DEVELOPMENT OF WILDFIRE VULNERABILITY INDEX IN CENTRAL KALIMANTAN

I Nengah Surati Jaya1, Rizaldi Boer1, Samsuri1, and Fathurakhman2 1 Bogor Agricultural University, 2 CARE - Indonesia

INTRODUCTION
Since the first largest forest fire destroyed approximately 3 million Ha of East Kalimantan Forest in 1982/83, the fires had been raised to global attention as environmental and economic issues. The fires had caused direct effect on ecosystems, particularly on their contribution to carbon emissions and their impact on biodiversity. During the 1997/98 ENSO, up to 25 million hectares of land worldwide were affected by fire. The areas affected by fire in 1997/98 are approximately 11.7 million hectares. Indonesia had the most severe fires in the world with similar problem with the ENSO in 2002. During these fires, the forest degradation and deforestation due to fire had caused economic cost in the range of USD 1.6~2.7 billion. The cost of smoke haze pollution was in the range of USD 674~799 million. During 2003, approximately 34,655 hotspots were detected. These hotspots were spread out to almost whole islands in the country. The largest number of hotspots were found in Central Kalimantan Province (7341), and then followed by Riau Province (5380), West Kalimantan Province (4860), and South Sumatra Province (3367). Almost no hotspot was found in Bali, NTT, North Maluku and Papua (hotspot less than 10). Up to the present, the rate of forest fire damage are ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 million hectares per year. As reported by JICA Project in 2002, the months having frequent hot spot findings are starting from July to November then continuously decrease from December to May of the following year. As described in Figures 1 ~ 5, large amount of hotspot in Central Kalimantan commonly occurred between July and October. To reduce the forest fire disaster as well as to prevent and control forest fire, the Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia (MoF) developed collaboration with some International Donor Countries such as JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency), European Union (EU) and the Government of Germany (GTZ) for establishing an early detection system using NOAA AVHHR satellite imagery. The data obtained from NOAA are mainly used for detecting hot spot and or smoke/haze coverage. The hot spots derived from NOAA AVHRR are mainly used as a component of early detection system. The hot spot is an early indication of forest fire occurrence. The hot spot recorded as one pixel is not absolutely fire, but it express the temperature that relatively higher than its surrounding pixels (areas). The temperature detected are ranging from 310oK (37oC) in the night and 315oK (42oC) in the daytime. The geographical coordinates of the hotspots are recorded by the system then sent to the MoF and forest manager. The same hotspot that continuously recorded more than 3 day respectively would be predicted as fire. Up to now, although the forest fire occurrence are getting worsen, we have no information yet regarding forest fire prone area. That is why, the development of integrated forest fire sensitive zoning by taking into consideration the human and biophysical factors is needed. Wild fire may occur in any vegetation cover type when conditions are favorable for burning. However, every fire need some spark or flame to start it.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 1

In this report, the authors develops forest fire models that pertain to the first phase of fire management, i.e., pre-fire planning (fire risk models) through developing wildfire vulnerability index. This index is needed for during program development for forest fire prevention and suppression. At the beginning of any fire protection works it is important to establish the source of sparks of flames which under favourable condition could start a forest fire. The fire prevention is one of the most important functions of the fire control service. Prevention activities are very often the most economical way of reducing fire damage and losses. Fire prevention can be started without any expensive equipment. One part of forest fire prevention planning is to make an analysis of the fire risk and causes. The various types of risks and hazards in the area should be considered in a wildfire prevention analysis. In organizing wildfire prevention in particular area, one must first know what the usual causes of fire are, and the risk and hazard involved. Risk is defined as the chance of fire starting from one cause or another such as people, lighting, electricity etc. While, hazard is the fuel complex by type, arrangement, volume, condition and location that forms a special threat of ignition or difficulty in suppression (Heikkila, Gronqvist and Jurvelius, 1993). Area covered with grass, brush and forest fuels are examples of hazards. In fire prevention programs, it would be helpful if the organizer can make a summary of the main problems, such as what are the main causes of wildfire, location of very risk area, location of the area that should be protected and what are the main objective and method for fire protection. General guideline of a wild fire prevention plan may include basic data and information that consisted of fire occurrence map, fire statistics graph, fire risk area map, hazards area map and forest operation map. Forest fire risk may be considered at different spatial and temporal resolutions: global and local; short-term and long-term; These forest fire risks are very important in forest and land fire management. Comprehensive consideration for forest fire risk implies taking into account a wide range of variables. Chuvieco and Falas (1999) distinguished between the concept of risk associated to the beginning of a fire (fire ignition risk or flammability) and the spreading of active fire (fire behaviour risk or fire hazard). The fire suppression (fire behavior models) and post-fire evaluation (fire effects and economics models) are the remaining models that did not describe in this study. In each case, different variables and different risk weight should be considered. In this study, the model considers variables that related to fuel type such as land cover type, soil type (peat/non-peat) and source of fire from human activities such as land use (and land status) and proximity (distance from streams/rivers, road, villages and city). The concern here is the development of wildfire vulnerability for estimating the frequency of a forest fire taking place at a particular location and time as a function of explanatory variables. In this study, the authors used hotspot data as variable that express the frequency of fire occurrence. Forest fire risk zones are locations where a fire is likely to start, and from where it can easily spread to other areas. This fire risk zone map, furthermore, can be used to make a precise evaluation of forest fire problems and decision on solutions. Recently, most application of GIS to forest fire risk mapping have been developed at the local and global level. In this study, the study area cover a relatively wide area (Kalimantan Tengah Province) at medium resolution (500 m grid size).

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 2

Objective The study objective is to: Develop a forest fire vulnerability index in Central Kalimantan To identify the explanatory variables that contributes forest fire prone significantly. To develop a reliable technique to detect post-fire condition using remote sensing data

METHODS
Study Area The study was carried out in Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia that represents a wide variety of forest cover, forest type and socio-economics conditions (accessibility) of the area. The study was focused to analyze the fire occurred from 2000 to 2004. However since the land cover data used in this study was made based on the satellite data that acquired in 2001/2002, vulnerability index model was developed using the hotspot acquired in 2003 (particularly that recorded in October) Supporting Data To support the analysis, the data used in this study include digital forms of: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Administrative border map, Villages and cities center map Road networks Stream or rivers Land cover Land use (status) Land system Soil type Hotspots coordinate.

Software and Hardware The main software that used to perform the study are ERDAS IMAGINE ver. 8.7., ArcView GIS ver.3.2., and statistical software SPSS. All of the analyses were performed using personal computer, digitizer, scanner and printer. To get ground truth condition, we use GPS, Hagameter, phiband and, Spiegel Relascope A long-term statistic of fire occurrence, predicted with hotspot (HS) may help in developing forest fire risk (see Figures 1 ~ 5). Although the hot spot data are not absolutely fire, however, the hotspot data are closely related to forest and land fire

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 3

occurrence and smoke fog. Therefore, these data could be used to develop wildfire risk map that then referred to as fire vulnerability map. Syaufina et al. (2004) mentioned that prevention activities should be performed before water deficit starting to occur in the area (before January) and during the dry season (May September).,
Kurv a Sebaran Temporal Hotspot Tahun 2000 A ceh Jambi Sumsel Sumut Bengkulu Riau Sumbar Lampung Jabar Jateng DIY Jatim Kalbar Kalsel Kalteng Kaltim Sulsel Sulteng Sultra Bali Brunei Serawak & S Singapore M alay sia Phillipines Thailand

Number of mlah H otspot 1600

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Jan

hotspot

Feb

Jun

N op

Jul

Ags

Month

Bulan

Figure 1 Hotspot frequency during the year 2000

K urva S ebaran Tem poral H otspot Tahun 2001
Aceh Bali Bangka Belitung Banten Bengkulu Brunei D IY D KIJak Jabar Jateng Jatim Kalbar Kalsel Kalteng Kaltim M aluku N T B Papua Sulsel Sulteng Sultra Sulut Lam pung R iau Sum bar Sum sel Sum ut Jam bi T hailand Peninsula M alaysia Philippines Seraw ak & Sabah

u m lah H otspot
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 J an

Number of hotspot

Feb

M rt

A pr

M ei

J un B ulan

J ul

A gs

Sept

S ep

O kt

Figure 2. Hotspot frequency during the year 2001

D es
N op

Aprl

Mei

O kt

Mrt

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 4

Kurva Sebaran T em poral H otspot T ahun 2002 Number of hotspot um lah H otspot 7500

6500

5500

4500

3500

2500

1500

500

-500

Jan F eb M rt Apr M ei Jun Jul Ags Sep O kt N op D es Bulan

Aceh Bangka Balitung Banten Bengkulu D I Yogyakarta D KI Jakarta Jabar Jam bi Jateng Jatim Kalbar Kalsel Kalteng Kaltim Lam pung M aluku P apua R iau Sulsel Sulteng Sultra Sulut Sum bar Sum sel Sum ut T hailand Vietnam Brunei Sarawak & Sabah Singapura P hilippines P aninsula M alaysia

Figure 3 Hotspot frequency during the year 2002

Aceh B ali B angka B alitung B anten B engklu D IY D KI Jam bi Jateng Jatim Jawa Barat K albar K alsel K alteng K altim Lam pung M aluku M aluku utara N T T R iau S ulsel S ulteng S ultra S ulut S um bar S um sel S um ut T hailand B runei P aninsula M alaysia P hilippines S arawak & Sabah

Kurva S ebaran T em poral H otspot T ahun 2003 Number of hotspot um lah H otspot 7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 Jan F eb M rt Apr M ei Jun Jul Ags Sep O kt N op D es Bulan

Figure 4 Hotspot frequency during the year 2003

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 5

Number of hotspot
Jum lah hotspot 8000

Kurv a Sebaran T em poral H otspot T ahun 2004

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Aceh Bali Bangka Balitung Banten Bengkulu Brunei D IY D KI Jabar Jam bi Jateng Jatim Jatim Kalbar Kalsel Kalteng Kaltim Lam pung M aluku M aluku utara N T B N T T R iau Sulsel Sulteng Sultra Sum bar Sum sel Sum ut T hailand Paninsula M alaysia Philippines Saraw ak & Sabah Singapura

0 Jan Feb M rt Apr M ei Jun Jul Ags Sep O kt N op D es Bulan

Figure 5 Hotspot frequency during the year 2004

Study methods The study method includes the following steps: 1. Data pre-processing that includes image rectification, registration and geo-referencing and data cropping 2. Data Processing that includes hotspot density computation (spatial analysis), and spatial operation (identity, intersect and buffering). Assuming that each hotspot (HS) was resampled to represent an area of 1 km x 1 km, the radius for computing the HD will be optimally interpolated using 2-km radius. In this study, the Hotspot density (HD) was computed using Kernel method with 2-km radius. To provide information that is more precise the cell size during the HD development is 500 m x 500 m. . The Data hotspot derived from several agencies such as JICA, EU and GTZ then uploaded to the GIS software. In this GIS software, the hotspots are then spatially analyzed providing the hotspot density (number of hot spot per squared kilometer; HS/sq km). Furthermore, the hotspot densities were used to develop mathematical model expressing the area vulnerability.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 6

3. Identification of Explanatory variables. Among various variables that may affect the forest fire intensity, the study identifies some variables that relevant to each study site. The followings are the variables that used for each study area: (a) Proximity from village center (X1) (b) Distance from road network (X2) (c) Distance from stream or river networks (X3) (d) Distance from city centers (X4) (e) Land use/status (X5) (f) Land cover (X6) (g) Soil type (X7) (h) Land system (X8) All fires are the result of chemical process that occur when fuel, heat and oxygen are brought together in the necessary combination that support combustion. In a forest, there is abundance of fuel and air (oxygen) always present. The fire can be put out, if we can eliminate one of these three variables. Thus, fuel and heat would be the most important factors that should be considered in affecting wildfire. As mentioned above, variables X1 ~ X4 are mostly related to a source of ignition, while X6 and X7 are related to fuel. Some of the sources of the heat which may cause forest or land fire are flames (e.g. match), ember (e.g. cigar), electrical sparks from man made sources, lighting, and friction (e.g., forest machines, trains etc). 4. Development of classes for each variables The factors and variable-classes considered in the study are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Variable classes used in this study. Variables Distance to village centers Distance to road networks Distance to streams/river networks Distance to city centers Status of Land use*) Classes Buffer with 1000-m interval Buffer with 1000-m interval Buffer with 1000-m interval Buffer with 1000-m interval Timber estate Area for conservation of hydrology Deep peat conservation Area for production development Area for flora and fauna conservation Production forest Water bodies Limited production forest Area for settlements Agric land "handil" Area for forestry training and education Black water conservation Natural Park Transmigration Forest Protection and conservation area Shrubs Dry land agriculture (paddy field) Lowland forest

Land cover

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 7

Bare land Estate Secondary forest Mountain forest Soil type Land system Peat Non-peat Swampy floodplains Shallow peat Deeper peat swamps Permanently waterlogged Undulating sandy Meander belt Shallower peat Coalescent estuarine Minor valley floors Sedimentary ridges Rolling plains Alluvial fans and mountain

*) These classes are derived from Spatial land-use planning of Kalimantan Tengah Province. 5. Weight Determination The method used to determine weight of each variable is Composite Mapping Analysis (CMA). This method had been successfully implemented in several research conducted previously in East Kalimantan, Riau and West Kalimantan (Boonyanuphap et al, 2001; Purnama and Jaya, 2007). In this study, the relationship between hotspot density and wildfire risk factors were analyzed to derive a vulnerability scores. The variables that have close correlations were selected then composed to develop linear multiple regression. The weight of each factor is the proportion (ratio) of each coefficient of regression to the total of all coefficients of the regression 6. Score development a. Actual score (SC)

The actual score of each sub-factor is computed as follows:

Oi Xi = x Ei 100 Oi Ei
Equation 1

TxFi Ei = 100

Equation 2

Where Xi is score for each factor; Oi is the number of hotspot that observed in each class (observed hotspot); Ei is the number of hotspot that expected to be found in each class (expected hotspot), T is the total hotspot; F is the percentage of area in each sub-factor Wildfire Vulnerability index - 8

b. Estimated score (ES) Computing the score estimate (ESC). The actual scores (SC) obtained are usually in irregular pattern. Thus, to smooth out the score systematically, the authors evaluate the relationship between the class of each variables and hotspot density. The estimate of scores (estimated scores) were derived using the regression equation model developed. c. Rescaled Score (RSC) Since the developed vulnerability index was composed using several variables having different unit and different scale, it is needed to standardize the score of each variables. The standardization of each score was done by rescaling the range of estimated score into the range between 10 to 100. The rescaling was done using the following formula:

Score E .input Score E . min Score R.out = Score E . Max Score E . min

(Score R.Max ScoreR.Min ) + Score R.Min

Equation 3

Where: ScoreR.out = Output of Rescaled score that would have values ranging from ScoreR.min and Score.R.Max. Score E.input = Score derived using regression line (estimated score) Score E.Min = minimum value of estimated score Score E.Max = maximum value of estimated score If the Score R.min and score R.max are set to have a range between 10 and 100, the rescaling equation can be simplified into Equation 4
Score E .input Score E . min Score R.out = Score E . Max Score E . min (90 ) + 10

Equation 4

7.

Vulnerability classes In this study, the vulnerability classes were developed using the spatial resolution of the hotspot having size 1 km x 1 km. Theoretically, during dry season when wildfire occurred, one hotspot will rapidly spread within the radius of 1 km. This means that the very high risk area will be within radius 1 km representing the area of approximately 3.141 km2. In this case, the hotspot density would be 0.3183. Within the radius from zero to 0.5 km, which is represent the area of 0.196 sq km, the author categorize it into extremely high risk, while from the radius of 0.5 km to 1 km is referred to as very high risk. Farther distance from fire center would have lower

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 9

risky areas. Comprehensively, the authors classify the vulnerability classes into five classes as described in Table1. Based on the weights derived from the CMA method, the spatial distribution of forest fire prone can be developed. Table 2. Vulnerability classes based on hotspot density and radius from HS Radius from the HS (fire) center (km) < 0.5 0.5 < 1.0 1.0 - < 1.5 1.5 - < 2.0 > 2.0 8. Hotspot density (HS/ sq km) > 1.273 0.318 - < 1.273 0.141 < 0.318 0.080 - < 0.141 < 0.080 Vulnerability classes Area represented by each hot spot (sq km) < 0.785 Extremely high risk 0.785 - 3.141 Very high risk 3.141 - 7.069 High risk 7.069 - 12.566 Medium risk > 12.566 Low risk

Model verification

Model verification was done to evaluate the coincidence between vulnerability score and fire incidence (HD). A number of verification plots having size 0.1 Ha 1 km x 1 km were selected randomly and represent all forest and land fire risk classes (low, medium and high risks). The map that used as reference is hotspot density map that derived from selected/available hotspot information. In this study, sample area representing all vulnerability classes were selected. The map representing vulnerability values and HD were then superimposed Coincidence was evaluated by examining the correlation between vulnerability score and HD.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Spatial Distribution of Hotspot Density Forest fire vulnerability map was created based upon hotspot distribution occurred in Central Kalimantan Province, particularly in the months which has densest hotpot density. Since we used the land cover digital map that published in 2003 (which probably developed from 2001/2002 satellite data), then the hotspot we used was the hotspot that recorded in 2002, particularly in September 2002 (see Fig 6). From this hotspot data, the hotspot density was derived using Kernel method having radius 2 km and 500 m cell size. As shown in Figure 7, the dense hot spot having more than 0.5 hotspot per km2 are found in Seruyan, Kota Waringin Timur and Pulang Pisau Regencies as well as in Palangkaraya City. The data also show that denser hotspot commonly found in peat land areas. For Comparison purposes, the hotspot distribution recorded in September 2004 and its spatial density are depicted in Figures 8 and 9.

Figure 6 Hotspot distribution occurred in October 2002

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 11

Figure 7 Hotspot density distribution in October 2002

Figure 8 Hotspot distribution occurred in September 2004

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 12

Figure 9 Hotspot density distribution in September 2004

B. Hotspot Density Evaluation As mentioned previously, since the land cover data that used in the study was published in 2003 and probably made from satellite image acquired in 2001/2002, and then the hotspot data that analyzed for score development are the hotspots, which recorded in October 2002. This study considers 8 (eight) factors or variables that affect the forest fire vulnerability, i.e., distance from surrounding villages (X1), distance from road (X2), distance from stream/rivers (X3), distance from surrounding cities (X4), land status or land use (X5), land cover (X6), soil type (X6) and land system (X7). The following are the analysis results of each variable.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 13

1. Distance from Village centers

Table 3 Data of HD in various distances from village centers Village Hotspot Village Distance density Distance Area Total (km) (HS/km2) (km) (Ha) Hospot *) 1 2,311.2 3.497 0.151 21 2 5,941.7 9.362 0.158 22 3 7,675.6 13.142 0.171 23 4 8,389.0 16.242 0.194 24 5 8,589.5 17.809 0.207 25 6 8,489.9 17.915 0.211 26 7 8,063.1 18.294 0.227 27 8 7,859.2 19.227 0.245 28 9 7,533.8 18.727 0.249 29 10 6,810.6 16.865 0.248 30 11 6,101.6 14.693 0.241 31 12 5,478.0 12.252 0.224 32 13 4,969.8 10.547 0.212 33 14 4,532.2 9.109 0.201 34 15 4,210.4 7.761 0.184 35 16 3,965.6 6.934 0.175 36 17 3,720.8 6.543 0.176 37 18 3,469.6 5.865 0.169 38 19 3,306.9 4.921 0.149 39 20 3,022.2 4.257 0.141 40

Area (Ha) 2,735.8 2,526.0 2,264.5 2,059.8 1,819.3 1,638.0 1,505.9 1,342.7 1,109.8 864.4 705.0 566.2 499.3 463.9 428.9 394.2 350.1 157.5 41.4 0.9

Total Hospot *) 3.761 3.439 3.163 3.194 2.956 2.499 2.018 1.676 1.378 1.065 0.872 0.703 0.614 0.578 0.534 0.490 0.429 0.195 0.048 0.001

Hotspot density (HS/km2) 0.137 0.136 0.140 0.155 0.162 0.153 0.134 0.125 0.124 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.123 0.125 0.125 0.124 0.123 0.124 0.116 0.117

Remarks: *) derived by multiplying mean value of hotspot density in each polygon by the area of each polygon. Between the ranges from 1 km to 40 km, there is significant relationship between hotspot density (HD) and distance from village center. With polynomial form, 82% variation of distance from village center will affect the variation in HD. In Figure 10, shows that between the buffer range of 0 to 9 km from the village centers, the HD tend to decrease when the distance getting closer. Within this buffer zone, the local people may control the fire occurrence. Inversely, in the area of the village buffer located further than 9 km, the HD tend to increase as the distance become closer. For the analysis, the HD distribution was cut off at the buffer 7 km (Figure 11). By using polynomial order 3 equation, the correlation between HD and distances from village center are very close having coefficient of determination of 88.25%. ,

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 14

Num ber of hotspots per km 2 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 1 3 5 7

Hotspot distribution y = 2E-05x - 0.001x + 0.0147x + 0.1524 R = 0.8234

2 3 2

y = 0.2534x
2

-0.1697

R = 0.3618

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Distance fromsurrounding villages (km )

Figure 10 Hotspot density distribution from the village centers (further than one km)

Num ber of hotspot per km 2 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10

Hotspot Distribution by Distance fromVillages

y = 0.3018x 2 R = 0.7867

-0.2572

HD Power (HD) Poly. (HD)

3 2

y = 2E-06x + 7E-05x - 0.0078x + 0.254 2 R = 0.8825

7.00 10.00 13.00 16.00 19.00 22.00 25.00 28.00 31.00 34.00 37.00 40.00 Distance fromsurrounding villages (km )

Figure 11 Hotspot density distribution from the village centers (further than 7 km)

2. Distance from road networks Similar to the HD from the village centers, the HD had systematical distribution form in relationship with the distance from the road networks. In the range between 1 and 7 km, local people may control the fire occurrence (see Figure 12). Thus for the vulnerability analysis, the distribution of the HD was cut in the buffer of 7 km (see Figure 13). By using the equation of polynomial order 3, the coefficient determination provided is 85%.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 15

Table 4 Data of HD in various distances from road network

Distance from road networks (km) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Area (Ha) 10673.587 10011.215 9345.955 8810.032 8427.065 8122.028 7747.782 7122.900 6527.433 6074.169 5592.849 5144.133 4706.078 4282.310 3652.314 2933.171 2712.141 2573.570 2357.407 2123.107 1930.630 1775.899

Total Hotspot *) 18.1770 17.7730 17.8680 18.2410 18.0780 18.7370 19.7390 18.5140 16.3590 13.4790 10.9290 9.3000 8.0190 7.5530 7.0230 6.1940 5.2700 4.2240 3.3480 2.7500 2.4230 2.3540

Hot spot density (HS/ km2) 0.1703 0.1775 0.1912 0.2070 0.2145 0.2307 0.2548 0.2599 0.2506 0.2219 0.1954 0.1808 0.1704 0.1764 0.1923 0.2112 0.1943 0.1641 0.1420 0.1295 0.1255 0.1326

Distance from road networks (km) 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Total Hotspot *) Area (Ha) 1623.221 1469.358 1346.743 1228.754 1101.524 980.480 747.945 607.772 569.001 530.800 494.978 467.547 436.250 384.384 346.760 310.040 271.906 180.175 104.584 55.871 10.334 Hot spot density (HS/ km2) 0.1395 0.1425 0.1374 0.1297 0.1251 0.1234 0.1247 0.1239 0.1241 0.1242 0.1238 0.1221 0.1242 0.1233 0.1234 0.1239 0.1243 0.1215 0.1243 0.1235 0.1258

2.2640 2.0940 1.8510 1.5940 1.3780 1.2100 0.9330 0.7530 0.7060 0.6590 0.6130 0.5710 0.5420 0.4740 0.4280 0.3840 0.3380 0.2190 0.1300 0.0690 0.0130

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 16

Hotspot num ber per km 2

0.2800 0.2600 0.2400 0.2200 0.2000 0.1800 0.1600 0.1400 0.1200 0.1000 1 3 5 7

Distribution of Hotspots fromroads HD Poly. (HD)

y = 4E-05x - 0.0047x + 0.2346 R = 0.6858
2 2

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 Distance from roads (km)

Figure 12 Hotspot density distribution from the road networks (further than one km)

Hotspot distribution by fromdistance Num ber of hotspot per km 2 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 Distance fromroads (km ), > 7 km HD Power (HD) Poly. (HD)

y = 0.2804x 2 R = 0.8051

-0.2398

y = 0.0002x - 0.0091x + 0.2479 2 R = 0.8572

Figure 13 Hotspot density distribution from the road networks (further than 7 km)

3. Distance from rivers/streams In relation with the stream/rivers buffers, the HD distribution shows very systematic pattern. Densest HDs were found in the river buffer of 1 km to 6 km having HD of approximately 0.17 ~ 0.2 HS/km2. The HD gradually decreased as the distance increase. From the buffer 10 km and more the HD is relatively constant (see Table 5 and Figure 14). The polynomial equation provide 95% of coefficient of determination.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 17

Table 5 Data of HD in various distances from river/stream networks

Distance from River/ stream networks(km) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Area (Ha)S 52233.689 28721.011 18602.728 12729.521 8422.257 5174.005 3663.532 2528.572 1245.889 765.975 616.595 575.372 444.954 171.034 19.068

Total Hotspot 100.200 58.800 37.751 25.108 16.542 10.071 6.566 3.743 1.593 0.942 0.761 0.713 0.551 0.212 0.022

Hotspot density (HS/km2) 0.19183 0.204728 0.202933 0.197242 0.196408 0.194646 0.179226 0.148028 0.127861 0.122981 0.12342 0.12392 0.123833 0.123952 0.115377

Num ber of hotspot per km 2 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hotspot Density Distribution fromrivers/stream s

y = 0.0002x - 0.0041x + 0.0191x + 0.1794 2 R = 0.9459

HD Poly. (HD)

10

11

12

13

14

15

Distance fromrivers/stream s (km )

Figure 14 Hotspot density distribution from the road networks (further than one km)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 18

4. Distance from cities

Table 6 Data of HD in various distances from city centers Distance Distance from from River/ River/ stream Hotspot stream networks Area Total density networks (km) (Ha) Hotspot (HS/km2) (km) 1 210.280 0.254 0.12079 29 2 671.245 0.833 0.12410 30 3 1156.268 1.539 0.13310 31 4 1605.341 2.409 0.15006 32 5 2148.367 3.347 0.15579 33 6 2637.160 4.157 0.15763 34 7 3054.601 5.004 0.16382 35 8 3184.147 5.528 0.17361 36 9 3363.195 6.167 0.18337 37 10 3555.969 7.044 0.19809 38 11 3771.988 8.168 0.21654 39 12 3883.636 9.004 0.23184 40 13 3946.344 9.424 0.23880 41 14 4028.006 9.664 0.23992 42 15 4162.060 10.009 0.24048 43 16 4305.801 9.954 0.23118 44 17 4468.451 9.386 0.21005 45 18 4613.248 9.259 0.20070 46 19 4794.754 9.554 0.19926 47 20 4651.192 9.484 0.20390 48 21 4422.756 9.065 0.20496 49 22 4424.298 8.535 0.19291 50 23 4277.995 8.072 0.18869 51 24 4192.537 7.572 0.18061 52 25 3969.132 6.878 0.17329 53 26 3792.049 6.375 0.16811 54 27 3684.386 6.340 0.17208 55 28 3636.064 6.938 0.19081 56

Area (Ha) 3668.126 3563.137 3456.727 3407.552 3380.495 3331.509 3061.408 2573.594 2058.020 1618.861 1378.852 1230.244 1081.313 869.298 718.625 586.140 469.104 410.083 389.801 370.515 351.213 331.911 303.791 248.828 200.741 169.045 73.574 0.425

Total Hotspot 7.251 6.798 6.442 6.180 6.192 6.455 6.212 5.570 4.333 3.054 2.538 2.402 2.270 1.430 0.938 0.721 0.577 0.508 0.479 0.523 0.636 0.674 0.558 0.326 0.246 0.208 0.091 0.000

Hotspot density (HS/km2) 0.19768 0.19079 0.18636 0.18136 0.18317 0.19376 0.20291 0.21643 0.21054 0.18865 0.18407 0.19525 0.20993 0.16450 0.13053 0.12301 0.12300 0.12388 0.12288 0.14115 0.18109 0.20307 0.18368 0.13101 0.12255 0.12304 0.12368 -

As described in Figure 15, the occurrence of HS also decrease in the range of 1 to 10 km buffer distance from the surrounding city centers. It seems that the government authority successfully control the fire in surrounding cities, particularly in the distance less than 13 km. In this case, the analysis of HD for wildfire analysis use the buffer of more than 10 km as shown in Figure 16. Statistical analysis shows that between the ranges of 10 km to more than 55 km, the HD density increase as the distance getting closer

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 19

Hotspot distribution by distance from neighbouring cities Hotspot number per km2

0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 Distance from neighbouring cities (km)
Figure 15 Hotspot density distribution from the city centers (further than one km)

HD

Hotspot distribution by distance fromneighbouring cities Hotspot num ber per km 2 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 Distance fromneighbouring cities (km ) HD Linear (HD)

y = -0.0019x + 0.2262 R = 0.5111

2

Figure 16 Hotspot density distribution from the city centers (further than 10 km)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 20

5. Land use AS tabulated in Table 7 and Figure 17. The very dense HS of approximately 0.72/ km2 is found in area that determined as timber estate. The lowest HD is found in the area devoted as forest protection and conservation. This condition is very logic if land preparation for establishing timber estate uses fire as major tool for land clearing.
Table 7 Data of HD in several land use

Status on land use Timber estate Area for hydrology conservation Deep peat conservation Area for production development Area for flora and fauna conservation Production forest Water bodies Limited production forest Area for settlements Agric land "handil" Area for forestry training and education Black water conservation Natural Park Transmigration Forest Protection and conservation area

Abbreviation HTI KH KGT KPP KFF HP DS HPT KPPL KHR PPK KEAH TW T1 PPH

Area (Ha) 240.066 14479.832 16042.780 22551.894 5300.660 39299.689 1503.355 23125.908 9594.281 1172.851 1.505 2181.446 280.947 67.301 71.687

Total Hotspot 1.7410 38.3710 39.0950 43.7480 9.9640 71.2270 2.4120 36.9280 14.9550 1.7530 0.0020 2.8660 0.3480 0.0800 0.0850

Hotspot density (HS/km2) 0.7252 0.2650 0.2437 0.1940 0.1880 0.1812 0.1604 0.1597 0.1559 0.1495 0.1329 0.1314 0.1239 0.1189 0.1186

Hotspot distribution by land use status Hotspot num ber per km 2 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 KPP PPK KEAH KHR TW 0.10 HP DS KH KPPL HPT KGT KFF HTI PPH T1 HD

Land use

Figure 17 Hotspot density distribution by land use status

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 21

6. Soil Type
Table 8 Data of HD by soil type

Soil type non-peat (np) peat Total Average

Area (Ha) 55366 80549 35,914.2 ,957.1010

Total Hotspot 94 170 63.6 1.7875

Hotspot density (HS/km2) 0.169683 0.210592 0.4 0.1901

Table 8 shows that the hot spot density in peat areas is higher than in non-peat areas. As described by Syaufina et al. (2004), peat area is a fragile ecosystem. When the peat forest is cleared, the exposed peat will dry out quickly and easily ignited.

7. Landover Beside weather and topography, fuel is one of the major factors, which influence fire behavior. It is important to be familiar with certain properties and characteristics of the fuels, which can include size of fuel, fuel arrangement, volume fuel, fuel type and fuel pattern and condition. The size of fuel has an important role in determining the rate of combustion of the fuel. Based on the vegetation cover, the highest number of hotspot density is found in shrubs, and then followed by dry land paddy field (lading) and lowland forest. During dry season, dried matter of shrubs vegetation is sensitively combustible. In this coverage, the hotspot density is approximately 0.30 HS/km2. As we all may aware, shrubs have large amount of light (fine) fuels such as leaves, grass, small branches, twigs etc. This fuel needs very little heat to reach ignition temperature. Once the grass begins to burn, it will burn very quickly. Shrubs are frequently called to as fast-burning fuels. In dry land paddy field (ladang), the human factor seem to have significant role. In this land cover or land use, people use fire for land preparation. Thus, medium to small branches, twigs, leaves are there. This land cover occupies the second largest hot spot density. In lowland forest area, usually has large amount of heavy (coarse) fuel such as logs, stumps and standing trees. These fuels need more heat to reach ignition temperature in comparison with the light fuel. The heavy fuels are also referred to as being slow-burning fuels.
Table 9 Data of HD in several land cover Area Total Land cover (Ha)S Hotspot Shrubs 5018.764 15.408 Dry land paddy field 44587.291 94.144 Lowland forest 78164.136 142.263 Bare land 2524.350 3.810 Estate 5596.256 7.922 Secondary forest 23.405 0.028

Hotspot density (HS/km2) 0.307008 0.211145 0.182005 0.150930 0.141559 0.119633

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 22

Hotspot num ber per km 2 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Shrubs Dryland agric.

Hotspot distribution by Landcover

Lowland forest Land cover

Bare land

Estate

Secondary forest

Figure 18 Hotspot density distribution by land cover

8. Land System Based on land system, the more HSs were found in swampy floodplains, then shallow peat, deeper peat having HD more than 0.21. During the dry season (July to October), these land system areas have large amount of combustible materials Dried peat either in shallow and deeper peat areas are very easy to be ignited (se Table 10 and Figure 19)
Table 10 Data of HD in several land system Area Total Land system (Ha) Hotspot Swampy floodplains 2334.513 5.324 Shallow peat 45690.828 99.556 Deeper peat swamps 23117.630 49.495 Permanently waterlogged 2034.532 4.068 Undulating sandy 35811.998 66.186 Meander belt 2869.327 4.486 Shallower peat 7371.169 11.186 Coalescent estuarine 13062.246 18.569 Minor valley floors 2121.034 2.856 Sedimentary ridges 50.568 0.063 Rolling plains 1433.816 1.767 Alluvial fans and mountain 16.541 0.019

Hotspot density (HS / km2) 0.228056 0.217891 0.214101 0.199948 0.184815 0.156343 0.151753 0.142158 0.134651 0.124585 0.123238 0.114866

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 23

Distribution of Hotspot by Landsystem

Hotspot density (Hs/km2)

0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10

Sw am py flo od pla ins Sh a llo De w ep pe er at pe Pe at rm s an wa en m tly ps wa ter log Un ge du d lat ing sa nd y M ea nd er be Sh lt all ow Co e ale rp ea sc t en te s t M ua ino rin rv e all e yf Se loo dim rs en tar yr idg es Al luv Ro llin ial g fa ns plai ns an dm ou nta in
Land system

HD

Figure 19 Hotspot density distribution by land system

C. Score Development Base on the HD and variable data described previously, the actual score (SC), estimated score (ESC) and rescaled score (RSC) were calculated and summarized in Table 11 ~ 18. The actual score was computed using the ratio observed and expected hotspot, while the estimated score was computed using the regression model derived from each variable. The rescaled score was computed using the Equation 3.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 24

1.

Score for Village Distances

Table 11 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for village distance

Village Distance (km) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Total Average

Area (Ha) 49,460 7,859 7,534 6,811 6,102 5,478 4,970 4,532 4,210 3,966 3,721 3,470 3,307 3,022 2,736 2,526 2,264 2,060 1,819 1,638 1,506 1,343 1,110 864 705 566 499 464 429 394 350 158 41 135,913 4,118.59

Observed HS (O) 96.261 19.227 18.727 16.865 14.693 12.252 10.547 9.109 7.761 6.934 6.543 5.865 4.921 4.257 3.761 3.439 3.163 3.194 2.956 2.499 2.018 1.676 1.378 1.065 0.872 0.703 0.614 0.578 0.534 0.490 0.429 0.195 0.048 263.574 7.987

HD (HS/km2) 0.1946 0.2446 0.2486 0.2476 0.2408 0.2237 0.2122 0.2010 0.1843 0.1749 0.1759 0.1488 0.1409 0.1375 0.1361 0.1397 0.1551 0.1625 0.1526 0.1340 0.1248 0.1242 0.1232 0.1237 0.1242 0.1230 0.1246 0.1245 0.1243 0.1225 0.1238 0.1160 0.1171 5.251 0.159

Expected HS (E) 95.92 15.24 14.61 13.21 11.83 10.62 9.64 8.79 8.17 7.69 7.22 6.73 6.41 5.86 5.31 4.90 4.39 3.99 3.53 3.18 2.92 2.60 2.15 1.68 1.37 1.10 0.97 0.90 0.83 0.76 0.68 0.31 0.08 263.574 7.987

O/E 1.0036 1.2615 1.2818 1.2769 1.2417 1.1533 1.0943 1.0364 0.9505 0.9016 0.9068 0.8717 0.7673 0.7263 0.7089 0.7020 0.7203 0.7996 0.8378 0.7867 0.6910 0.6437 0.6403 0.6354 0.6378 0.6402 0.6342 0.6425 0.6420 0.6410 0.6318 0.6383 0.5984 27.346 0.829

Actual Score 3.67 4.61 4.69 4.67 4.54 4.22 4.00 3.79 3.48 3.30 3.32 3.19 2.81 2.66 2.59 2.57 2.63 2.92 3.06 2.88 2.53 2.35 2.34 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.32 2.35 2.35 2.34 2.31 2.33 2.19 100

Estimated score 3.45 3.34 3.24 3.15 3.07 3.01 2.95 2.89 2.84 2.79 2.75 2.71 2.67 2.64 2.61 2.58 2.55 2.52 2.49 2.47 2.44 2.42 2.40 2.38 2.36 2.34 2.32 2.30 2.29 2.27 2.25 2.24 2.22 2.21

Rescaled score 100.00 91.60 84.42 78.19 72.69 67.78 63.36 59.35 55.69 52.32 49.20 46.31 43.61 41.08 38.71 36.47 34.36 32.36 30.47 28.66 26.95 25.31 23.74 22.24 20.79 19.41 18.08 16.80 15.57 14.38 13.23 12.12 11.04 10.00

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 25

Score for village distance 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 7 10 13 16

Score for village distance

SC_VD Power (SC_VD)

y = 5.6749x
2

-0.2556

R = 0.779

19

22

25

28

31

34

37

Distance fromsurrounding villages (km )

Figure 20 Model for estimating score of village distance

2.

Score for Road Distances

Table 12 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for road distance

Village Distance (km) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Area (Ha) 63137.664 7122.9 6527.433 6074.169 5592.849 5144.133 4706.078 4282.31 3652.314 2933.171 2712.141 2573.57 2357.407 2123.107 1930.63 1775.899 1623.221 1469.358 1346.743 1228.754 1101.524 980.48

Observed HS (O) 128.613 18.514 16.359 13.479 10.929 9.3 8.019 7.553 7.023 6.194 5.27 4.224 3.348 2.75 2.423 2.354 2.264 2.094 1.851 1.594 1.378 1.21

HD (HS/km2) 0.2037025 0.2599222 0.2506192 0.2219069 0.1954102 0.1807885 0.1703967 0.1763768 0.1922891 0.2111708 0.1943114 0.16413 0.1420204 0.1295272 0.1255031 0.1325526 0.1394758 0.1425112 0.1374427 0.1297249 0.1250994 0.1234089

Expected HS (E) 122.44 13.81 12.66 11.78 10.85 9.98 9.13 8.30 7.08 5.69 5.26 4.99 4.57 4.12 3.74 3.44 3.15 2.85 2.61 2.38 2.14 1.90

O/E 1.0504 1.3403 1.2923 1.1443 1.0076 0.9322 0.8787 0.9095 0.9916 1.0889 1.0020 0.8463 0.7323 0.6679 0.6472 0.6835 0.7192 0.7349 0.7087 0.6689 0.6451 0.6364

Actual Score
3.63 4.64 4.47 3.96 3.49 3.23 3.04 3.15 3.43 3.77 3.47 2.93 2.53 2.31 2.24 2.36 2.49 2.54 2.45 2.31 2.23 2.20

Estimated score 3.14 3.04 2.95 2.88 2.81 2.76 2.70 2.66 2.61 2.57 2.54 2.50 2.47 2.44 2.41 2.38 2.36 2.33 2.31 2.29 2.27 2.25

Rescaled score 100.00 92.12 85.38 79.50 74.32 69.68 65.51 61.71 58.24 55.04 52.08 49.33 46.76 44.35 42.09 39.96 37.95 36.04 34.22 32.50 30.85 29.28

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 26

Table 12. (continued) Village Distance Area (Ha) 29 747.945 30 607.772 31 569.001 32 530.8 33 494.978 34 467.547 35 436.25 36 384.384 37 346.76 38 310.04 39 271.906 40 180.175 41 104.584 42 55.871 43 10.334 < 44 Total 135914.202 Average 3,673.357

Observed HS (O) 0.933 0.753 0.706 0.659 0.613 0.571 0.542 0.474 0.428 0.384 0.338 0.219 0.13 0.069 0.013
263.575 7.124

HD (HS/km2) 0.1247418 0.1238951 0.1240771 0.1241522 0.1238439 0.1221268 0.1242407 0.1233142 0.1234283 0.123855 0.1243077 0.1215485 0.124302 0.1234988 0.1257983
5.605 0.151

Expected HS (E) 1.45 1.18 1.10 1.03 0.96 0.91 0.85 0.75 0.67 0.60 0.53 0.35 0.20 0.11 0.02
263.575 7.124

O/E 0.6432 0.6389 0.6398 0.6402 0.6386 0.6298 0.6407 0.6359 0.6365 0.6387 0.6410 0.6268 0.6410 0.6368 0.6487
28.905 0.781

Actual Score
2.23 2.21 2.21 2.21 2.21 2.18 2.22 2.20 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.17 2.22 2.20 2.24 2.24 104.488 2.703

Estimated score 2.23 2.21 2.20 2.18 2.16 2.15 2.13 2.12 2.10 2.09 2.08 2.06 2.05 2.04 2.03 2.02

Rescaled score 27.78 26.34 24.96 23.63 22.36 21.13 19.94 18.80 17.69 16.62 15.59 14.58 13.61 12.67 11.75 10.00

Score v alue for road distances 5.30 4.80 4.30 3.80 3.30 2.80 2.30 1.80 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 D istance from road (km) score road D Pow er (score road D ) y = 5.0014x-0.2398 2 R = 0.8051

Figure 21 Model for estimating score of road distance

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 27

3.

Score for River/Stream Distances

Table 13 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for stream/river distance

Village Distance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 < 15 Total Average

Area (Ha) 52233.689 28721.011 18602.728 12729.521 8422.257 5174.005 3663.532 2528.572 1245.889 765.975 616.595 575.372 444.954 171.034 19.068 135914.202 9,060.947

Observed HS (O) 100.2 58.8 37.751 25.108 16.542 10.071 6.566 3.743 1.593 0.942 0.761 0.713 0.551 0.212 0.022 263.575 17.572

HD (HS/km2) 0.1918302 0.2047282 0.2029326 0.1972423 0.1964082 0.1946461 0.1792259 0.1480282 0.1278605 0.1229805 0.1234197 0.1239198 0.123833 0.123952 0.1153765 2.3763839 0.158

Expected HS (E) 101.30 55.70 36.08 24.69 16.33 10.03 7.10 4.90 2.42 1.49 1.20 1.12 0.86 0.33 0.04 263.575 17.572

O/E 0.9892 1.0557 1.0464 1.0171 1.0128 1.0037 0.9242 0.7633 0.6593 0.6342 0.6364 0.6390 0.6386 0.6392 0.5949 12.25398 0.817

Actual Score
8.07 8.62 8.54 8.30 8.27 8.19 7.54 6.23 5.38 5.18 5.19 5.21 5.21 5.22 4.86 100

Estimated score 8.18 8.51 8.59 8.45 8.14 7.70 7.18 6.62 6.07 5.58 5.17 4.91 4.84 4.84 4.84

Rescaled score 100.00 108.96 110.94 107.14 98.76 86.99 73.02 58.05 43.27 29.88 19.08 12.05 10.00 10.00 10.00

Score for Distance fromstream /river 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 1 2 3 4 5

Score for Stream /River Distance

SC RV Poly. (SC RV)

y = 0.0074x - 0.174x + 0.8031x + 7.5474 R = 0.9459

2

10

11

12

13

14

15

Distance fromstream /river (km )

Figure 22 Model for estimating score of stream/river distance

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 28

4.

Score for City Distances

Actual Score
2.00 2.58 2.76 2.85 2.86 2.87 2.76 2.50 2.39 2.37 2.43 2.44 2.30 2.25 2.15 2.07 2.00 2.05 2.27 2.36 2.27 2.22 2.16 2.18 2.31 2.42 2.58 2.51 2.25 2.19 2.33 2.50 1.96 1.56 1.47 1.47 1.48 1.46 1.68 2.16 2.42 2.19 1.56 1.46 1.47 1.47 1.45

Table 14 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for city distance City Observed HD Expected Distance Area (Ha) HS (O) (HS/km2) HS (E) O/E 10 21586.573 36.282 0.1680767 41.86 0.8667 11 3771.988 8.168 0.2165436 7.31 1.1166 12 3883.636 9.004 0.2318446 7.53 1.1955 13 3946.344 9.424 0.2388033 7.65 1.2314 14 4028.006 9.664 0.2399202 7.81 1.2372 15 4162.06 10.009 0.2404819 8.07 1.2401 16 4305.801 9.954 0.2311765 8.35 1.1921 17 4468.451 9.386 0.2100504 8.67 1.0831 18 4613.248 9.259 0.2007046 8.95 1.0349 19 4794.754 9.554 0.1992594 9.30 1.0275 20 4651.192 9.484 0.2039047 9.02 1.0514 21 4422.756 9.065 0.2049627 8.58 1.0569 22 4424.298 8.535 0.192912 8.58 0.9948 23 4277.995 8.072 0.1886865 8.30 0.9730 24 4192.537 7.572 0.1806066 8.13 0.9313 25 3969.132 6.878 0.1732873 7.70 0.8936 26 3792.049 6.375 0.1681149 7.35 0.8669 27 3684.386 6.34 0.1720775 7.15 0.8873 28 3636.064 6.938 0.1908107 7.05 0.9839 29 3668.126 7.251 0.1976759 7.11 1.0193 30 3563.137 6.798 0.1907869 6.91 0.9838 31 3456.727 6.442 0.1863613 6.70 0.9610 32 3407.552 6.18 0.1813619 6.61 0.9352 33 3380.495 6.192 0.1831684 6.56 0.9445 34 3331.509 6.455 0.193756 6.46 0.9991 35 3061.408 6.212 0.2029132 5.94 1.0463 36 2573.594 5.57 0.2164289 4.99 1.1160 37 2058.02 4.333 0.2105422 3.99 1.0857 38 1618.861 3.054 0.1886512 3.14 0.9728 39 1378.852 2.538 0.1840662 2.67 0.9491 40 1230.244 2.402 0.1952458 2.39 1.0068 41 1081.313 2.27 0.20993 2.10 1.0825 42 869.298 1.43 0.1645006 1.69 0.8483 43 718.625 0.938 0.130527 1.39 0.6731 44 586.14 0.721 0.1230082 1.14 0.6343 45 469.104 0.577 0.1230004 0.91 0.6343 46 410.083 0.508 0.1238774 0.80 0.6388 47 389.801 0.479 0.1228832 0.76 0.6337 48 370.515 0.523 0.1411549 0.72 0.7279 49 351.213 0.636 0.1810867 0.68 0.9338 50 331.911 0.674 0.2030665 0.64 1.0471 51 303.791 0.558 0.1836789 0.59 0.9471 52 248.828 0.326 0.1310142 0.48 0.6756 53 200.741 0.246 0.122546 0.39 0.6319 54 169.045 0.208 0.1230442 0.33 0.6345 55 73.574 0.091 0.123685 0.14 0.6378 > 56 Total 135913.777 263.575 8.390185 263.575 43.26441 Average 2,954.6473 5.7299 0.1824 5.7299 0.9405

Estimated score 2.4743 2.4521 2.4299 2.4077 2.3855 2.3633 2.3411 2.3189 2.2967 2.2745 2.2523 2.2301 2.2079 2.1857 2.1635 2.1413 2.1191 2.0969 2.0747 2.0525 2.0303 2.0081 1.9859 1.9637 1.9415 1.9193 1.8971 1.8749 1.8527 1.8305 1.8083 1.7861 1.7639 1.7417 1.7195 1.6973 1.6751 1.6529 1.6307 1.6085 1.5863 1.5641 1.5419 1.5197 1.4975 1.4753 1.4531

Rescaled score 100.00 98.20 96.40 94.60 92.80 91.00 89.20 87.40 85.60 83.80 82.00 80.20 78.40 76.60 74.80 73.00 71.20 69.40 67.60 65.80 64.00 62.20 60.40 58.60 56.80 55.00 53.20 51.40 49.60 47.80 46.00 44.20 42.40 40.60 38.80 37.00 35.20 33.40 31.60 29.80 28.00 26.20 24.40 22.60 20.80 19.00 10.00

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 29

Score 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 10 14 18 22 26 30 SC C T Linear (SC C T )

y = -0.0243x + 2.7305 2 = 0.622 R

34

38

42

46

50

54

58

D istance from surroundig cities

Figure 23 Model for estimating score of city distance

5.

Score for Land Status

Score 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 I HT T KG F KF DS PL KP K PP TW H PP

y = 16.513x-0.5593 R2 = 0.9083 SC STS Power (SC STS)

Land use (status)

Figure 24 Model for estimating score of land use

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 30

Table 15 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for land status/land use Land Observed HD Expected status Area (Ha) HS (O) (HS/km2) HS (E) O/E HTI 240 1.74 0.72522 0.47 3.7396 KH 14480 38.37 0.26500 28.08 1.3665 KGT 16043 39.10 0.24369 31.11 1.2566 KPP 22552 43.75 0.19399 43.73 1.0003 KFF 5301 9.96 0.18798 10.28 0.9693 HP 39300 71.23 0.18124 76.21 0.9346 DS 1503 2.41 0.16044 2.92 0.8273 HPT 23126 36.93 0.15968 44.85 0.8234 KPPL 9594 14.96 0.15587 18.61 0.8038 KHR 1173 1.75 0.14946 2.27 0.7707 PPK 2 0.00 0.13289 0.00 0.6853 KEAH 2181 2.87 0.13138 4.23 0.6775 TW 281 0.35 0.12387 0.54 0.6387 T1 67 0.08 0.11887 0.13 0.6130 PPH 72 0.09 0.11857 0.14 0.6114 Total 135914 264 3 264 16 Average 9,060.947 17.572 0.203

Actual Score 23.79 8.69 7.99 6.36 6.17 5.95 5.26 5.24 5.11 4.90 4.36 4.31 4.06 3.90 3.89 100

Estimated score 16.5 11.2 8.9 7.6 6.7 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.6

Rescaled score 100.0 62.9 47.0 37.8 31.5 27.0 23.5 20.7 18.4 16.5 14.8 13.4 12.1 11.0 10.0

Remarks:
Timber estate Area for conservation of hydrology. Deep peat conservation Area for production development Area for conservation of flora and fauna. Production forest Water bodies Limited production forest (HTI) (KH) (KGT) (KPP) (KFF) (HP) (DS) (HPT) Area for settlements Agric land "handil" Area for forestry training and education Black water conservation Natural Park Transmigration Forest Protection and conservation area (KPPL) (KHR) (PPK) (KEAH) (TW) (T1) (PPH)

6.

Score for Land Cover

Table 16 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for land cover

Land cover Shrubs Dry land agric. Lowland forest Bare land Estate crop Sec. forest Total Average

Area (Ha) 5019 44587 78164 2524 5596 23 135914 22,652.37

Observed HS (O) 15 94 142 4 8 0 264 43.929

HD (HS/km2) 0.307 0.211 0.182 0.151 0.142 0.120 1.1123 0.185

Expected HS (E) 9.73 86.47 151.58 4.90 10.85 0.05 263.5750

O/E
1.5831 1.0888 0.9385 0.7783 0.7300 0.6169 5.7355

Actual Score 27.60 18.98 16.36 13.57 12.73 10.76

Estimated score 27.59 19.44 15.85 13.70 12.24 11.17

Rescaled score 100.00 55.36 35.64 23.90 15.90 10.00

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 31

Score

30 25 20 15 10 Shrubs Dryland agric. Lowland forest Bare land Estate crop Sec. forest Land cover
Figure 25 Model for estimating score of land cover

y = 27.587x 2 R = 0.9918

-0.5047

score lcover Power (score lcover)

7.

Score for Soil Class

Table 17 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for soil type

Soil type Non-peat peat Total Average

Area (Ha) 55366 80549 135,914.2 67,957.1010

Observed HS (O) 94 170 263.6 131.7875

HD (HS/km2) 0.169683 0.210592 0.4 0.1901

Expected HS (E) 107 156 263.6 131.7875

O/E 0.8750 1.0859 2.0

Actual Score
45 55 100

Rescaled score 81 100

8.

Score for Land System

Table 18 Actual, estimated and rescaled score for land system

Land system*) SFP SPW DPW PWL USD MBL SLPW CES MVF SRG RP AFM

Area (Ha) 2,334.5 45,690.8 23,117.6 2,034.5 35,812.0 2,869.3 7,371.2 13,062.2 2,121.0 50.6 1,433.8 16.5 135,914.2 21.9646

Observed HS (O) 5.32 99.56 49.50 4.07 66.19 4.49 11.19 18.57 2.86 0.06 1.77 0.02 263.6 0.1660

HD (HS/km2) 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 1.99

Expected HS (E) 4.53 88.61 44.83 3.95 69.45 5.56 14.29 25.33 4.11 0.10 2.78 0.03

O/E 1.1760 1.1236 1.1040 1.0310 0.9530 0.8062 0.7825 0.7330 0.6943 0.6424 0.6355 0.5923 10.27

Actual Score 11.45 10.94 10.75 10.04 9.28 7.85 7.62 7.13 6.76 6.25 6.19 5.77 100.00

Estimated score 11.41 10.85 10.29 9.73 9.17 8.61 8.05 7.50 6.94 6.38 5.82 5.26

Rescaled score 100.00 91.82 83.64 75.45 67.27 59.09 50.91 42.73 34.55 26.36 18.18 10.00

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 32

Remarks: *) SFP: SPW: DPW: PWL: USD: MBL:

Swampy floodplains Shallow peat Deeper peat swamps Permanently waterlogged Undulating sandy Meander belt

SLPW: CES: MVF: SRG: RP: AFM:

Shallower peat Coalescent estuarine Minor valley floors Sedimentary ridges Rolling plains Alluvial fans and mountain

Score 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 SFP SPW DPW PW L USD MBL SLPW CES MVF SRG RP AFM Land System y = -0.5585x + 11.964 R = 0.964 SC LSYS Linear (SC LSYS)
2

Figure 26 Model for estimating score of land system

D. Score Verification of score using hotspot density To evaluate the coincidence between the vulnerability score and fire occurrence (HD), the authors randomly select 999 polygons that cover all vulnerability classes and HD. By evaluating the correlation between HD and score of each variable, the authors then select the factors that potentially affect the wildfire risk. The selection was based upon the value of the R2 (coefficient of determination). From Figures 27 to 33, the best coincidence is given by village distance score (622%), followed by road distance (41.2%) and land cover (39.8%). Base on this fact, the authors then evaluated the relationship between HD and these three variables simultaneously (with multiple regression). As shown in Figure 34, it is found that R2 is about 66.6%. Thus, vulnerability map was developed using this three variables.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 33

1.

Hotspot density versus score of Village Distance (X1)

Hotspot density (per km 2) X1 Line Fit Plot
3.2205

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Score of Village Distance (X1) 100.0 120.0
HD_RAD2KM Power (HD_RAD2KM) Expon. (HD_RAD2KM) Linear (HD_RAD2KM)

y = 5E-07x 2 R = 0.6221

y = 0.0234e 2 R = 0.5849

0.0419x

y = 0.025x - 1.0596 R = 0.4259

2

Figure 27 the relationship between village distance score and HD

2.

Hotspot density versus score of Road Distance (X2)

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

y = 0.0067e
2

0.0509x

y = 0.026x - 1.3959 R = 0.2151 y = 2.1277Ln(x) - 8.6063 R = 0.2185

2 2

R = 0.4052 y = 5E-09x 2 R = 0.4115

4.1699

HD_RAD2KM Expon. (HD_RAD2KM) Power (HD_RAD2KM) Log. (HD_RAD2KM) Linear (HD_RAD2KM)

20

40 60 80 Score of Road Distance (X2)

100

120

Figure 28 the relationship between road distance score and HD

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 34

3.

Hotspot density versus score of River/stream distance (X3)

hotspot density (hs per km 2)

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 98

y = 0.0063e 2 R = 0.0586

0.0455x

y = 2E-10x 2 R = 0.0585

4.7645

y = 0.0271x - 1.8365 R = 0.0424

2

HD_RAD2KM Expon. (HD_RAD2KM) Power (HD_RAD2KM) Linear (HD_RAD2KM)

100

102

104

106

108

110

112

Score for River/stream distance (X3)

Figure 29 the relationship between river/stream distance score and HD

4.

Hotspot density versus score of City Distance (X4)

Hotspot density (HS/km 2) 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 Score for city distance (X4)
2

y = 0.3878e

0.0098x

R = 0.0172 y = 0.001x - 0.1401x + 5.6972 R = 0.0316 HD_RAD2KM Expon. (HD_RAD2KM) Poly. (HD_RAD2KM) Poly. (HD_RAD2KM)
2 2

y = -7E-05x + 0.0161x - 1.1762x + 28.978 R = 0.0528

2

Figure 30 the relationship between city distance score and HD

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 35

5.

Hotspot density versus score of Land use status (X5)

Hotspot density (HS/km 2) 3.5 HD_RAD2KM 3.0 2.5 HD_RAD2K 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Expon. (HD_RAD2KM) Power (HD_RAD2KM)

y = 0.4205e
2

0.0166x

R = 0.0752 y = 0.0609x
2 0.7214

R = 0.0838

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Score for Land Status/Use (X5)

Figure 31 the relationship between land use score and HD

6.

Hotspot density versus score of Land Cover (X6)

Hotspot density (HS/km 2) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 HD_RAD2KM 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Score for Land Cover (X6) 50.0 60.0 Power (HD_RAD2KM) Expon. (HD_RAD2KM) Linear (HD_RAD2KM) y = 0.0001x
2 2.2665

y = 0.063e
2

0.0527x

y = 0.0361x - 0.6808 R = 0.3662

2

R = 0.3977

R = 0.3842

Figure 32 the relationship between land cover score and HD

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 36

7.

Hotspot density versus score of Soil (X7)

H ot spot density (H S/sq km) 3.5 y = 0.023x - 1.0891 3.0 2 = 0.1192 R 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 50 100 150 soil type score (X 7)

H D _R AD 2KM(Y) Linear (H D _R AD 2KM(Y))

Figure 33 the relationship between soil type score and HD

The actual score was directly rescaled into 81 for non-peat and 100 for peat area. The correlation of determination between soil type score and hot spot density is approximately 12%.

8.

Hotspot density versus score of Land System (X8)

H D _R AD 2KM Linear (H D _R AD 2KM) y = 0.0156x - 0.2344 2 R = 0.088 y = 2E-05x2.4327 2 R = 0.168 y = 0.0661e0.0303x 2 R = 0.1634 Pow er (H D _R AD 2KM) Expon. (H D _R AD 2KM)

H otspot density (H S/km2) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Score for Land System (X 8)

Figure 34 The relationship between village distance score and HD

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 37

9.

Hotspot density versus Composite Score of (Village, Road and Land Cover) a. The composite score of village distance, road distance and land cover (Z1)

As mentioned previously, three variables, i.e. distance from village, distance from road and land cover show potential correlation with the HD. Thus, by using multiple linear regressions the weight for each variable are as follows:
Table 19. Weight of variable village distance, road distance and land cover Variables Coefficients*) Weight Village distance (X1) 0.014379625 0.35467 Road distance (X2) 0.006645865 0.16392 Land cover (X6) 0.019517849 0.48141

*) The constant (elevation) of the regression equation is ignored during calculating weight for each variable, since the variation of the value of independent variable is influenced by the only coefficient of regression. The best correlation between HD and Z1 is given by the power model having R2 of 66.57% By using the weight of each factor, the composite score obtained from the use of village distance, road distance and land cover was computed. The correlation between this composite score with their corresponding HD is depicted in Figure 35.

Hotspot density (HS/km 2) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 Coposite score using Village Distance, Road Distance & Land Cover 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

y = 2E-08x
2

4.1154

R = 0.6657 y = 0.009e
2 0.0657x

y = -0.0002x + 0.0685x - 2.5632 2 R = 0.4993

R = 0.6416
HD_RAD2KM Power (HD_RAD2KM) Expon. (HD_RAD2KM) Poly. (HD_RAD2KM)

Figure 35 The relationship between the HD and the composite score of village distance, road distance and land cover (Z1)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 38

b. The composite score of village distance, road distance, river/stream distance, land cover and soil type (Z2) c. For comparison and comprehensive analysis, the author also performed correlation analysis between HD and the composite score of village distance, road distance, river/stream distance, land cover and soil type (Z2). This is intended to figure out the role of each variable on creating vulnerability score. Using the multiple linear regression, the weight of each variable considered are tabulated in Table 20. The prediction line of this multiple regression is drawn in Figure 36.
Table 20 Weight of variable village distance, road distance, land cover, river/stream distance and soil type Variables Coefficients Weight 0.013845 0.269 Village distance (X1) 0.004997 0.097 Road distance (X2)

River/stream distance (X3)

Land cover (X6)

soil type (X7)

0.005612 0.018459 0.008524

0.109 0.359 0.166

HD (HS/km 2) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

y = 3E-11x5.6881 y = 0.0019e0.086x R2 = 0.6857 R2 = 0.67

HD_RAD2KM(Y) Power (HD_RAD2KM(Y)) Expon. (HD_RAD2KM(Y))

COMPOSITE SCORE VAR X1,X2,X6,X3,X7)

Figure 36 The relationship between HD and the composite score of village distance, road distance, stream/river distance, land cover and soil type (Z2)

E. Vulnerability Scores and Map 1. Based on the composite scores of Z1 (score of village distance, road distance, and land cover)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 39

Based on the randomly sampled 999 polygons evaluated, the study found very close correlation having about 69% of R2. The model that used to classify the vulnerability score classes is as follows: HD = 0.00000002407 Z1 4.115357533 Where Z1 is the composite score derived from village distance, road distance and land cover By adopting Table 2, the score for each vulnerability classes is tabulated in Table 21. The graph that convert the vulnerability score into HD is depicted in Figure 37. The map that expresses the vulnerability risk based on this classes is shown in Figure 39.
Table 21 Vulnerability score classes based on X1, X 2 and X6 ( score of village distance, road distance, and land cover)

Vulnerability score > 75.28 53.75 - < 75.28 44.14 - < 53.75 38.38 - < 44.14 < 38.38

Hotspot density (HS/ sq km) > 1.273 0.318 - < 1.273 0.141 < 0.318 0.080 - < 0.141 < 0.080

Radius from the HS (fire) center (km) < 0.5 0.5 < 1.0 1.0 - < 1.5 1.5 - < 2.0 > 2.0

Vulnerability classes Extremely high risk Very high risk High risk Medium risk Low risk

Vulnerability score (Z1)

72 66 60 54 48 42 36 0.06 0.26 0.46 0.66 0.86 1.06 1.26

Hot spot density (HS/km 2)

Figure 37 The graph expressing the relationship between vulnerability score classes (Z1) and HD

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 40

2.

Based on the composite scores of Z2 (score of village distance, road distance, river/stream distance, land cover and soil type)

Using the same approach as mentioned previously, the best model that used to classify the vulnerability score class based on Z2 is as follows: HD = 0.00000000003 Z2 5.6881 Where Z2 is the composite score derived from village distance, road distance, stream distance, land cover and soil type. The vulnerability classes and their corresponding HD and radius from the fire center is described in Table 22 and Figure 38. The vulnerability map using this classes is described in Figure 40.
Table 22 Vulnerability score classes based on X1, X 2, X3, X6 and X7 ( score of village distance, road distance, stream distance, land cover and soil type)

Vulnerability score > 81.12 64.37 - < 81.12 56.22 - < 64.37 51.07 - < 56.22 < 51.07

Hotspot density (HS/ sq km) > 1.273 0.318 - < 1.273 0.141 < 0.318 0.080 - < 0.141 < 0.080

Radius from the HS (fire) center (km) < 0.5 0.5 < 1.0 1.0 - < 1.5 1.5 - < 2.0 > 2.0

Vulnerability classes Extremely high risk Very high risk High risk Medium risk Low risk

Vulnerability score (Z 2) 81.50 77.00 72.50 68.00 63.50 59.00 54.50 50.00 45.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

H ot spot density (H S/ sq km)

Figure 38 The graph expressing the relationship between vulnerability score classes (Z1) and HD

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 41

F. Model Verification: Using two-sample means test, between the actual HD and predicted HD based on the composite values of Z1 and Z2, the study found the following: a) No difference was found between the actual HD and predicted HD based either on Z1 or on Z2. These mean that the vulnerability model provide good estimation using only village proximity, road distance and land cover Land cover contribute 48% on the risk (vulnerability) classes, while the road and village proximity give 52%. This describe that the amount of fuel, type of fuel, fuel arrangement and human activities in surrounding villages and roads significantly determine the risky areas. Using the model with only 3 variables (village, road and land cover), the coincidence value (also called model accuracy) of the model verification between actual and predicted HD is only 55.95% . Using 5 variables (village, road, city, soil type and land cover), the accuracy is slightly increased, i.e., 56.36%. This slightly low accuracy is caused by confusion among the low, medium and high risk areas. To increase the model accuracy, the classes with contribute more confusion ( the low, medium and high risk) are then merged into only one class. The merged class is called as low/medium/high risk). Therefore, the final class with 3 classes provide model accuracy of 65.27% and 66.07% for 3 and 5 variables respectively. The accuracy of the model is summarized in Table 23. The final maps that express the vulnerability using 3 and 5 variables are shown in Figures 41 and 42.
Table 23 Z-test two sample for means

b)

c)

d)

Mean Known Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference

Estimated HD by Z1 0.927459205 0.23 999 0

Estimated HD by Z3 0.936573985 0.251 999 Remarks: Z < Z-critical means that these two mean values are not significantly different.

Z-cal P(Z<=z) one-tail z Critical one-tail P(Z<=z) two-tail z Critical two-tail

Table 24. Model Accuracy No Number of vulnerability classes 1 Three 2 Five

-0.415390351 0.338928084 1.644853627 0.677856169 1.959963985

With 3 variables 55.96 65.27

With 5 variables 56.36 66.07

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 42

Figure 39 Wildfire Vulnerability Map in Central Kalimantan based on village proximity, road proximity and land cover (5 classes)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 43

Figure 40 Wildfire Vulnerability Map in Central Kalimantan based on village proximity, road proximity and land cover (5 classes)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 44

Figure 41 Wildfire Vulnerability Map in Central Kalimantan based on village proximity, road proximity and land cover (3 classes)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 45

Figure 42 Wildfire Vulnerability Map in Central Kalimantan based on village proximity, road proximity and land cover (3 classes)

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 46

As shown in Figure 41, the major parts of the areas of Central Kalimantan Province are belonging to extremely and very high risk classes. The very high risk areas almost found in all regencies. However, the extremely risk areas area are mostly found in Pulang Pisau and Kapuas Regencies. A scattered extremely areas are also exist in Lamandau, Palangkaraya,Barito Selatan and Barito Utara Regencies.

CONCLUDING REMARKS From the foregoing discussion, the authors can conclude the following: 1. There are systematical relationship between human activity factors (accessibility & proximity) and the occurrence of the wildfire. 2. Of the 8 variables examined, the major factors that affect the wildfire risk in Central Kalimantan Province are proximity of village, proximity of road, proximity of city, soil type and land cover. 3. The wildfire risk maps established using all 5 significant variables and 3 variables (village, road and land cover) are not significantly different. Therefore, using only 3 variables vulnerability could be developed. 4. Using the model with only 3 variables (village, road and land cover) with 3 vulnerability classes, the model accuracy is approximately 65%. Using all 5 significant variables, the model accuracy is not significantly increased having only 1% higher than using 3 variables. 5. Human factors (village distance and road distance) contribute approximately 52% to the wildfire, while the rest of about 48% is contributed by land cover. 6. The major parts of the areas of Central Kalimantan Province are belonging to extremely and very high risk classes. The very high risk areas almost found in all regencies. The extremely risk areas area are mostly found in Pulang Pisau and Kapuas Regencies. 7. Since the wildfire risk model had very strong relationship with the human activities, this vulnerability map may be used as a tool during forest and land-fire prevention programs.

References: Chuvieco, E. and F.J. Falas, 1999. Integrated Fire Risk Mapping. In Remote Sensing of Large Wildfires in the European Mediterrannean Basin (Chuvieco, E. Ed.). Springer. Berlin Heikkila, T.V., R. Gronqvist, M. Jurvelius, 1993. Handbook on Forest Fire Control. Forestry Training Programme Publication 21. National Board of Education of Government of Finland. Helsinki. Jaruntorn Boonyanuphap, FG Suratmo, I N.S. Jaya, F. Amhar, 2001. GIS-based method in developing wildfire risk model (Case study in Sasamba, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Tropical Forest Management, Vol VII No 2, 33-45.

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 47

Purnama, E.S. and I N.S. Jaya, 2007. Pemodelan Spasial Kerawanan Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan Menggunakan Teknologi Sistim Informasi Geografis (SIG) dan Penginderaan Jauh di Propinsi Riau (Modeling Forest and Land Fire Risk using Geographic Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing Technology in Riau Province). Journal of Tropical Forest Management, Vol XIII, No 1, 85-97. State Ministry for Environment and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 1998. Forest and Land Fires in Indonesia. Executive Summary. Syaufina, L., A.A. Nurudin, J. Basharuddin, L.F. See and M. R. M. Yusof., 2004. The Effect of Climatic Variations on Peat Swamp Forest Condition and Peat Combustibility. Journal of Tropical Forest Management, Vol X, No 1, 1-14. .
C:\DATA2\KALTENG_CH_FFIRE\FOREST FIRE VULNERABILITY IN CENTRAL KALIMANTAN-FINAL1.doc

Wildfire Vulnerability index - 48