@article {bnh-6854, title = {Cost effectiveness of fire management strategies in southern Australia}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, volume = {29}, year = {2019}, month = {06/2019}, pages = {427-439}, abstract = {

Fire-management agencies invest significant resources to reduce the impacts of future fires. There has been increasing public scrutiny over how agencies allocate fire-management budgets and, in response, agencies are looking to use quantitative risk-based approaches to make decisions about expenditure in a more transparent manner. Advances in fire-simulation software and computing capacity of fire-agency staff have meant that fire simulators have been increasingly used for quantitative fire-risk analysis. Here we analyse the cost trade-offs of future fire management in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and surrounding areas by combining fire simulation with Bayesian Decision Networks. We compare potential future-management approaches considering prescribed burning, suppression and fire exclusion. These data combined costs of treatment and impacts on assets to undertake a quantitative risk analysis. The proposed approach for fuel treatment in ACT and New South Wales (NSW) provided the greatest reduction in risk and the most cost-effective approach to managing fuels in this landscape. Past management decisions have reduced risk in the landscape and the legacy of these treatments will last for at least 3 years. However, an absence of burning will result in an increased risk from fire in this landscape.

}, keywords = {Bayesian Network, house loss, life loss, prescribed fire, risk}, doi = { https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18128}, url = {https://www.publish.csiro.au/WF/WF18128}, author = {Trent Penman and Brett Cirulis} } @article {bnh-5650, title = {Where to prescribe burn: the costs and benefits of prescribed burning close to houses}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, year = {2019}, month = {06/2019}, abstract = {

Prescribed burning is used in Australia as a tool to manage fire risk and protect assets. A key challenge is deciding how to arrange the burns to generate the highest benefits to society. Studies have shown that prescribed burning in the wildland{\textendash}urban interface (WUI) can reduce the risk of house loss due to wildfires, but the costs and benefits of different arrangements for prescribed burning treatments have rarely been estimated. In this study, we use three different models to explore the costs and benefits of modifying the spatial arrangement of prescribed burns on public land, using the south-west of Western Australia as a case study. We simulate two hypothetical scenarios: landscape treatments and WUI treatments. We evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of each scenario and compare the results from the three models, highlighting the management implications of each model. Results indicate that intensifying prescribed burning treatments in public land in the WUI achieves a greater reduction in damages compared with applying the majority of the treatments in rural areas. However, prescribed burning in the WUI is significantly more expensive and, despite additional benefits gained from this strategy, in most cases it is not the most economically efficient strategy.

}, keywords = {benefit-cost analysis, fire management, fuel treatment, house loss, Prescribed burning, preventative mitigation, risk, trade-off, wildland fire economics, Wildland-urban interface}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18192}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/WF/WF18192}, author = {Veronique Florec and Michael Burton and David J Pannell and Joel Kelso and George J. Milne} }