Data from: Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires

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 40m of houses, (2) whether trees and
shrubs within 40m 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 40m 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 (0.5km) rather than the observed mean
distance from houses (8.5km). 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.