Regional Variability and Driving Forces behind Forest Fires in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extreme forest fires have been a historic concern in the forests of Canada, the Russian Federation, and the USA, and are now an increasing threat in boreal Europe, where recent fire events in 2014 and 2018 drew attention to Sweden. Our study objective was to understand the vulnerability of Swedish forests to fire by spatially analyzing historical burned areas, and to link fire events with weather, landscape, and fire-related socioeconomic factors. We developed an extensive database of 1 × 1 km2 homogenous grids, where monthly burned areas were derived from the MODIS FireCCI51 dataset. The database consists of various socio-economic, topographic-, forest-, and weather-related remote sensing products. To include new factors in the IIASA’s FLAM model, we developed a random forest model to assess the spatial probabilities of burned areas. Due to Sweden’s geographical diversity, fire dynamics vary between six biogeographical zones. Therefore, the model was applied to each zone separately. As an outcome, we obtained probabilities of burned areas in the forests across Sweden and observed burned areas were well captured by the model. The result accuracy differs with respect to zone; the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.875 and 0.94 for zones with few fires, but above 0.95 for zones with a higher number of fire events. Feature importance analysis and their variability across Sweden provide valuable information to understand the reasons behind forest fires. The Fine Fuel Moisture Code, population and road densities, slope and aspect, and forest stand volume were found to be among the key fire-related factors in Sweden. Our modeling approach can be extended to hotspot mapping in other boreal regions and thus is highly policy-relevant. Visualization of our results is available in the Google Earth Engine Application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".