Climatic Change

, Volume 109, Supplement 1, pp 445–463 | Cite as

Climate change and growth scenarios for California wildfire

  • A. L. Westerling
  • B. P. Bryant
  • H. K. Preisler
  • T. P. Holmes
  • H. G. Hidalgo
  • T. Das
  • S. R. Shrestha
Article

Abstract

Large wildfire occurrence and burned area are modeled using hydroclimate and landsurface characteristics under a range of future climate and development scenarios. The range of uncertainty for future wildfire regimes is analyzed over two emissions pathways (the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios [SRES] A2 and B1 scenarios); three global climate models (Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques CM3, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory CM2.1 and National Center for Atmospheric Research PCM1); three scenarios for future population growth and development footprint; and two thresholds for defining the wildland-urban interface relative to housing density. Results were assessed for three 30-year time periods centered on 2020, 2050, and 2085, relative to a 30-year reference period centered on 1975. Increases in wildfire burned area are anticipated for most scenarios, although the range of outcomes is large and increases with time. The increase in wildfire burned area associated with the higher emissions pathway (SRES A2) is substantial, with increases statewide ranging from 36% to 74% by 2085, and increases exceeding 100% in much of the forested areas of Northern California in every SRES A2 scenario by 2085.

Supplementary material

10584_2011_329_MOESM1_ESM.docx (176 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 176 kb)

References

  1. Balling RC, Meyer GA, Wells SG (1992) Relation of surface climate and burned area in yellowstone national park. Agric For Meteorol 60:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brillinger DR, Preisler HK, Benoit JW (2003) Risk assessment: a forest fire example. In Science and Statistics, Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes. Monograph SeriesGoogle Scholar
  3. Cayan D, Tyree M et al (2009) Climate Change scenarios and sea level rise estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment, Public Interest Energy Research, California Energy Commision, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Cumming SG (2001) A parametric model of the fire-size distribution. Can J For Res 31:1297–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gesch DB, Larson KS (1996) Techniques for development of global 1-kilometer digital elevation models. In Pecora Thirteen, Human Interactions with the Environment—Perspectives from Space. Sioux Falls, South Dakota, August 20–22, 1996Google Scholar
  6. Hamlet AF, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Production of temporally consistent gridded precipitation and temperature fields for the continental U.S. J Hydrometeorol 6(3):330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansen MC, DeFries RS, Townshend JRG, Sohlberg R (2000) Global land cover classification at 1 km spatial resolution using a classification tree approach. Int J Remote Sens 21:1331–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heyerdahl EK, Brubaker LB, Agee JK (2001) Factors controlling spatial variation in historical fire regimes: a multiscale example from the interior West, USA. Ecology 82(3):660–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hidalgo HG, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2008) Downscaling with constructed analogues: Daily precipitation and temperature fields over the United States. CEC Report CEC-500-2007-123. January 2008Google Scholar
  10. Holmes TP, Hugget RJ, Westerling AL (2008) Statistical analysis of large wildfires. Chapter 4 of economics of forest disturbance: Wildfires, storms, and pests, Series: Forestry Sciences, Vol. 79. In Holmes TP, Prestemon JP, Abt KL (Eds), XIV, p 422. Springer. ISBN: 978-1-4020-4369-7Google Scholar
  11. Kipfmueller KF, Swetnam TW (2000) Fire-climate interactions in the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness area. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-vol-5Google Scholar
  12. Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, Canadell JG, Marland G (2009) Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat Geosci 2:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liang X, Lettenmaier DP, Wood EF, Burges SJ (1994) A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J Geophys Res 99(D7):14,415–14,428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Malamud BD, Morein G, Turcotte DL (1998) Forest fires: an example of self-organized critical behavior. Science 281:1840–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maurer EP, Hidalgo HG (2008) Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale climate data: an intercomparison of two statistical downscaling methods. Hydrology and Earth System Science 12:551–563Google Scholar
  16. Maurer EP, Wood AW, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP, Nijssen B (2002) A long-term hydrologically-based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J Climate 15:3237–3251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell KE et al (2004) The multi-institution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): Utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system. J Geophys Res 109:D07S90. doi:10.1029/2003JD003823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Monteith JL (1965) Evaporation and the environment. Symp Soc Expl Biol 19:205–234Google Scholar
  19. Penman HL (1948) Natural evaporation from open-water, bare soil, and grass. Proc R Soc Lond A193(1032):120–146Google Scholar
  20. Preisler HK, Westerling AL (2007) Statistical model for forecasting monthly large wildfire events in the Western United States. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46(7):1020–1030. doi:10.1175/JAM2513.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Preisler HK, Westerling AL, Gebert KM, Munoz-Arriola F, Holmes T (2011) Spatially explicit forecasts of large wildland fire probability and suppression costs for California. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20:508–517Google Scholar
  22. Preisler HK, Brillinger DR, Burgan RE, Benoit JW (2004) Probability based models for estimating wildfire risk. Int J Wildland Fire 13:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ricotta C, Avena G, Marchetti M (1999) The flaming sandpile: self-organized criticality and wildfires. Ecol Model 119:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schlobohm P, Brain J (2002) Gaining an understanding of the national fire danger rating system. National Wildfire Coordinating Group Publication: NFES # 2665. www.nwcg.gov
  25. Schoenberg FP, Peng R, Woods J (2003) On the distribution of wildfire sizes. Environmetrics 14:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Song W, Weicheng F, Binghong W, Jianjun Z (2001) Self-organized criticality of forest fire in China. Ecol Model 145:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stephenson NL (1998) Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: Biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. J Biogeog 25:855–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strauss D, Bednar L, Mees R (1989) Do one percent of the forest fires cause ninety-nine percent of the damage? Forest Sci 35:319–328Google Scholar
  29. Swetnam TW, Betancourt JL (1998) Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. J Clim 11:3128–3147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Theobald D (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol Soc 10(1):32Google Scholar
  31. U.S. EPA (2008) Preliminary steps towards integrating climate and land use (ICLUS): The Development of Land-Use Scenarios Consistent with Climate Change Emissions Storylines (External Review Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-08/076AGoogle Scholar
  32. Veblen TT, Kitzberger T, Donnegan J (2000) Climatic and human influences on fire regimes in ponderosa pine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Ecol Appl 10:1178–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verdin KL, Greenlee SK (1996) Development of continental scale digital elevation models and extraction of hydrographic features. In: Proceedings, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, January 21–26, 1996. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  34. Westerling AL (2009) “Wildfires.” Chapter 8 in Climate Change Science and Policy. Schneider, Mastrandrea, Rosencranz and Kuntz-Duriseti (Eds), Island Press”Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Westerling AL, Bryant BP (2008) Climate change and wildfire in California. Clim Chang 87:s231–249. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9363-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westerling AL, Gershunov A, Cayan DR, Barnett TP (2002) Long lead statistical forecasts of Western U.S. Wildfire area burned. Int J Wildland Fire 11(3,4):257–266. doi:10.1071/WF02009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Westerling AL, Brown TJ, Gershunov A, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2003) Climate and wildfire in the Western United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 84(5):595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increases Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943. doi:10.1126/science.1128834, Online supplementCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang Y-H, Wooster MJ, Tutubalina O, Perry GLW (2003) Monthly burned area and forest fire carbon emission estimates for the Russian Federation from SPOT VGT. Remote Sens Environ 87:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. L. Westerling
    • 1
  • B. P. Bryant
    • 2
  • H. K. Preisler
    • 3
  • T. P. Holmes
    • 4
  • H. G. Hidalgo
    • 5
  • T. Das
    • 6
  • S. R. Shrestha
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, MercedMercedUSA
  2. 2.Pardee RAND Graduate SchoolThe RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research StationAlbanyUSA
  4. 4.USDA Forest Service Southern Research StationResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  5. 5.School of Physics and Center for Geophysical ResearchUniversity of Costa RicaSan JoseCosta Rica
  6. 6.CH2MHILL, Inc.San DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations