups, the limits on the predictability of current operational
models are examined. Only 3\% of the predictions (i.e. 35 out of 1278) were considered to be exact
predictions according to the criteria used in this study. Mean percent error varied between 20 and 310\%
and was homogeneous across fuel type groups. Slightly more than half of the evaluation datasets had
mean errors between 51 and 75\%. Under-prediction bias was prevalent in 75\% of the 49 datasets analysed.
A case is made for suggesting that a 35\% error interval (i.e. approximately one standard deviation)
would constitute a reasonable standard for model performance in predicting a wildland fire{\textquoteright}s
forward or heading rate of spread. We also found that empirical-based fire behaviour models developed
from a solid foundation of field observations and well accepted functional forms adequately predicted
rates of fire spread far outside of the bounds of the original dataset used in their development.},
	keywords = {bushfire behaviour, bushfire spread, Fire behaviour, fire spread},
	doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.04.004},
	author = {Cruz, Miguel G. and Alexander, ME}
}
