1. 1 Applications of point process modeling, separability testing, & estimation to wildfire hazard assessment 1.Background 2.Problems with existing models (BI) 3.A separable point process model 4.Testing separability 5.Alarm rates & other basic assessment techniques Earthquakes: next lecture.

2. 2 Los Angeles County wildfires, 1960-2000

3. 3 Background  Brief History. 1907: LA County Fire Dept. 1953: Serious wildfire suppression. 1972/1978: National Fire Danger Rating System. (Deeming et al. 1972, Rothermel 1972, Bradshaw et al. 1983) 1976: Remote Access Weather Stations (RAWS).  Damages. 2003: 738,000 acres; 3600 homes; 26 lives. (Oct 24 - Nov 2: 700,000 acres; 3300 homes; 20 lives) Bel Air 1961: 6,000 acres; $30 million. Clampitt 1970: 107,000 acres; $7.4 million.

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6 NFDRS’s Burning Index (BI): Uses daily weather variables, drought index, and vegetation info. Human interactions excluded.

7. 7 Some BI equations : (From Pyne et al., 1996:) Rate of spread: R = I R  (1 +  w  +  s ) / (  b  Q ig ).Oven-dry bulk density:  b = w 0 / . Reaction Intensity: I R =  ’ w n h  M  s.Effective heating number:  = exp(-138/  ). Optimum reaction velocity:  ’ =  ’ max (  /  op ) A exp[A(1-  /  op )]. Maximum reaction velocity:  ’ max =  1.5 (495 + 0.0594  1.5 ) -1. Optimum packing ratios:  op = 3.348  -0.8189. A = 133  -0.7913. Moisture damping coef.:  M = 1 - 259 M f /M x + 5.11 (M f /M x ) 2 - 3.52 (M f /M x ) 3. Mineral damping coef.:  s = 0.174 S e -0.19 (max = 1.0). Propagating flux ratio:  = (192 + 0.2595  ) -1 exp[(0.792 + 0.681  0.5 )(  + 0.1)]. Wind factors:  w = CU B (  /  op ) -E. C = 7.47 exp(-0.133  0.55 ). B = 0.02526  0.54. E = 0.715 exp(-3.59 x 10 -4  ). Net fuel loading: w n = w 0 (1 - S T ).Heat of preignition: Q ig = 250 + 1116 M f. Slope factor:  s = 5.275  -0.3 (tan  2.Packing ratio:  =  b /  p.

8. 8 On the Predictive Value of Fire Danger Indices: From Day 1 (05/24/05) of Toronto workshop: Robert McAlpine: “[DFOSS] works very well.” David Martell: “To me, they work like a charm.” Mike Wotton: “The Indices are well-correlated with fuel moisture and fire activity over a wide variety of fuel types.” Larry Bradshaw: “[BI is a] good characterization of fire season.” Evidence? FPI: Haines et al. 1983 Simard 1987 Preisler 2005 Mandallaz and Ye 1997 (Eur/Can), Viegas et al. 1999 (Eur/Can), Garcia Diez et al. 1999 (DFR), Cruz et al. 2003 (Can). Spread: Rothermel (1991), Turner and Romme (1994), and others.

9. 9 Some obvious problems with BI: Too additive: too low when all variables are med/high risk. Low correlation with wildfire.  Corr(BI, area burned) = 0.09  Corr(BI, # of fires) = 0.13  Corr(BI, area per fire) = 0.076 !Corr(date, area burned) = 0.06 !Corr(windspeed, area burned) = 0.159 Too high in Winter (esp Dec and Jan) Too low in Fall (esp Sept and Oct)

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14 Some obvious problems with BI: Too additive: too high for low wind/medium RH, Misses high RH/medium wind. (same for temp/wind). Low correlation with wildfire.  Corr(BI, area burned) = 0.09  Corr(BI, # of fires) = 0.13  Corr(BI, area per fire) = 0.076 !Corr(date, area burned) = 0.06 !Corr(windspeed, area burned) = 0.159 Too high in Winter (esp Dec and Jan) Too low in Fall (esp Sept and Oct)

15. 15

16. 16 More problems with BI: Low correlation with wildfire.  Corr(BI, area burned) = 0.09  Corr(BI, # of fires) = 0.13  Corr(BI, area per fire) = 0.076 !Corr(date, area burned) = 0.06 !Corr(windspeed, area burned) = 0.159 Too high in Winter (esp Dec and Jan) Too low in Fall (esp Sept and Oct)

17. 17 r = 0.16 (sq m)

18. 18 More problems with BI: Low correlation with wildfire.  Corr(BI, area burned) = 0.09  Corr(BI, # of fires) = 0.13  Corr(BI, area per fire) = 0.076 !Corr(date, area burned) = 0.06 !Corr(windspeed, area burned) = 0.159 Too high in Winter (esp Dec and Jan) Too low in Fall (esp Sept and Oct)

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21 Model Construction Relative Humidity, Windspeed, Precipitation, Aggregated rainfall over previous 60 days, Temperature, Date. Tapered Pareto size distribution f, smooth spatial background . (t,x,a) =  1 exp{  2 R(t) +  3 W(t) +  4 P(t)+  5 A(t;60) +  6 T(t) +  7 [  8 - D(t)] 2 }  (x) g(a). … More on the fit of this model later. First, how can we test whether a separable model like this is appropriate for this dataset?

22. 22 Testing separability in marked point processes: Construct non-separable and separable kernel estimates of by smoothing over all coordinates simultaneously or separately. Then compare these two estimates: (Schoenberg 2004)

23. 23 Testing separability in marked point processes: May also consider: S 5 = mean absolute difference at the observed points. S 6 = maximum absolute difference at observed points.

24. 24

25. 25 S 3 seems to be most powerful for large-scale non-separability:

26. 26 However, S 3 may not be ideal for Hawkes processes, and all these statistics are terrible for inhibition processes:

27. 27 For Hawkes & inhibition processes, rescaling according to the separable estimate and then looking at the L-function seems much more powerful:

28. 28 Testing Separability for Los Angeles County Wildfires:

29. 29 Statistics like S 3 indicate separability, but the L-function after rescaling shows some clustering of size and date:

30. 30 r = 0.16 (sq m)

31. 31

32. 32 (F) (sq m)

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35 Model Construction Wildfire incidence seems roughly separable. (only area/date significant in separability test) Tapered Pareto size distribution f, smooth spatial background .  (t,x,a) =  1 exp{  2 R(t) +  3 W(t) +  4 P(t)+  5 A(t;60) +  6 T(t) +  7 [  8 - D(t)] 2 }  (x) g(a). Compare with:  (t,x,a) =  1 exp{  2 B(t)}  (x) g(a), where B = RH or BI. Relative AICs (Poisson - Model, so higher is better): PoissonRHBIModel  0262.9302.7601.1

36. 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39 Comparison of Predictive Efficacy False alarms per year % of fires correctly alarmed BI 150:3222.3 Model  :3234.1 BI 200:138.2 Model  :1315.1

40. 40 One possible problem: human interactions. …. but BI has been justified for decades based on its correlation with observed large wildfires (Mees & Chase, 1993; Andrews and Bradshaw, 1997). Towards improved modeling Time-since-fire (fuel age)

41. 41 (years)

42. 42 Towards improved modeling Time-since-fire (fuel age) Wind direction

43. 43

44. 44 Towards improved modeling Time-since-fire (fuel age) Wind direction Land use, greenness, vegetation

45. 45

46. 46 Greenness (UCLA IoE)

47. 47 (IoE)

48. 48 Towards improved modeling Time-since-fire (fuel age) Wind direction Land use, greenness, vegetation Precip over previous 40+ days, lagged variables

49. 49 (cm)

50. 50

51. 51

52. 52 Conclusions: (For Los Angeles County data, Jan 1976- Dec 2000:) BI is positively associated with fire incidence and burn area, though its predictive value seems limited. Windspeed has a higher correlation with burn area, and a simple model using RH, windspeed, precipitation, aggregated rainfall over previous 60 days, temperature, & date outperforms BI. For multiplicative models (and sometimes for additive models), can estimate parameters separately. Separability testing: S 3 seems quite powerful. Next lecture: earthquakes: Ogata’s residual analysis, prototypes, and non-simple point process models.