06.03.2013 Views

7th Workshop on Forest Fire Management - EARSeL, European ...

7th Workshop on Forest Fire Management - EARSeL, European ...

7th Workshop on Forest Fire Management - EARSeL, European ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A forest fire hazard based <strong>on</strong> the estimati<strong>on</strong> of tourist hot spot activities in Austria 53<br />

The risk rating assumes that the fire risk is very high close to touristic<br />

infrastructure and decreases with distance from the infrastructure together<br />

with a decrease of intensity.<br />

For the estimati<strong>on</strong> of the influence of tourist activity <strong>on</strong> forest fires in a<br />

district a rating has been d<strong>on</strong>e in merging the touristic infrastructure with<br />

the tourist intensity, the percentage of the forest cover and the area of a<br />

district with the following formula:<br />

∑ζ i = (λ*ζ ic /DS + λ*ζ ihut /DS + λ*ζ ihi /DS) * Ø overnight * FC/DS<br />

where λ represents the weight for touristic infrastructure per district, ζic represents the weight rating for the cable cars per district, ζihut the weight<br />

for the huts in a district and ζihi the weight for the hiking trails in a district.<br />

Øovernight symbolizes the mean number of overnight stays per district;<br />

FC/DC indicates the percentage of <strong>Forest</strong> Cover in a district.<br />

We defined different weights for the touristic infrastructures c<strong>on</strong>sidered -<br />

namely cable cars, huts and hiking trails - and calculated four different scenarios<br />

in order to identify the relative touristic intensity in the individual<br />

districts. In scenario I we assigned an equal weight for the touristic infrastructure.<br />

In scenario II a weight of 10% was assumed for the cable cars,<br />

for the huts a weight of 40% and for the hiking trails a weight of 50%. In<br />

scenario III the weight of the cable cars was assumed to be 50%, the<br />

weight of the huts 40% and the weight of the hiking trails 10%. In scenario<br />

IV the weight assigned to the cable cars is 20%, the weight assigned<br />

to the huts is 40% and the weight assigned to the hiking trails is 40%<br />

respectively. Next we grouped the districts into five categories relative to<br />

the number of forest fires that occurred between 2002 and 2008 and<br />

opposed them to the calculated mean overall value as well as the mean<br />

minimum and maximum value of the calculated scenarios.<br />

N° forest fires Mean overall value Minimum Maximum<br />

0 6.085 2,5 91.692<br />

1 - 3 11.464 5 270.591<br />

4 - 6 17.336 21 305.961<br />

7 - 10 10.920 18 80.527<br />

11 - 15 38.904 44 252.198<br />

16 - 20 47.941 1.191 223.258<br />

21 - 30 57.018 1.108 192.332<br />

> 30 12.979 1.707 36.496<br />

Table 1 - Mean overall value, minimum and maximum for four different scenarios.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!