Evaluates ecological wildfire risk in Lovćen National Park, implying the need for effective prevention strategies.
Montenegro, like other Mediterranean countries, faces increasing wildfire risk in protected areas. In Lovćen National Park, limited wildfire prevention and management contribute to heightened ecological risk. This study focuses on evaluating ecological wildfire risk through a spatially explicit approach that prioritizes the protection of natural habitats and ecological values. It applies medium-resolution data at the meso-scale to ensure an appropriate balance between spatial coverage and accuracy. The methodology integrates three core components: susceptibility, hazard, and ecological vulnerability into a unified framework for ecological wildfire risk assessment. Susceptibility is modeled using a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (GIS-MCDA) approach, with standardized input criteria including, fuel type, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), the Normalized Difference Moisture Index (NDMI), slope, and distance from anthropogenic features. Hazard is classified using a 3 × 3 matrix that combines susceptibility and fuel-based fire intensity. Ecological vulnerability is assessed through habitat representativeness, aligned with the EU Habitats Directive. The final ecological risk is mapped using a 4 × 4 matrix that integrates hazard levels with habitat vulnerability. The results indicate that 25.65 % of Lovćen National Park is under low ecological risk, 41.82 % falls within the moderate risk category, 23.25 % is classified as high risk, and 9.28 % of the area is under very high ecological risk. The findings emphasize the importance of targeted wildfire prevention in protected areas and support the use of scalable, resolution-sensitive approaches for ecological risk assessment and nature conservation planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vujović et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: