skip to main content
10.1145/2939672.2939685acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Dynamic and Robust Wildfire Risk Prediction System: An Unsupervised Approach

Published:13 August 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ability to predict the risk of damaging events (e.g. wildfires) is crucial in helping emergency services in their decision making processes, to mitigate and reduce the impact of such events. Today, wildfire rating systems have been in operation extensively in many countries around the world to estimate the danger of wildfires. In this paper we propose a data-driven approach to predict wildfire risk using weather data. We show how we address the inherent challenge arising due to the temporal dynamicity of weather data. Weather observations naturally change in time, with finer-scale variation (e.g. stationary day or night) or large variations (nonstationary day or night), and this determines a temporal variation of the predicted wildfire danger. We show how our dynamic wildfire danger prediction model addresses the aforementioned challenge using context-based anomaly detection techniques. We call our predictive model a Context-Based Fire Risk (CBFR) model. The advantage of our model is that it maintains multiple historical models for different temporal variations (e.g. day versus night), and uses ensemble learning techniques to predict wildfire risk with high accuracy. In addition, it is completely unsupervised and does not rely on expert knowledge, which makes it flexible and easily applied to any region of interest. Our CBFR model is also scalable and can potentially be parallelised to speed up computation. We have considered multiple wildfire locations in the Blue Mountains, Australia as a case study, and compared the results of our system with the existing well-established Australian wildfire rating system. The experimental results show that our predictive model has a substantially higher accuracy in predicting wildfire risk, which makes it an effective model to supplement the operational Australian wildfire rating system.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

kdd2016_rusu_unsupervised_approach_01-acm.mp4

mp4

344.3 MB

References

  1. Australian bureau of meteorology weather stations. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/sites.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian bureau of meteorology weather stations. http://www.bom.gov.au/vic/forecasts/fire-map.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian emergency management knowledge hub. https://www.emknowledge.gov.au/resource/4781/2013/ bushfire-new-south-wales-2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian fire danger ratings. http://www.esa.act.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/fire-danger-ratings.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Black saturday bushfires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/black saturday bushfires.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Emergency management victoria strategic action plan. https://www.emv.vic.gov.au/plans/strategic-action-plan/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Google maps. https://www.google.com.au/maps.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. The human cost of natural disasters 2015: a global perspective, http://reliefweb.int/report/world/human-cost-natural-disasters-2015-global-perspective.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Natural resources canada. http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/background/summary/fwi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. The united nations office for disaster risk reduction, http://www.unisdr.org/archive/42814.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Wildland fire assessment system. fire danger rating. http://www.wfas.net/index.php/fire-danger-rating-fire-potential--danger-32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. L. Andrews, D. O. Loftsgaarden, and L. S. Bradshaw. Evaluation of fire danger rating indexes using logistic regression and percentile analysis. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 12(2):213--226, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. E. Cohen and M. Strauss. Maintaining time-decaying stream aggregates. In ACM SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems, pages 223--233, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Dee, S. Uppala, A. Simmons, P. Berrisford, P. Poli, S. Kobayashi, U. Andrae, M. Balmaseda, G. Balsamo, P. Bauer, et al. The era-interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 137(656):553--597, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. C. A. Farris, C. Pezeshki, and L. F. Neuenschwander. A comparison of fire probability maps derived from gis modeling and direct simulation techniques. In Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop, pages 131--138, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. A. Finney. The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1):97--108, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. A. G. McArthur. Fire behaviour in eucalypt forests. 1967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. C. Miller and A. A. Ager. A review of recent advances in risk analysis for wildfire management. International journal of wildland fire, 22(1):1--14, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. M. Moshtaghi, T. C. Havens, J. C. Bezdek, L. Park, C. Leckie, S. Rajasegarar, J. M. Keller, and M. Palaniswami. Clustering ellipses for anomaly detection. Pattern Recognition, 44(1):55--69, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Moshtaghi, S. Rajasegarar, C. Leckie, and S. Karunasekera. An efficient hyperellipsoidal clustering algorithm for resource-constrained environments. Pattern Recognition, 44(9):2197--2209, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. I. Noble, A. Gill, and G. Bary. Mcarthur's fire-danger meters expressed as equations. Australian Journal of Ecology, 5(2):201--203, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. B. Saglam, E. Bilgili, B. Dincdurmaz, A. I. Kadiogulari, and Ö. Küçük. Spatio-temporal analysis of forest fire risk and danger using landsat imagery. Sensors, 8(6):3970--3987, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. M. Salehi, C. A. Leckie, M. Moshtaghi, and T. Vaithianathan. A relevance weighted ensemble model for anomaly detection in switching data streams. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 461--473. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. C. Vasilakos, K. Kalabokidis, J. Hatzopoulos, and I. Matsinos. Identifying wildland fire ignition factors through sensitivity analysis of a neural network. Natural hazards, 50(1):125--143, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. B. Vidakovic. Statistics for bioengineering sciences: with MATLAB and WinBUGS support. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. L. Yu, N. Wang, and X. Meng. Real-time forest fire detection with wireless sensor networks. In International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, volume 2, pages 1214--1217, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Dynamic and Robust Wildfire Risk Prediction System: An Unsupervised Approach

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      KDD '16: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
      August 2016
      2176 pages
      ISBN:9781450342322
      DOI:10.1145/2939672

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 August 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      KDD '16 Paper Acceptance Rate66of1,115submissions,6%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

      Upcoming Conference

      KDD '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader