Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review identifies regional methodological variations in forest fire risk assessments, highlighting key indicators.
Forest fire risk assessment methodologies vary considerably, presenting challenges for adaptation to specific local contexts. This study provides a systematic analysis of forest fire assessment approaches across the Mediterranean basin, American, African, and Asian regions through a comprehensive review of 112 peer-reviewed studies published from 2015 to 2025. Statistical significance testing (Chi-square tests, p < 0.05) confirmed significant regional variation in methodological preferences and indicator usage patterns. Key findings revealed that Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis dominates the field (44% of studies, n = 49), with Analytical Hierarchical Process being the most utilized method (39 studies). Machine learning approaches represent 25% (n = 28), with Random Forest leading significantly (22 applications). The analysis identified 67 indicators across seven major categories, with topographic factors (slope: 105 studies) and anthropogenic indicators (road networks: 92 studies) showing statistically significantly highest usage rates (p < 0.001), representing a statistically significant critical gap in vulnerability assessment (p < 0.01). Organizational factors remain severely underrepresented (a maximum of 14 studies for any factor), representing a statistically significant critical gap in risk assessments (p < 0.01). Statistical analysis revealed that while Mediterranean approaches excel in integrating historical and cultural factors, American methods emphasize advanced technology integration, while Asian approaches focus on socio-economic dynamics and land-use interactions. This study serves as a foundation for developing tailored assessment frameworks that combine remote sensing analysis, ground-based surveys, and community input while accounting for local constraints in data availability and technical capacity. The study concludes that effective forest fire risk assessment requires a balanced integration of global best practices with local environmental, social, and technical considerations, offering a roadmap for future forest fire risk assessment approaches in different regions worldwide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mihajlovski et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: