Use and benefits of NASA’s RECOVER for post-fire decision support
William Toombs A , Keith Weber A E , Tesa Stegner B , John L. Schnase C , Eric Lindquist D and Frances Lippitt DA Geographic Information System Training and Research Center, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA.
B Department of Economics, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA.
C Office of Computational and Information Sciences and Technology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
D School of Public Service, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: webekeit@isu.edu
International Journal of Wildland Fire 27(7) 441-446 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18010
Submitted: 30 August 2017 Accepted: 13 May 2018 Published: 31 May 2018
Abstract
Today’s extended fire seasons and large fire footprints have prompted state and federal land-management agencies to devote increasingly large portions of their budgets to wildfire management. As fire costs continue to rise, timely and comprehensive fire information becomes increasingly critical to response and rehabilitation efforts. The NASA Rehabilitation Capability Convergence for Ecosystem Recovery (RECOVER) post-fire decision support system is a server-based application designed to rapidly provide land managers with the information needed to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation plan. This study evaluated the efficacy of RECOVER through structured interviews with land managers (n = 19) who used RECOVER and were responsible for post-fire rehabilitation efforts on over 715 000 ha of fire-affected lands. Although the benefit of better-informed decisions is difficult to quantify, the results of this study illustrate that RECOVER’s decision support capabilities provided information to land managers that either validated or altered their decisions on post-fire treatments estimated at over US$1.2 million and saved nearly 800 h of staff time by streamlining data collection as well as communication with local stakeholders and partnering agencies.
Additional keywords: communication, fire management, planning, remote sensing.
References
Calkin DE, Thompson MP, Finney MA, Hyde KD (2011) A real-time risk assessment tool supporting wildland fire decision making. Journal of Forestry 5, 274–280.De Graff JV (2014) Improvement in quantifying debris flow risk for post-wildfire emergency response. Geoenvironmental Disasters 1, 5–15.
| Improvement in quantifying debris flow risk for post-wildfire emergency response.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Torres Curth M, Biscayart C, Ghermandi L, Pfister G (2012) Wildland–urban interface fires and socioeconomic conditions: a case study of a north-western Patagonia city. Environmental Management 49, 876–891.
| Wildland–urban interface fires and socioeconomic conditions: a case study of a north-western Patagonia city.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dombeck MP, Williams JE, Wood CA (2004) Wildfire policy and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology 18, 883–889.
| Wildfire policy and public lands: integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
ESRI (2018) Python for ArcGIS. Available at http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/analytics/python/ [Verified 16 April 2018]
Kangas AS, Horne P, Leskinen P (2010) Measuring the value of information in multicriteria decision making. Forest Science 56, 558–566.
Lew R, Dobre M, Elliot W, Robichaud PR, Brooks E, Frankenberger J (2017) Usability and functional enhancements to an online interface for predicting post fire erosion (WEPP-PEP). In ‘EGU General Assembly conference abstracts 19’, pp. 184–186. EGU General Assembly: Vienna, Austria (23–28 April 2017). EGU2017-18446-1
Macauley MK (2006) The value of information: measuring the contribution of space-derived earth science data to resource management. Space Policy 22, 274–282.
| The value of information: measuring the contribution of space-derived earth science data to resource management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miller ME, Elliot WJ, Billmire M, Robichaud PR, Endsley KA (2016) Rapid-response tools and datasets for post-fire remediation: linking remote sensing and process-based hydrological models. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 1061–1073.
| Rapid-response tools and datasets for post-fire remediation: linking remote sensing and process-based hydrological models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robichaud PR (2009) Post-fire stabilization and rehabilitation. In ‘Fire effects on soils and restoration strategies’. (Eds P Robichaud and A Cerda) pp. 299–20. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA)
Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Brown RE, Ashmun LE (2009) Emergency post-fire rehabilitation treatment effects on burned area ecology and long-term restoration. Fire Ecology 5, 115–128.
| Emergency post-fire rehabilitation treatment effects on burned area ecology and long-term restoration.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schnase JL, Carroll ML, Weber KT, Brown ME, Gill RL, Wooten M, May J, Serr K, Smith E, Goldsby R, Newtoff K, Bradford K, Doyle C, Volker E, Weber S (2014) RECOVER: an automated cloud-based decision support system for post-fire rehabilitation planning. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-1, 363–370.
| RECOVER: an automated cloud-based decision support system for post-fire rehabilitation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | . [Verified 7 August 2017]https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_20150000369
Staley DM, Negri JA, Kean JW, Tillery AC, Youberg AM (2016) Updated logistic regression equations for the calculation of post-fire debris flow likelihood in the western United States. USGS Open-file Report 2016–1106. Reston, VA, USA. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2016/1106 [Verified 16 April 2018]
Thompson MP, Calkin DE (2011) Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 1895–1909.
| Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) (2001) ‘Interagency burned area emergency stabilization and rehabilitation handbook.’ Available at http://ordvac.com/soro/library/Operations/interagency%20esr.pdf [Verified 16 April 2018]
Venn TJ, Calkin DE (2009) Challenges of socio-economically evaluating wildfire management on non-industrial private and public forestland in the western United States. Small-scale Forestry 8, 43–61.
| Challenges of socio-economically evaluating wildfire management on non-industrial private and public forestland in the western United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wigtil G, Hammer RB, Kline JD, Mockrin MH, Stewart SI (2016) Places where wildfire potential and social vulnerability coincide in the coterminous United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 896–908.
| Places where wildfire potential and social vulnerability coincide in the coterminous United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
