Abstract

The increasing frequency of destructive wildfires, with a consequent loss of life and property, has led to fire and land management agencies initiating extensive fuel management programs. This involves long-term planning of fuel reduction activities such as prescribed burning or mechanical clearing. In this paper, we propose a mixed integer programming (MIP) model that determines when and where fuel reduction activities should take place. The model takes into account multiple vegetation types in the landscape, their tolerance to frequency of fire events, and keeps track of the age of each vegetation class in each treatment unit. The objective is to minimise fuel load over the planning horizon. The complexity of scheduling fuel reduction activities has led to the introduction of sophisticated mathematical optimisation methods. While these approaches can provide optimum solutions, they can be computationally expensive, particularly for fuel management planning which extends across the landscape and spans long term planning horizons. This raises the question of how much better do exact modelling approaches compare to simpler heuristic approaches in their solutions. To answer this question, the proposed model is run using an exact MIP (using commercial MIP solver) and two heuristic approaches that decompose the problem into multiple single-period sub problems. The Knapsack Problem (KP), which is the first heuristic approach, solves the single period problems, using an exact MIP approach. The second heuristic approach solves the single period sub problem using a greedy heuristic approach. The three methods are compared in term of model tractability, computational time and the objective values. The model was tested using randomised data from 711 treatment units in the Barwon-Otway district of Victoria, Australia. Solutions for the exact MIP could be obtained for up to a 15-year planning only using a standard implementation of CPLEX. Both heuristic approaches can solve significantly larger problems, involving 100-year or even longer planning horizons. Furthermore there are no substantial differences in the solutions produced by the three approaches. It is concluded that for practical purposes a heuristic method is to be preferred to the exact MIP approach.

Highlights

  • Fuel management is the process of altering the amount and structure of fuels through methods including prescribed burning and mechanical clearing (King et al 2008)

  • The model presented in this paper addresses these limitations by formulating a model within a landscape that consists of multiple vegetation types of mixed ages, with differing non-linear fuel accumulation functions

  • To develop an optimisation method for scheduling prescribed burns, and to embed this in a real-world case study that takes into consideration the spatial and temporal complexity of the problem

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Rachmawati et al SpringerPlus (2015) 4:630 severity and extent has been observed in many countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and in southern Europe (Boer et al 2009). This is, to some extent, due to fire suppression-focused twentieth century fire management practices, which according to Loehle (2004) and Reinhardt et al (2008) results in uncharacteristically high fuel loads. There are three key factors affecting fire behaviour: fuel, weather, and topography Among these factors, it is acknowledged that only fuel can be actively controlled or managed (Schmidt et al 2008). Much effort is expended by these counties in the planning, prioritising and operational activities of prescribed burning

Objectives
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call