Fire Danger Climatology Using the Hot–Dry–Windy Index: Case Studies from Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfires in Portugal have become increasingly frequent and severe, driven by a combination of fuel accumulation, extreme meteorological conditions, and topographic complexity. This study assesses the applicability of the Hot–Dry–Windy (HDW) index in characterizing fire-weather conditions during five major wildfires: Chamusca (2003), Pedrógão Grande and Lousã (2017), Monchique (2018), and Covilhã (2022). HDW values were computed at sub-daily resolution and compared against a 1991–2020 climatology. This study also evaluates the HDW index as a high-resolution fire danger indicator in Portugal and compares it with the traditional FWI using percentile-based climatology. The findings indicate that during 12 and 15 UTC, HDW in the wildfires in Chamusca (2003) and Lousã (2017) exceeded 180–370 units, suggesting extreme air conditions driven by hot, dry, and windy weather patterns. These values denoted extremely flammable conditions since they were significantly higher than the 95th percentile. A distinct peak at 15 UTC for Pedrógão Grande (2017) topped 140 units (>P95), which is consistent with the ignition timing and a rapid beginning spread. A continuous HDW anomaly that peaked above 200 units between 2 August and 5 August preceded the Monchique (2018) event, suggesting extended heat stress and increased wind contribution. While not as severe as in previous instances, HDW at Covilhã (2022) was above the 75th percentile in the early afternoon (12–18 UTC). Results show that in all cases, HDW values exceeded the 90th and 95th percentiles during the hours of ignition and early fire spread, with the most critical anomalies occurring between 12 UTC and 18 UTC. Spatial analyses revealed regional-scale patterns of HDW exceedance, aligning with observed ignition zones. Comparisons with the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) revealed that while the FWI captured seasonal fuel aridity, the HDW more effectively resolved short-term meteorological extremes, particularly wind and atmospheric dryness. The HDW index was found to identify high-risk conditions even when FWI values were moderate, highlighting its added diagnostic value. These results support the inclusion of HDW in operational fire danger rating systems for Portugal and other Mediterranean countries, where compound fire-weather extremes are becoming more frequent due to climate change.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".