| |
Wildland-Urban Fire—A Different Approach
Jack D. Cohen
Research Physical Scientist
Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory
Rocky Mountain Research Station
USDA Forest Service
Abstract—Research results indicate that the home and
its immediate surroundings within 100-200 feet (30-60 meters)
principally determine the home ignition potential during severe
wildland-urban fires. Research has also established that fire is an
intrinsic ecological process of nearly all North American
ecosystems. Together, this understanding forms the basis for a
compelling argument for a different approach to addressing the
wildland-urban fire problem. It suggests that residential
compatibility with wildland fire—homes and residential areas
becoming the ‘fuel break’—can be more effective at preventing
wildland-urban fire disasters than the current approach of emergency
wildland-urban fire protection.
Wildland-urban fire occurs when a fire burning in
wildland vegetation fuels gets close enough with its flames and/or
firebrands (lofted burning embers) to potentially create ignitions
of the residential fuels (Butler 1974). Residential fire destruction
is the principal problem during wildland-urban fires, but homes that
do not ignite do not burn. Recognizing the potential for
wildland-urban home ignitions and preventing home ignitions is the
principal challenge.
Understanding how homes ignite during wildland-urban
fires provides the basis for appropriately assessing the potential
for home ignition and thereby effectively mitigating wildland-urban
fire ignitions. Fires do not spread by flowing over the landscape
and high intensity fires do not engulf objects, as do avalanches and
tsunamis. All fires spread by meeting the requirements for
combustion—that is, a sufficiency of fuel, heat, and oxygen. In the
context of severe wildland-urban fires, oxygen is not a limiting
factor so this type of fire spreads according to a sufficiency of
fuel and heat. Homes are the fuel and the heat comes from the flames
and/or firebrands of the surrounding fires (fig. 1). Recent
research (fig. 2) indicates that the potential for home
ignitions during wildfires including those of high intensity
principally depends on a home’s fuel characteristics and the heat
sources within 100-200 feet adjacent to a home (Cohen 1995; Cohen
2000; Cohen and Butler 1998). This relatively limited area that
determines home ignition potential can be called the home
ignition zone (fig. 3).

Figure 1—In the context of wildland-urban
fires, the homes are the fuel. The heat
comes
from burning materials adjacent to the home (e.g.,
vegetation, wood piles, and buildings)
and firebrands (lofted burning embers) on the home. How
close flames are to the home and
whether or not firebrands contact the home determines
how much heat the home receives.
|
 |
 |
|
(a) |
(b) |
Figure 2—Home ignition
research over the last several years has exposed wall sections to
crown fires. (a) Wall sections were placed at 33, 66, and 98 feet
from the forest edge. (b) Ignition
of the 33 ft wall section
occurred during 3 out of 7 crown fires. No ignitions or
significant scorch
occurred on wall sections at 66 ft and 98 ft
during any crown fire.

Figure 3—The home
ignition zone includes the home and an area surrounding the home
within 100 to 200 feet. The potential for ignition depends on the
home’s exterior
materials and design and the amount of heat to the
home from the flames within the
home ignition zone. Firebrand
ignitions also depend on the home ignition zone either by
igniting
the home directly or igniting adjacent materials that heat the home
to ignition.
During a
wildland-urban fire a home ignites from two possible sources:
directly from flames (radiation and convection heating) and/or from
firebrands accumulating directly on the home. Even the large flames
of high intensity crown fires do not directly ignite homes at
distances beyond 200 feet. Given that fires adjacent to a home do
not ignite it, firebrands can only ignite a home through contact.
Thus, the home ignition zone becomes the focus for activities to
reduce potential wildland-urban fire destruction. This has
implications for reducing home ignition potential before a wildfire
as well as implications for emergency wildland-urban fire response
strategy and tactics.
One might argue that preventing the occurrence of wildfires would
prevent wildland-urban fire destruction. However, our current
understanding indicates that wildland fire is an intrinsic
ecological process in nearly all North American ecosystems (Arno and
Brown 1989; Wright and Bailey 1982). Wildland fire will always occur
in forest and rangeland fire environments and will thus have an
impact on people, property and resources. We may have some choice of
when and where we have wildland fire, but we do not have the choice
of not having wildland fire occurrence. Thus, it is not reasonable
to form agency and public expectations for the non-occurrence of
wildland fires, including wildland fires encroaching on communities.
Recognizing the inevitability of wildland fire occurrence coupled
with how homes ignite during wildland fires suggests a mitigation
approach specific to wildland-urban fire. Given a wildland-urban
fire, the home ignition zone principally determines the potential
for home ignitions. During the extreme fire behavior conditions when
wildland-urban fire disasters occur, the fire protection response is
overwhelmed and thus results in unprotected residential
exposure—home ignitions can occur without suppression. This suggests
a management approach that focuses on preventing home ignitions.
That is, we reduce a community’s vulnerability to wildland fire
rather than attempting the elimination of wildland fire encroachment
and the direct protection of homes. This implies an approach of
community compatibility with wildland fire; an approach that focuses
on ignition performance not fire spread performance. An ignition
resistant community becomes the effective "fuel break" in and of
itself without the need for surrounding fuel reduction of
questionable effectiveness.
Effective wildland-urban fire strategy and tactics will differ
from either the standard wildland or the standard urban fire
suppression practices. Wildland fire suppression largely attempts to
keep a fire from spreading beyond its current or a specified
location. That is, keeping the wildfire away from a valued area
protects the values at risk. Urban fire suppression initially
addresses life safety (principally building occupants) and then fire
containment within a portion of the structure and/or prevents
adjacent structure involvement. Urban fire suppression success
assumes that the protection resources can overwhelm the structure
fire. During extreme wildland-urban fires wildfire control and
structure protection have limited tactical effectiveness and have
not prevented disastrous residential destruction. Neither the
wildland nor the urban suppression practices effectively reduce the
general home ignition potential.
Wildland-urban strategy and tactics should assume that the
wildfire can burn to and past the residential area without the
necessity for wildfire control to prevent a wildland-urban fire
disaster. This assumption recognizes that during extreme fire
behavior, wildfire control and large scale residential protection
are not options. The wildland-urban strategy and tactics principally
focus on preparing the home(s) for the wildfire by reducing the
potential for home ignition within the home ignition zone. Because
of time constraints, most preparation has to occur before a wildfire
occurs. Major changes to the home ignition zone (the home and its
immediate surroundings) such as replacing a flammable roof and
removal of vegetation such as forest thinning cannot occur during
the approach of a wildfire. Removal of firewood piles, dead leaves,
conifer needles, dead grass, etc. from on and next to the home
should also occur seasonally before severe fire conditions (fig.
4). The ignition potential of the home ignition zone largely
influences the effectiveness of protection during a wildfire. Given
low ignition potential and enough time, homeowners and/or
wildland-urban suppression resources can make significant reductions
in the little things that influence ignition potential before
wildfire encroachment. Then, if possible, homeowners and/or
wildland-urban firefighting resources can suppress small fires that
threaten the structure during and after the wildfire approach.
|
 |
 |
|
(a) |
(b) |
Figure 4—The home ignition zone
principally determines the home ignition potential. (a) This
ignition
resistant home survived an intense crown to its front
(background) and a crown fire of lesser intensity
to its side and
back. The immediate area next to the home was sprinkled but no
suppression action
occurred (Montana 2000). (b) This highly
ignitable home did not survive a low intensity surface fire
(unburned wood rail fence and non-scorched trees in the background).
A continuous pine needle fuel bed
extended to, through and on this
home and its neighbors. No suppression action occurred
at this home
(Los Alamos 2000).
Agencies need to recognize that
wildland-urban fire strategy and tactics are fundamentally different
from traditional fire response operations. The principal efforts for
reducing ignitions focus on the home ignition zone before the
wildfire occurrence. Since homeowners largely own the home ignition
zone, agencies must function as partners and facilitators for
implementing wildland-urban mitigations. During the wildfire,
wildland-urban protection activities continue to focus on the home
ignition zone for the prevention of home ignitions. Even with
ignition resistant homes, protection effectiveness relies on an
understanding of how homes ignite during wildland fires along with
recognizing operational and logistical fire suppression limitations.
These differences suggest the need for wildland-urban fire
specialists both before a wildfire and during a wildfire. Before the
wildfire, the wildland-urban fire specialist uses home ignition
expertise to identify vulnerable residential areas and facilitate
community efforts to reduce home ignitability. During wildfires, the
specialists work with homeowners and multi-agency wildland-urban
fire protection teams to identify and implement effective actions
for reducing home destruction during wildfires.The above article
was presented at the Firefighter Safety Summit and has the following
citation:
Cohen J. 2001 Wildland-urban fire—a different approach.
In: Proceedings of the Firefighter Safety Summit, Nov. 6-8,
2001, Missoula, MT. Fairfax, VA: International Association
of Wildland Fire.
Further technical information that can be found at
www.firelab.org.
LITERATURE CITED
Arno, Stephen F.; Brown, James K. 1989. Managing fire in our
forests: time for a new initiative.
Journal of Forestry 87(12): 44-46.
Butler, C.P. 1974. The urban/wildland fire interface. In:
Proceedings of western states section/
Combustion Institute papers, vol. 74, no. 15. 1974 May
6-7; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA:
Washington state Univ.; 1-17.
Cohen, Jack D. 1995. Structure ignition assessment model (SIAM).
In: Weise, David R.; Martin
Robert E., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the
Biswell symposium: fire issues and
solutions in urban
interface and wildland ecosystems. 1995 February 15-17;
Walnut Creek,
CA. Gen. Tech Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany, CA:
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest
Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture; 85-92.
Cohen, Jack D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in
the wildland-urban interface.
Journal of Forestry 98(3): 15-21.
Cohen, Jack D.; Butler, Bret W. 1998. Modeling potential
ignitions from flame radiation
exposure with implications for wildland/urban interface
fire management. In: Proceedings of
the 13th
conference on fire and forest meteorology, vol. 1. 1996
October 27-31; Lorne,
Victoria, Australia. Fairfield, WA:
International Association of Wildland Fire; 81-86.
Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United
States and Canada. New York:
John Wiley & Sons. 501p.
|
|
|