Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Der Artikel geht auf das kritische Problem der Anfälligkeit von Touristen in wildbrandgefährdeten Gebieten ein und beleuchtet die einzigartigen Herausforderungen, vor denen Touristen bei Notfällen mit Flächenbränden stehen. Sie unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit maßgeschneiderter Strategien zur Risikominderung, die sich den spezifischen Schwachstellen vorübergehender Bevölkerungsgruppen widmen, denen es häufig an lokalem Wissen und Vorsorge mangelt. Der Artikel präsentiert ein umfassendes Werkzeug, TOURSAFE, um diese Risiken zu bewerten und abzumildern. Dieses Tool ist das Ergebnis umfassender Forschung, einschließlich Literaturrecherchen, Interviews mit wichtigen Akteuren und thematischer Analysen, die einen robusten und praktischen Ansatz zur Verbesserung der Sicherheit von Touristen gewährleisten. TOURSAFE bietet einen strukturierten Rahmen für die Bewertung von Schwachstellen, maßgeschneiderte Beratung und benutzerfreundliche Outputs, die Notfallmanager und Behörden bei ihren Vorsorge- und Reaktionsbemühungen unterstützen. Der Artikel diskutiert auch die Lücken in den aktuellen Strategien zur Risikominderung und betont die Bedeutung des Verständnisses von Prozessen zur Risikoerzeugung, um effektivere und umfassendere Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu entwickeln. Durch die Fokussierung auf die spezifischen Bedürfnisse und Merkmale von Touristen bietet der Artikel eine neue Perspektive auf das Waldbrandrisikomanagement und macht ihn zu einer unverzichtbaren Lektüre für alle, die an der Katastrophenvorsorge und Notfallplanung beteiligt sind.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
Frequent wildfires increasingly impact tourist populations, yet there is a shortage of evidence-based, human-centered tools for wildfire risk reduction tailored to these areas. Most current tools focus primarily on assessing and reducing physical vulnerabilities, overlooking human aspects. While some community wildfire management guidelines exist, actionable strategies for disaster managers to address tourist-specific vulnerabilities are absent. This study aligned with existing vulnerability assessment methodologies, utilizing qualitative interviews, site visits, and literature review to identify key characteristics of tourist vulnerabilities and develop effective mitigation strategies. As a result, we developed TOURSAFE—a freely accessible tool for disaster risk managers in tourist areas. Based on human behavior in fire scenarios, expected evacuation decisions, and key actors’ expertise, TOURSAFE assists in identifying tourism-related wildfire vulnerabilities and offers relevant, adaptable mitigation strategies. This tool is easy to use, accessible, and provides actionable advice for short-, medium-, and long-term planning.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 Introduction and Background
In recent years, wildfires have significantly impacted tourist areas, disrupting travel plans, endangering lives, and damaging infrastructure [1]. The increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires have heightened the vulnerability of Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas [2, 3], which often overlap with popular tourist destinations. While communities have responded to wildfire risks through preparedness and mitigation efforts [4‐7], there are unique challenges in safeguarding tourists who may be unfamiliar with the specific risks and safety protocols associated with wildfire-prone regions.
Several notable wildfires underscore the difficulties in managing tourist safety. For example, the 2017 Napa and Sonoma fires in California (Business [8], the 2019–2020 Australian bushfires [9], the Mati fire [10] and the Hawaii wildfire [11] caused widespread destruction in popular tourist areas. Studies have identified tourists as a particularly vulnerable group during wildfires due to their transient nature and lack of familiarity with local hazards [12]. Tourists often lack knowledge of evacuation routes, are less prepared for emergencies, and may not receive or understand timely information about the dangers they face [12‐14]. This exacerbates the risks of injury and death and complicates the efforts of emergency responders.
Anzeige
The development of tools for vulnerability assessment has traditionally been grounded in the principles of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR, or risk reduction henceforth) [15]. While vulnerability has been defined depending on the aims of the research [16], these tools often focus on preparedness, mitigation, and response strategies to minimize hazard risks. However, recent critiques highlight a significant gap in current practices of assessments: many risk reduction efforts are disconnected from a thorough exploration of the processes that contribute to Disaster Risk Creation (DRC, or risk creation henceforth) [17]. Muir and Opdyke [17] argue that this disconnect can lead to an incomplete understanding of risk, particularly through the lenses of vulnerability and exposure.
In the context of wildfires, the primary focus has been on understanding and mitigating the wildfire hazard itself, rather than on how people and structures are exposed to this hazard, especially in dynamic environments like the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) [18]. However, the vulnerability of individuals, in other words the specific conditions (internal or external) that make individuals vulnerable [16]—especially tourists—remains largely underexplored. Tourists, unlike permanent residents, are often transient and may lack local knowledge, access to resources, or understanding of wildfire responses such as evacuation procedures and stay-and-defend strategies. This oversight in risk reduction strategies means that the ways in which vulnerabilities are created and exacerbated, particularly in high-risk environments, are often ignored. This gap in understanding how risks are constructed and perpetuated can result in less effective risk reduction strategies that fail to protect the most vulnerable populations.
Research has emphasized the importance of understanding human vulnerability during wildfires. For example, studies [19‐21] have explored how factors such as age, mobility, and awareness influence individuals’ responses to wildfire threats. However, existing vulnerability assessments often emphasize economic factors, such as poverty, rather than the specific challenges faced by small municipalities in wildfire-prone tourist areas [22, 23]. Both of these shortcomings in available research and methodology are further complicated by the fact that tourist populations are not static but fluctuate throughout the year, meaning they cannot be considered under the same terms as ‘communities’.
Notably, most vulnerability assessments are based on scales that may not be compatible with the localized needs of such areas. One exception, albeit not in the context of tourism necessarily, is the Local Vulnerability Index (LVI) [24], which is designed for application at the municipal level and can inform public policy.
Anzeige
However, there remains a significant gap in the literature concerning the specific vulnerabilities of tourists in wildfire-prone areas. While there is a body of work examining human behavior during wildfires, it often fails to address the unique conditions and decision-making processes of tourists [12, 25]. Labhiri et al.’s review of existing literature found limited generalizability of human behavior studies to tourist populations. This oversight is concerning, as tourists may lack access to the same resources or information as local residents, making them less likely to be aware of and understand the severity of the situation or follow evacuation orders. Identifying these vulnerabilities is crucial for developing targeted safety measures and communication strategies.
The goal of this work is to identify and consolidate the various vulnerabilities that tourists face in wildfire scenarios, and to develop risk reduction strategies tailored to prepare for, mitigate, and prevent related risks in the short-, medium-, and long-term. The objective is to create a tool that helps municipalities assess the risks tourists face during wildfires. This tool is intended to be directly accessible to policy-, and decision-makers, enabling them to make informed decisions without having to always rely on external experts or in some cases make decisions without any support.
This approach is crucial because it empowers policy-, and decision-makers (e.g., town mayors, other local executives) to proactively address the factors that contribute to the vulnerabilities of tourists, preventing the creation of additional risks. By engaging in risk reduction practices that are inclusive of the specific needs and characteristics of all populations, a move beyond the limitations of existing vulnerability assessments can be achieved. As Muir and Opdyke [17] point out, these assessments often perpetuate contentious expert opinions without truly addressing the root causes of risk. Therefore, by understanding and addressing risk creation processes for tourists’ vulnerabilities, whole communities can become more resilient and better prepared to handle natural hazards such as wildfires.
2 Methodology
This study used a combination of methodologies to build a tourist vulnerability assessment tool to be used by individuals responsible for safety in WUI tourist infrastructures and areas. This work was part of a larger project, WUITIPS (funded by the European Union Civil Protection [26]), that aims to understand the impact of wildfires on buildings, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and human protection, and create a unified approach to wildfire risk management in tourist areas across the EU. The purpose is to enhance EU-wide cooperation in preventing and preparing for forest fires in tourist areas. The current paper is focused on the work related to human protection. In the process, we performed a literature review, semi-structured interviews that took place online and on-site, a vulnerability assessment questionnaire, and a desktop-based tool development (see Figure 1). Those methodologies were adopted in an iterative way, aiming at balancing the ease of use of the final tool and useful safety advice for its users.
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the tourist population vulnerability assessment tool development
The first preparatory stage of the overall WUITIPS project [25] leading up to the development of this tool, involved a literature review. This review [12] identified challenges and issues related to tourist vulnerability and classified the main characteristics of tourists influencing their behavior during wildfire emergencies.
The systematic review by Labhiri et al. [12] focused mainly on:
1.
Insights into tourists’ behavior in emergency evacuations.
2.
Insights into human behavior in wildfires.
3.
Definition of archetypes in the context of wildfire evacuation.
The results yielded 23 papers which were analyzed by Labhiri et al. [12], who identified variables from the final list of publications that served as a foundational context for understanding tourist vulnerabilities in wildfire scenarios:
1.
Property attachment
2.
Past experience and preparedness
3.
Safety culture
4.
Risk perception
5.
Individual socio-demographic background
6.
Group dynamic
7.
Interaction with authorities
8.
Place of residence and length of stay
9.
Transportation mode
10.
Information
In conjunction with complementary insights later gained from interviews (discussed in the next section) the identified characteristics and their contextual relevance added depth to the tool’s development. The review ensured a more comprehensive understanding of tourist vulnerabilities in wildfires by intersecting human characteristics and contextual factors that might otherwise be considered in isolation.
2.2 Interviews
Since the literature on tourist vulnerabilities during wildfires was scarce, these findings were then complemented with additional insights from interviews with key actors, such as tourist infrastructure managers and emergency managers. In another published work presented at a conference, qualitative semi-structured interviews were carried out to understand better how the identified characteristics are reflected practically in their own work with tourist populations in wildfire emergencies [25, 27]. In total, twenty key actors were identified and interviewed either online or in person. These actors had first-hand experience with wildfire involving tourists or were experts in wildfire evacuation. The sample consisted of four researchers, four tourist managers, two municipality administrators, three emergency responders, two managers of a natural park, and five regional administrators of the area under consideration [27].
The interviews helped identify the challenges related to different tourist characteristics and informed the adaptation of the concept of evacuation behavior archetypes to tourists [28].
2.3 Thematic Analysis
Qualitative thematic analysis [29] of the literature and interviews were used to inform the development of a vulnerability assessment tool. The analysis employed inductive reflexive thematic analysis as described by Braun & Clarke [29] to examine participant responses. Using NVivo 12 software, the interview data underwent deep familiarization, codification, labelling and theme-finding pertinent to the study’s objectives [27]. Themes were carefully defined, reviewed, and refined collaboratively by the authors to ensure they accurately represented the data and were conceptually distinct.
The analysis led to three themes: 1) Lack of knowledge, 2) Physical vulnerability, and 3) Discrepant tourist expectations. These themes offer valuable insights and serve as a foundation for developing strategies to mitigate tourist vulnerability.
2.4 Site Visits
During the interview stage, the research team also visited sites of tourist infrastructure affected by wildfires at the border between Spain and France, in the Catalunya area. The visits were facilitated by project partners which included two local organizations (Diputación de Gerona and Entente pour la forêt Méditerranéenne), a university (the Polytechnic University of Catalunya) and a private company (Efectis France). The sites were selected to represent typical tourist areas and infrastructures prone to wildfires. These included campsites, hotels and other holiday accommodations, along with a natural park, local authorities and different wildland-urban interface municipalities where wildfires had recently occurred. Following this, the synthesis of information supported the construction of the tourist vulnerability questionnaire used in the TOURSAFE tool, which was tested and adjusted iteratively (discussed in the next section).
2.5 Implementation of the TOURSAFE Tool
The TOURSAFE tool consists of a questionnaire and an associated tailored advice and user-friendly color-coded outputs based on the responses provided. It was first implemented in a spreadsheet, and then later implemented in a Graphical User Interface (GUI) developed in C# using the WinForms framework for easier use. The questionnaire answers produced tailored advice based on responses and a color-coded output (from green to red based on vulnerability) which reflects the scrutinized vulnerability aspects. The final tool implementing both the questionnaire and the resulting tailored advice was called TOURSAFE to reflect its aim of informing the safety of tourist populations.
It is expected that once more research is available, this tool can subsequently be updated. The detailed steps behind these development stages are described in the following section.
3 The TOURSAFE Tool
The tool named TOURSAFE tailors the risk reduction advice based on users’ responses about the vulnerability of the hosted tourist populations. The guidance information helps the tourist populations become integrated into the local risk reduction strategies by bringing awareness of the types of populations the municipalities host and their needs in wildfire preparedness and response.
As described in the methodology section, the development process of the tool was not linear and involved iterations (see Fig. 1). This paper concerns the process of tool development and its functionalities. This is explained in detail in a set of steps.
First, the aspects of risk creation identified through literature and interviews were categorized into themes focusing on human vulnerability and the environmental context of tourist infrastructure. The focus on risk creation has led to the definition of practice-oriented themes, for example, communication (language, functionality of emergency information channels), transportation, and peak wildfire season. These themes connect challenges occurring in a practice and contribute to creating risks specifically for tourists. The initial subjective grouping produced thirteen themes, which were then refined and consolidated into nine to incorporate similar but nuanced topics.
Additionally, the interconnectedness of some challenges across multiple themes was observed from mapping the risk creation examples onto specific themes. This was expected given the multifaceted nature of tourist vulnerability in wildfires (e.g., involving human behavior, the need for information, and the physical context). The visual representation of theme-sorting can be seen in Fig. 2.
3.2 Step 2. Mapping risk creation (DRC) onto the available risk reduction (DRR) strategies
A second step was to address these identified risk creation aspects based on the reviewed literature using the PRISMA framework [12], as well as guidance and best practice guidelines concerning wildfires available for public use. The risk creation aspect was then mapped onto the available risk reduction information (the result can be seen in Table 1). The pertinent scholarly and grey literature was written in English and resulted mostly from countries known for their advancements in wildfire and bushfire management, such as the United States of America, Australia, and Canada. The extensive version of the information that has shaped the mapping exercise is available in a WUITIPS report associated with this work [25].
Table 1
Disaster Risk Creation (DRC) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Mapping
Theme
Disaster risk creation (DRC), disaster risk reduction (DRR) and the corresponding literature
Wildfire frequency and peak season
DRC: Tourism during the peak wildfire season can present several preparedness and response to wildfire challenges
DRR: Assessing wildfire risk is usually the first step to disaster risk reduction planning. This helps prioritize resources and efforts for targeted mitigation measures
DRC: Tourists may be more vulnerable to accidents in wildfires compared to local populations
DRR: During peak tourist times, the communication strategy should consider the fire risk context to inform tourists and raise awareness among the disaster risk reduction/civil protection system and local residents
Training, information, and knowledge-building are key aspects of community safety in disaster risk mitigation. Tourists are often not considered part of the ‘community’ mindset and thus miss out on significant opportunities to contribute to wildfire safety
DRC: Tourists may think that if they cannot understand the information, it is not for them
DRR: Instructions, evacuation notices, and safety guidelines should be accessible and understandable to all visitors. Similar to signage in a building, information should either be universally comprehensible or translated into languages that visitors will understand
DRC: Different segments of population may be used to and aware of different information channels, some will also check several channels to look for more information
DRR: Emergency communication should be consistent. Using the same information channels can reduce misinformation and misunderstanding. For instance, tourists should rely on updates from local authorities rather than international news sources, or via unofficial sources. Over-reliance on a single communication channel may exclude certain populations and lack redundancy in case of communication failures. Wildfire messaging should be adapted to the channel while consistently providing relevant information. Research has shown that content, style, and message length influence action-taking
DRC: While several channels may be available, their functionality and effectiveness in reaching tourists during emergencies may not be optimal. For example, people may not be aware of the protective actions associated with certain communication types that do not have instructions (such as sounds of alerts and sirens). This is even more relevant where multiple hazards are present and each may require different alerting strategies, which can be confusing to people who are not familiar with the differences in these strategies
DRR: Several guidance documents can help ensure functionality of communications: Fire safety guidance regarding fire detection and alarm, in combination with effective use of communication channels; best practice of emergency alerting in other emergencies, such as earthquakes and weather events; best practice for the use of public information channels in emergency management; best practice for the use of social media in emergency management; community wildfire risk management advice
DRC: Diverse tourist groups, such as families, solo travelers, and young people, will have different communication needs that will impact their ability to find and use critical information essential for effective emergency response
DRR: Depending on the choice between evacuation and shelter-in-place, tourists may need guidance or support in taking protective action. It is important to accommodate their needs for water, food, pet shelter, and other essentials during evacuation, while also providing care and support for their well-being during and after a wildfire event. These efforts should be guided by human-centered design principles to ensure they are tailored to the specific needs of those affected
Some people may be less connected to dynamic information sources, face language barriers, and have different needs. Supporting them specifically at tourist assistance points can facilitate their safety. This could include but not be limited to accessing the internet, purchasing tickets online if travels are cut short due to wildfire emergencies, and booking accommodation online, among other things
Tour operators are responsible for large groups, which typically remain together during emergencies. Specific skills of these operators in directing and informing groups should be utilized
Staff at visitor centers have experience communicating with tourists and insight into their activities. This helps anticipate potential communication loss or risks, such as wildfires during high-fire days and implications for activities such as hiking, among others
DRC: Differences in wildfire knowledge are common between local and tourist populations, as tourists do not usually take part in community wildfire risk reduction and wildfire preparedness activities. For example, incentivizing local residents’ involvement in educating tourists through opportunities such as when hosting them or providing services would support the dissemination of knowledge
DRR: Reducing cognitive load when presenting information will help tourists find and retain the information they need. For example, using postcards with essential information would be an effective way to disseminate it and ensure tourists keep it throughout their holiday
Recurrent tourists, among other types of tourists should have access to the most up-to-date wildfire risk information and can incorporate that in planning their holidays, as opposed to finding all information only on their arrival
DRC: Confusion among tourists may arise if two different strategies are employed in close proximity, potentially leading to non-compliance. In individual cases, people may refuse to comply with the evacuation or shelter-in-place strategy
DRR: Coordination of how two strategies may interact, their effects or possible harmonization would potentially minimize non-compliance
Even if evacuation is not the preferred strategy, planning for a wildfire emergency should include consideration of worst-case scenarios for road blockages and mitigation plans. This is especially important when the available roads are few and narrow but may also be applicable in other contexts
Trust in disaster management decisions could be strengthened by explaining the advantages of certain protective actions. This also helps manage emotions such as helplessness, fear, and anxiety that tourists may experience during a wildfire emergency
Staff management of evacuation is important, particularly in reducing pre-evacuation time or at night when staff can assist in waking tourists
DRC: If tourists are unsure of the best course of action, they may make decisions that increase their risk during a wildfire emergency. If resources are not sufficiently allocated to ensure that organized evacuation means, such as public buses, are available to all who need them, it can leave segments of the population vulnerable. If on-foot evacuation is not made as straightforward as possible, it increases the difficulty and danger for individuals trying to escape a wildfire. Steep, obstructed, or poorly marked routes can lead to injuries, delays, or people becoming trapped, turning a potentially life-saving measure into a risk-creating scenario
DRR: Multiple options available to tourists and locals ensure flexibility and efficiency during the evacuation procedure
Organize sufficient evacuation means is vital for the population’s safety. In cases where insufficient resources do not permit access to organized evacuation such as public buses for everyone, people should be informed of the available evacuation options
When wildfire evacuation on foot is considered, it should be as easy as possible for people to achieve
DRC: People can have varying susceptibility to wildfire effects, such as heat and smoke
DRR: Ensuring well-being of everyone affected by wildfire should be a thorough process, therefore consulting relevant guidelines is advisable
Designating shelter spaces equipped with essential systems such as cooling and water ensures that evacuees have access to fundamental resources during a wildfire emergency
Providing necessary items such as medications, cooling supplies, and respiratory protection gear is crucial for safeguarding the well-being of individuals during a wildfire emergency. Respiratory protection gear, such as masks, is essential for protecting against smoke inhalation
DRC: If people are residing in remote or isolated areas, making wildfire plans for evacuation, shelter, and effective communication with them may be impeded
DRR: Planning for the evacuation or sheltering of remotely located individuals is essential to ensure that no one is left vulnerable during a wildfire emergency
Access to communication tools allows them to receive timely updates and critical information about the wildfire’s progress and evacuation orders. This connectivity enables them to make informed decisions and seek help if needed
DRC: People in different income groups may have varying needs and resources during emergencies and this may affect how they make decisions
DRR: If evacuation is required, people with lower incomes may be the most hesitant to leave as they may not have the resources to stay away, stock up or keep their belongings secure while away. Alleviating the financial burden of evacuation for individuals with lower incomes may serve as a strong incentive for their compliance in emergency wildfire situations
While people do not tend to act selfishly during emergencies, research suggests that they may not always be motivated to share their resources with strangers. Therefore, promoting and rewarding such behaviors could influence how people support each other during emergencies
DRC: People may face various other difficulties during emergencies. Understanding and preparing for these challenges is essential to ensuring the safety of all residents and visitors in the municipality
DRR: This portion of the guidelines targets the most common concerns authorities encounter when planning evacuations. By explicitly highlighting these challenges, there is an opportunity to review existing plans and incorporate elements that directly address them in the most suitable way
No guidance documents were found that directly address all identified challenges. Many challenges are particularly relevant to tourist populations, which are often considered a minority of population in the context of wildfire management in these countries, although this is not typically the case in Europe.
3.3 Step 3. Building the questionnaire
Using the themes, identified risk creation instances and examples, and the available risk reduction context, a questionnaire was developed. Its aim is to allow the user of the TOURSAFE tool to identify the level of tourists’ vulnerability in a given area (i.e. municipality) and to offer tailored risk reduction advice.
The questionnaire received feedback from the project partners at the conceptual and definitive stages thus providing a fine-tuning opportunity for narrowing down the questionnaire to the most essential and relevant questions. The main criteria for the final list of sixteen unique questions (six of which are split to regard local residents and tourists separately) was the question’s relative importance for the impact on tourist safety, while keeping the questionnaire short (approximately 20 min).
3.4 Step 4. Negotiating the Questionnaire Weighting System
Each response option to a question was developed based on the assumption that the answers can be placed on a spectrum, where at each extreme most / least vulnerability can be represented. Thus, to operationalize the questionnaire (i.e. to assign a scoring system), the response options were assigned a weight ranging from low to medium to high (representing least to most vulnerability). The weighting system was created and negotiated between three researchers within the project through a process of discussion and refinement (where the meaning of a weight was reviewed thoroughly by each researcher in an iterative process). The weights, as presented in Table 2, depend on the number of available questions and answer options within the theme. It is intended that the user should ‘score’ as low as possible on each question for the vulnerability to be ‘low’. A full list of questions and answer options is presented in the supplementary materials of this paper.
Table 2
Questionnaire Thematic and Scoring System
Theme
Weighing for vulnerability assessment
Low
Medium
High
Wildfire frequency and peak season
1
2
3–4
Peak tourism
1
2
3–4
Communication
a. Language
b. Channels
c. Functionality
d. Communication type
12–17
18–21
23–55
Tourist and resident types
5–10
11–15
16–20
Transportation & assembly (evacuation by private vehicles)
1–2
3–4
5–8
Transportation & assembly (evacuation by foot or by public transport)
1–3
4–7
8–12
Human vulnerability
1–3
4–5
6–8
Reaching remote populations
1
2
3–4
Financially inclusive emergency planning
2
3–6
7–8
Challenges and opportunities
0–3
4–8
9–20
3.5 STEP 5: TOURSAFE Outputs
The guidelines, presented as best practice advice in the outputs of the TOURSAFE, are informed by the literature review, qualitative interviews with key actors, as well as being aligned with general principles from WUI wildfire safety management in communities [30, 36, 37], human behavior in wildfires [45], and past wildfire incidents [46]. Each theme within the guidelines is accompanied by a literature-based narrative to demonstrate the question’s overall importance.
The guidelines were crafted for individual answer options drawing parallels between fire safety in built environment, communities and across different disciplines. They are structured to offer qualitative advice for addressing the most encountered issues in wildfire emergencies, particularly concerning the management of tourist populations in cross-border WUI areas. The advice is tailored to match the specific type and context of tourism in cross-border wildfire-prone areas in Europe. Each guideline’s theme offers multiple action tasks that can support emergency managers and authorities in the preparedness, mitigation, and response phases of wildfire risk management. The guidelines are presented to the tool user as output for the TOURSAFE tool (Sect. 4), presenting users only with relevant elements corresponding to vulnerabilities identified in the responses to the questions in the tool. The advice in full can be found in the supplementary materials of this paper.
The questionnaire and accompanying advice were also translated into Spanish, Catalan and French (given the initial application areas of the tool). The latest version of the tool is translated into four languages (English, French, Spanish, Catalan) and comes with a graphical user interface available as a final product (a screenshot can be seen in Fig. 3). The output is provided in an html-format that can be read in any browser and converted to a pdf. The TOURSAFE tool was released in open access in a public repository [47].
Fig. 3
Screenshot of the graphical user interface of the TOURSAFE tool
The tool was tested with individuals who were identified by the project team through the network of the WUITIPS project. These individuals had experience across the theoretical and practical understanding of vulnerability assessments and tourist vulnerabilities to fire. These included a town mayor, an environment and cartography technician and a wildfire evacuation researcher. The testing exercises took place online, as the lead researcher went through the questionnaire, while the testing participant was reflecting on a real wildfire-risk situation in a tourist area that they are familiar with. Feedback on functionality, usefulness, clarity of the questions, appropriateness of the answer options, overall use of the tool and the advice was received and implemented.
Since two of the testing cases were applied to real tourist areas, the outputs of these tool applications are provided in the supplementary material.
4 Discussion
A notable gap in the assessment of human vulnerability to wildfires was identified. While current WUI research efforts focus mostly advance knowledge in human behavior within communities and in general [21], as well as evacuation tools and evacuation performance [18, 48], wildfire risk assessments [22, 49, 50], and property protection [51, 52]. Vulnerability assessments of populations in WUI settings have been reluctant to gain scholarly ground. However, whilst acknowledging human-centered vulnerability in wildfire context is not a new idea [53], populations that fall outside of the description of ‘community’, such as tourists, are often almost entirely overlooked in the context of WUI [12].
Thus, lacking scholarly investigation into tourist vulnerability assessment, this study has created a vulnerability assessment framework, and a practical tool called TOURSAFE. It began with identifying and categorizing risk creation aspects related to human vulnerability and tourist infrastructure, refining initial themes into nine practical categories. These themes were then mapped onto existing wildfire risk reduction strategies, revealing gaps in guidance for tourist-specific challenges. A questionnaire was developed to assess tourist vulnerability and provide tailored advice, refined through key actors’ feedback to ensure relevance and brevity. A weighting system for responses was established to quantify vulnerability, and guidelines were created based on literature, interviews, and best practices. These outputs, including a user-friendly tool and guidelines available in multiple languages, support wildfire management in tourist areas, particularly in cross-border regions.
TOURSAFE is meant to enhance the ability to assess and manage wildfire risks in tourist areas by providing a structured framework for evaluating vulnerabilities specific to tourists. By addressing gaps in current wildfire risk reduction strategies, the tool offers tailored guidance that improves the preparedness and response of both tourists and local authorities.
The TOURSAFE tool complements existing wildfire risk reduction tools and can be combined with established strategies to provide a more comprehensive understanding of risk, particularly in cross-border regions where coordination with other risk reduction systems is crucial. The tool’s multi-language capability and specialized focus enhance its utility in harmonizing efforts with regional and international wildfire management practices.
TOURSAFE is a freely available tool. The present TOURSAFE tool is therefore the first openly available tool of this sort. For this reason, we also caution that the tool serves as a guidance only. It is expected that feedback will be received from users, which would help improve the tool’s usability as well as adaptability to different contexts.
One key limitation of TOURSAFE is its focused application, which may not fully address vulnerabilities in non-tourist settings or other types of infrastructure. The tool also relies heavily on the accuracy and quality of user input, which can vary and affect the overall effectiveness of the assessments. Moreover, implementing the advice provided by TOURSAFE may require considerable resources, potentially posing challenges in areas with limited infrastructure or expertise. Additionally, the number and selection of respondents during the tool’s development process influenced its design, as the insights gathered were shaped by the perspectives and experiences of those who participated. This means that the tool’s applicability may reflect the biases or limitations inherent in the sample, potentially impacting its generalizability to broader contexts.
To enhance TOURSAFE’s effectiveness, future research should focus on validating and testing the tool in diverse tourist settings to ensure its accuracy and reliability in a wider range of contexts. Future developments would also benefit from more research on tourist behavior and tourist vulnerabilities in wildfires [12].
5 Conclusions
The goal of this paper was to present the TOURSAFE tool for tourist vulnerability assessment in wildfire-prone tourist areas. The need for this work stems from the lack of currently available vulnerability assessments and risk reduction strategies for tourist areas, as most scholarly literature focuses on methods that rely on physics-based factors, e.g., weather-related, and fuel-related factors [54], community wildfire risk mitigation [55, 56], or vulnerability assessments of marginalized people and communities [23, 57], as well as other hazards [58, 59].
The tourist population vulnerability assessment tool, along with its accompanying guidelines for best practices in human protection, shifts the focus toward understanding the specific needs and characteristics of people in wildfire disaster risk reduction.
While there is a need to continue collecting feedback on the use of this tool and update it as new research on tourist vulnerability in wildfire-prone tourist areas becomes available, it is already useful to a variety of actors. For example, municipal emergency managers (e.g., town mayors or other people responsible for coordinating emergency preparedness and response efforts), civil protection agencies, fire departments, and local neighborhood leaders with a role in facilitating community resilience could benefit from this tool.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all key actors who took time to answer to our questions and helped us developing and improving our tool. The authors also wish to acknowledge the project partners Jaume Llunell Sanchez and Maria Pipió Adroher from the Diputacion de Gerona for facilitating the contact with key actors, Philippe Meresse from Entente Valabre for the help with the TOURSAFE French translation, as well as Bruno Guillaume from Efectis France and Elsa Pastor from UPC for useful feedback on the tool developed. The authors also thank Amina Labhiri for her contribution to the first phase of the WUITIPS project.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Vaiciulyte S, Rivero-Villar A, Guibrunet L (2023) Emerging risks of wildfires at the wildland-urban interface in Mexico. Fire Technol 59(2):983–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-023-01376-wCrossRef
4.
Eriksen C, Prior T (2011) The art of learning: Wildfire, amenity migration and local environmental knowledge. Int J Wildland Fire 20(4):612–624. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10018CrossRef
5.
Jakes P, Langer L (2012) The adaptive capacity of New Zealand communities to wildfire. Int J Wildland Fire 21(6):764–772. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11086CrossRef
6.
McLennan J, Elliott G, Omodei M, Whittaker J (2013) Householders’ safety-related decisions, plans, actions and outcomes during the 7 February 2009 Victorian (Australia) wildfires. Fire Saf J 61:175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.09.003CrossRef
7.
Paveglio TB, Kooistra C, Hall T, Pickering M (2016) Understanding the effect of large wildfires on residents’ well-being: what factors influence wildfire impact? Forest Science 2(February):59–70. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.15-021CrossRef
Kalogeropoulos N, Mitchell H, Kuligowski E, Ronchi E, Rein G (2025) Quantifying dire evacuations in case of wildfire using trigger boundaries: a case study of the 2018 Mati wildfire in Greece. Saf Sci 181:106691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106691CrossRef
11.
Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (2023) Tourism industry affected by Maui wildfires in august 2023. https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/blog/23-50/
12.
Labhiri A, Vaiciulyte S, Kuligowski E, Ronchi E (2024) Evacuation decisions of tourists in wildfire scenarios. Under review.
13.
Candea M (2008) Fire and identity as matters of concern in Corsica. Anthropol Theory 8(2):201–216CrossRef
14.
Vaiciulyte S, Galea ER, Veeraswamy A, Hulse LM (2019) Island vulnerability and resilience to wildfires: a case study of Corsica. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 40(December 2018):101272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101272CrossRef
15.
Sikka K (2014) Community Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment in the Context of Disaster Risk Reduction Case Studies. August.
16.
Cutter SL, Carolina S, Boruff BJ, Carolina S, Shirley WL, Carolina S (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards n. Social Sci Quart 84(2):242–261CrossRef
Gwynne S, Ronchi E, Bénichou N, Kinateder M, Kuligowski E, Gomaa I, Adelzadeh M (2019) Modeling and mapping dynamic vulnerability to better assess WUI evacuation performance. Fire Mater 43(6):644–660. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2708CrossRef
de Torres Curth M, Biscayart C, Ghermandi L, Pfister G (2012) Wildland-urban interface fires and socioeconomic conditions: a case study of a northwestern patagonia city. Environ Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9825-6CrossRef
21.
Kuligowski E (2020) Evacuation decision-making and behavior in wildfires: past research, current challenges and a future research agenda. Fire Safety Journal 120:103129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103129CrossRef
22.
Moret W (2014) Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies: A Review of the Literature.
23.
Thabang K, Thinda A (2009) Community-based hazard and vulnerability assessment: a case study in Lusaka Informal Settlement, City of Tshwane.
24.
Naudé W, Mcgillivray M, Rossouw S (2008) WIDER Research Paper 2008/54 Measuring the Vulnerability of Subnational Regions. www.wider.unu.edu
25.
Ronchi E, Vaiciulyte S, Labhiri A (2004) Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Touristic Infrastructure Protection Solutions-Guidelines for good practices for human protection. http://www.brand.lth.se/english
Ronchi E, Vaiciulyte S (2024) Perspectives of stakeholders on tourist vulnerability to wildfires in cross-border regions. Paper presented at the ESFSS Conference.
Braun V, Clarke V (2012) “Thematic analysis.,” in APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological., in APA handbooks in psychology®., Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2012, pp. 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
30.
NFPA (2022) FIREWISE USA PROGRAM TOOLKIT, Band Together Before Wildfire.
31.
Joint Research Centre (2024) Wildfires: 2023 among the worst in the EU in this century. European Union.
32.
AIDR (2021) Public Information and Warnings. Second Edition, In Australian emergency management handbook series.
33.
Dootson P, Kuligowski E, Greer DA, Miller SA, Tippett V (2022) Consistent and conflicting information in floods and bushfires impact risk information seeking, risk perceptions, and protective action intentions. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 70:102774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102774CrossRef
34.
State Government Victoria (2013) Emergency management planning for children and young people Planning guide for local government
35.
Villeneuve M, Sterman J, Llewellyn GL (2018). Person-Centred Emergency Preparedness: A process tool and framework for enabling disaster preparedness with people with chronic health conditions and disability. Centre for Disability, Research and Policy, University of Sydney, NSW 2006
US Fire Administration. (2022). Wildland Urban Interface: A look at issues and resolutions – A report of recommendations for elected officials, policymakers and all levels of government, tribal and response agencies. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/wui_report_2022.pdf
38.
Purser D (2008) Assessment of Hazards to Occupants from Smoke, Toxic Gases, and Heat. In: Hurley M (ed) SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 2–96
39.
Katzilieris, K., Vlahogianni, E. I., & Wang, H. (2022). Evacuation behavior of affected individuals and households in response to the 2018 Attica wildfires: From empirical data to models. Safety Science,153, 105799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105799CrossRef
40.
Cahyanto, I., Pennington-gray, L., Thapa, B., Srinivasan, S., Villegas, J., Matyas, C., & Kiousis, S. (2014). An empirical evaluation of the determinants of tourists’ hurricane evacuation decision making. Journal of Destination Marketing Management,2(4), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.10.003CrossRef
41.
Cohn, P. J., Carroll, M. S., & Kumagai, Y. (2006). Evacuation behavior during wildfires: Results of three case studies. Western Journal of Applied Forestry,21(1), 39–48.CrossRef
42.
Black Saturday Museum (2022). Bushfire Recovery Education
43.
EU EENA (2024) The European Emergency Number Association.
44.
FEMA, US Fire Administration (2022) Wildland Urban Interface: A Look at Issues and Resolutions. A Report of Recommendations for Elected Officials, Policymakers and All Levels of Government, Tribal and Response Agencies
45.
SFPE (2019) SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire.
46.
Ronchi E, Wong S, Suzuki S, Theodori M, Wadhwani R, Vaiciulyte S, Gwynne S, Rein G, Kristoffersen M, Lovreglio R, Marom I, Ma C, Antonellis D, Zhang X, Wang Z, Masoudvaziri N (2021) Case studies of large outdoor fires involving evacuation. International Association of Fire Safety Science-Large Outdoor Fire & the Built Environment Working Group. https://iafss.org/publications/casestudies2021/
Calgaro E, Lloyd K, Dominey-Howes D (2014) From vulnerability to transformation: a framework for assessing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destinations. J Sustain Tour 22(3):341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.826229CrossRef
Cova TJ, Theobald DM, Norman JB, Siebeneck LK (2013) Mapping wildfire evacuation vulnerability in the western US: The limits of infrastructure. GeoJournal 78(2):273–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-011-9419-5CrossRef
52.
Mitsopoulos I, Mallinis G, Dimitrakopoulos A, Xanthopoulos G, Eftychidis G, Goldammer JG (2020) Vulnerability of peri urban and residential areas to landscape fires in Greece: evidence by wildland-urban interface data. Data Brief 31:106025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106025CrossRef
Intini P, Ronchi E, Gwynne S, Bénichou N (2020) Guidance on design and construction of the built environment against wildland-urban interface fire hazard: a review. Fire Technol 56(5):1853–1883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00902-zCrossRef
Oliveira S, Félix F, Nunes A, Lourenço L, Laneve G, Sebastián-López A (2018) Mapping wildfire vulnerability in Mediterranean Europe. Testing a stepwise approach for operational purposes. J Environ Manage 206:158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.003CrossRef
57.
Rini DT (2018) Fire Risk and Vulnerability in Urban Informal Settlements in Metro Manila: An integrated approach to sustainable urban fire risk management Fire Risk and Vulnerability in Urban Informal Settlements in Metro Manila management. 143.
58.
Birkmann J (ed) (2006) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University Press, Tokyo
