Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 7 (1), e29212

Land Management Practices Associated With House Loss in Wildfires


Land Management Practices Associated With House Loss in Wildfires

Philip Gibbons et al. PLoS One.


Losses to life and property from unplanned fires (wildfires) are forecast to increase because of population growth in peri-urban areas and climate change. In response, there have been moves to increase fuel reduction--clearing, prescribed burning, biomass removal and grazing--to afford greater protection to peri-urban communities in fire-prone regions. But how effective are these measures? Severe wildfires in southern Australia in 2009 presented a rare opportunity to address this question empirically. We predicted that modifying several fuels could theoretically reduce house loss by 76%-97%, which would translate to considerably fewer wildfire-related deaths. However, maximum levels of fuel reduction are unlikely to be feasible at every house for logistical and environmental reasons. Significant fuel variables in a logistic regression model we selected to predict house loss were (in order of decreasing effect): (1) the cover of trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses, (2) whether trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses was predominantly remnant or planted, (3) the upwind distance from houses to groups of trees or shrubs, (4) the upwind distance from houses to public forested land (irrespective of whether it was managed for nature conservation or logging), (5) the upwind distance from houses to prescribed burning within 5 years, and (6) the number of buildings or structures within 40 m of houses. All fuel treatments were more effective if undertaken closer to houses. For example, 15% fewer houses were destroyed if prescribed burning occurred at the observed minimum distance from houses (0.5 km) rather than the observed mean distance from houses (8.5 km). Our results imply that a shift in emphasis away from broad-scale fuel-reduction to intensive fuel treatments close to property will more effectively mitigate impacts from wildfires on peri-urban communities.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Figure 1
Figure 1. Individual effects (mean ± s.e.m.) of fuel variables in the logistic model used to predict the proportion of houses lost during wildfire.
Each prediction was made with the other significant explanatory variables held at their means and FFDI fixed at 100, which is the value above which 64% of houses have been destroyed in wildfires in Australia . Magneta (pink) lines are predictions for vegetation within 40 m of houses that is predominantly remnant native vegetation and cyan lines are predictions for vegetation within 40 m of houses that is predominantly planted vegetation.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 10 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Mell WE, Manzello SL, Maranghides A, Butry D, Rehm RG. The wildland-urban interface fire problem - current approaches and research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2010;19:238–251.
    1. Hughes R, Mercer D. Planning to reduce risk: the wildfire management overlay in Victoria, Australia. Geographical Research. 2009;47:124–141.
    1. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holcomb SS, et al. The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecological Applications. 2005;15:799–805.
    1. Piñol J, Terradas J, Lloret F. Climate warming, wildfire hazard, and wildfire occurrence in coastal eastern Spain. Climatic Change. 1998;38:345–357.
    1. Pausas JG. Changes in fire and climate in the eastern Iberian Peninsula (Mediterranean basin). Climatic Change. 2004;63:337–350.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources