Estimating the consequences of wildfire for wildfire risk assessment, a case study in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

Wildfire risk assessment research has made considerable progress towards estimating the probability of wildfires but comparatively little progress towards estimating the expected consequences of potential fires. One challenge with estimating wildfire consequences has been to identify a common metric that can be applied to consequences measured in different units. In this paper, we use the preferences of representatives of local fire management agencies as the common consequences metric and apply it to a case study in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. The method uses an expert survey and a maximum-difference conjoint analysis to establish the relative importance of specific fire consequences. A fire with a major potential for loss of life was considered to be about three times worse than major damage to houses and 4.5 times worse than loss of a rare species. Risk ratings were very sensitive to changes in fire consequences ratings. As the complexity of values at risk and number of stakeholders increase, the most efficient allocation of wildfire prevention, protection, and suppression resources becomes increasingly challenging to determine. Thus, as the complexity of stakeholder representation and values at risk increases, we need to pay increasing attention to quantitative methods for measuring wildfire consequences.