Fig 1.
Schematic overview of the processes conducted for the risk assessment.
Table 1.
Scaled valuations for HVRA subcategories by FSA.
Table 2.
Density-based valuation of buildings used for the risk assessment.
Table 3.
Classification of timber volume for value assignment and fire response allocation.
Table 4.
Composite valuations for the species category based on EOR.
Fig 2.
Cluster assignment probabilities of the SCMC procedure including the overlaid final FSA boundaries.
Fig 3.
Burn probability for all FSAs using worst-case meteorological data on record during peak fire season from the 50 selected weather stations.
Fig 4.
Conditional flame length modeled for each FSA.
Fig 5.
Spatial distribution of the IARF accounting for drought severity during the fire season, insect and disease infestation, and gorse occurrence.
Fig 6.
Percentages of land owned and managed by different entities in areas with the highest ORR within each FSA.
Entities with less than 1% assigned to the highest risk class in any FSA were summarized as ‘Others’.
Fig 7.
ORR class allocations showing the percent of private and public land area, respectively, assigned to the risk classes in FSA 1 to 6 (panel a to f).
Fig 8.
Spatial distribution of overall relative risks in FSA1 to FSA 6 (panel a to f).
Transparent areas show grid cells that were classified as non-burnable or not burned by the fire model and consequently have no risk values assigned.
Fig 9.
Percent ORR distribution across all risk classes with respect to the HVRA main categories for FSA 1 to 6 (panel a to f).
Fig 10.
Regional comparison for Klamath and Lake County Oregon between overall relative risk as assigned by EFPRRA (a) and the overall wildfire risk calculated by QWRA 2018 [16] (b).
Fig 11.
Ground-based fire risk assessed on the landscape scale on private lands within the Chiloquin Community Forest and Fire Project.