Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Parcel-level wildfire risk assessments are a crucial tool for understanding risks to residential parcels and identifying wildfire risk mitigation needs. Traditionally, wildfire risk assessments have been conducted in the field by traveling to each individual parcel; however, the development of new remote sensing technology has opened the possibility of conducting wildfire risk assessments remotely. Aims This case study evaluates the trade-offs of using remote imagery to conduct rapid parcel-level wildfire risk assessments. Methods We compare the quantitative and qualitative differences from conducting wildfire risk assessments remotely using aerial imagery and in-field using data from over 2500 parcels in the Alaskan wildland–urban interface. Key results We find significant differences between remote and in-field risk assessments in the coverage and alignment of particular wildfire risk attributes, including address postings, close vegetation and siding materials. Conclusions With high-resolution and contemporary data, remote assessments may be a viable approach for conducting parcel-level risk assessments and evaluating intra-community wildfire risk, though not without limitations. Compared with in-field methods, remote data collection methods do not provide the qualitative benefits acquired from practitioners working directly within communities. Implications Remote imagery can expand coverage of parcel-level wildfire risk assessments, but its performance varies by attributes and image quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Webster et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: