Assessing the quality of forest fuel loading data collected using public participation methods and smartphonesColin J. Ferster A B and Nicholas C. Coops A
A Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
B Corresponding author. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
International Journal of Wildland Fire 23(4) 585-590 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13173
Submitted: 12 October 2013 Accepted: 4 February 2014 Published: 9 April 2014
Effective wildfire management in the wildland–urban interface (WUI) depends on timely data on forest fuel loading to inform management decisions. Mobile personal communication devices, such as smartphones, present new opportunities to collect data in the WUI, using sensors within the device – such as the camera, global positioning system (GPS), accelerometer, compass, data storage and networked data transfer. In addition to providing a tool for forest professionals, smartphones can also facilitate engaging other members of the community in forest management as they are now available to a growing proportion of the general population. Approaches where the public participates in the data-collection process (inspired by citizen science) may be beneficial for fire hazard issues. This research note demonstrates a smartphone application for measuring forest fuel loading in the WUI by forestry professionals and non-professionals, and evaluates the quality of the collected data. Smartphones and their associated applications may provide new tools for collecting forest structural data in the WUI, but forest managers need to ensure that measurement protocols provide the required precision for analysis and enforce the logical consistency of observations made by a diverse set of data collectors, and that sufficient training is provided. If these recommendations are followed, we conclude that data acquired by volunteers in collaborative projects through smartphone applications can be of acceptable quality to help inform forest management decisions.
Additional keywords: citizen science, geographic information systems, remote sensing, spatial information.
ReferencesAgee JK, Skinner CN (2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83–96.
| Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments.CrossRef |
Brabham DC (2012) The myth of amateur crowds. Information Communication and Society 15, 394–410.
| The myth of amateur crowds.CrossRef |
Cohen J (2000) Preventing disaster: Home ignitability in the wildland–urban interface. Journal of Forestry 98, 15–21.
Ferster CJ, Coops NC (2013) A review of Earth observation using mobile personal communication devices. Computers & Geosciences 51, 339–349.
| A review of Earth observation using mobile personal communication devices.CrossRef |
Ferster CJ, Coops NC, Harshaw H, Kozak R, Meitner M (2013) An exploratory assessment of a smartphone application for public participation in forest fuels measurement in the wildland–urban interface. Forests 4, 1199–1219.
| An exploratory assessment of a smartphone application for public participation in forest fuels measurement in the wildland–urban interface.CrossRef |
Keane RE, Dickinson LJ (2007) The photoload sampling technique: estimating surface fuel loadings using downward-looking photographs. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-190. (Fort Collins, CO)
Keane RE, Burgan R, Van Wagtendonk JW (2001) Mapping wildland fuels for fire management across multiple scales: integrating remote sensing, GIS, and biophysical modeling. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10, 301–319.
| Mapping wildland fuels for fire management across multiple scales: integrating remote sensing, GIS, and biophysical modeling.CrossRef |
Lane N, Miluzzo E, Lu H, Peebles D, Choudhury T, Campbell A (2010) A survey of mobile phone sensing. IEEE Communications Magazine 48, 140–150.
| A survey of mobile phone sensing.CrossRef |
Lutes DC, Keane RE, Caratti JF, Key CH, Benson NC, Sutherland S, Gangi LJ (2006) FIREMON: fire effects monitoring and inventory system. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-164-CD. (Fort Collins, CO)
Maxwell WG, Ward FR (1976) Photo series for quantifying forest residues in the coastal Douglas-fir–hemlock type, coastal Douglas-fir–hardwood type. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-51. (Portland, OR)
Morrow B, Johnston K, Davies J (2008) Rating interface wildfire threats in British Columbia. Ministry of Forests and Range Protection Branch. (Victoria, BC)
Ohlson D, Blackwell B, Hawkes B, Bonin D (2003) A wildfire risk management system—an evolution of the wildfire threat rating system. In ‘3rd International Wildland Fire Summit’, 3–6 October 2003, Sydney, Australia. pp. 3–6. (University of Freiburg: Freiburg, Germany)
Powell J, Nash G, Bell P (2012) GeoExposures: documenting temporary geological exposures in Great Britain through a citizen-science web site. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124, 638–647.
| GeoExposures: documenting temporary geological exposures in Great Britain through a citizen-science web site.CrossRef |
Pratihast AK, Herold M, Avitabile V, de Bruin S, Bartholomeus H, Souza CM, Ribbe L (2013a) Mobile devices for fommunity-based REDD+ monitoring: a case study for central Vietnam. Sensors 13, 21–38.
| Mobile devices for fommunity-based REDD+ monitoring: a case study for central Vietnam.CrossRef |
Pratihast AK, Herold M, De Sy V, Murdiyarso D, Skutsch M (2013b) Linking community-based and national REDD+ monitoring: a review of the potential. Carbon Management 4, 91–104.
| Linking community-based and national REDD+ monitoring: a review of the potential.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXht1CntL8%3D&md5=8eb0d4314f29aeb32116f33129bf6a55CAS |
Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holcomb SS, McKeefry JF (2005) The wildland–urban interface in the United States. Ecological Applications 15, 799–805.
| The wildland–urban interface in the United States.CrossRef |
See L, Comber A, Salk C, Fritz S, van der Velde M, Perger C, Schill C, McCallum I, Kraxner F, Obersteiner M (2013) Comparing the quality of crowdsourced data contributed by expert and non-experts. PLoS ONE 8, e69958
| Comparing the quality of crowdsourced data contributed by expert and non-experts.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXht1yqurzL&md5=5e835ae14afd6d7556180aeaaba5457aCAS | 23936126PubMed |
Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek M, Lewenstein BV, Krasny ME, Bonney R (2012) Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17, 29
| Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design.CrossRef |
Sikkink PG, Keane RE (2008) A comparison of five sampling techniques to estimate surface fuel loading in montane forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17, 363–379.
| A comparison of five sampling techniques to estimate surface fuel loading in montane forests.CrossRef |
Toman E, Stidham M, Shindler B, McCaffrey S (2011) Reducing fuels in the wildland–urban interface: community perceptions of agency fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20, 340–349.
| Reducing fuels in the wildland–urban interface: community perceptions of agency fuels treatments.CrossRef |
Weng Y-H, Sun F-S, Grigsby JD (2012) GeoTools: an Android phone application in geology. Computers & Geosciences 44, 24–30.
| GeoTools: an Android phone application in geology.CrossRef |