ArticlePloS one2024
Machine learning estimates on the impacts of detection times on wildfire suppression costs.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As climate warming exacerbates wildfire risks, prompt wildfire detection is an essential step in designing an efficient suppression strategy, monitoring wildfire behavior and, when necessary, issuing evacuation orders. In this context, there is increasing demand for estimates of returns on wildfire investments and their potential for cost savings. Using fire-level data from Western Canada during 2015-2020, the paper associates variation in wildfire reporting delays with variation in suppression costs. We use machine learning and orthogonalization methods to isolate the impact of reporting delays from nonlinear impacts of the fire environment. We find that reporting delays account for only three percent of total suppression costs. Efforts to improve detection and reduce wildfire reporting delays by one hour lead to a modest 0.25% reduction in suppression costs. These results suggest that investments in detection systems that reduce wildfire reporting delays are not justified on suppression costs savings alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.