La.cinquieme.République

De la politique pure et affaires étrangeres
 
AccueilAccueil  FAQFAQ  RechercherRechercher  S'enregistrerS'enregistrer  MembresMembres  GroupesGroupes  Connexion  

Partagez | 
 

  Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.

Aller en bas 
AuteurMessage
yanis la chouette



Nombre de messages : 6850
Localisation : http://yanis.tignard.free.fr
Date d'inscription : 12/11/2005

MessageSujet: Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.   Sam 3 Fév à 3:25

Stellar winds behaving unexpectedly.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Stellar_winds_behaving_unexpectedly

2 February 2018
ESA’s XMM-Newton has spotted surprising changes in the powerful streams of gas from two massive stars, suggesting that colliding stellar winds don’t behave as expected.

Massive stars – several times larger than our Sun – lead turbulent lives, burning their nuclear fuel rapidly and pouring large amounts of material into their surroundings throughout their short but sparkling lives.

These fierce stellar winds can carry the equivalent of Earth’s mass in a month and travel at millions of kilometres per hour, so when two such winds collide they unleash enormous amounts of energy.

The cosmic clash heats the gas to millions of degrees, making it shine brightly in X-rays.

Normally, colliding winds change little because neither do the stars nor their orbits. However, some massive stars behave dramatically.

This is the case with HD 5980, a pairing of two huge stars each 60 times the mass of our Sun and only about 100 million kilometres apart – closer than we are to our star.


HD 5980 in the star-forming region NGC 346
One had a major outburst in 1994, reminiscent of the eruption that turned Eta Carinae into the second brightest star in the sky for about 18 years in the 19th century.

While it is now too late to study Eta Carinae’s historic eruption, astronomers have been observing HD 5980 with X-ray telescopes to study the hot gas.

In 2007, Yaël Nazé of the University of Liège, Belgium, and her colleagues discovered the collision of winds from these stars using observations made by ESA’s XMM-Newton and NASA’s Chandra X-ray telescopes between 2000 and 2005.

Then they looked at it again with XMM-Newton in 2016.

“We expected HD 5980 to fade gently over the years as the erupting star settled back to normal – but to our surprise it did just the opposite,” says Yaël.

They found the pair was two and a half times brighter than a decade earlier, and its X-ray emission was even more energetic.

“We had never seen anything like that in a wind–wind collision.”


Deciphering Eta Carinae’s eruptive twin
Access the video
With less material ejected but more light emitted, it was difficult to explain what was happening.

Finally, they found a theoretical study that offers a fitting scenario.

“When stellar winds collide, the shocked material releases plenty of X-rays. However, if the hot matter radiates too much light, it rapidly cools, the shock becomes unstable and the X-ray emission dims.

“This somewhat counterintuitive process is what we thought happened at the time of our first observations, more than 10 years ago. But by 2016, the shock had relaxed and the instabilities had diminished, allowing the X-ray emission to rise eventually.”

These are the first observations that substantiate this previously hypothetical scenario. Yaël’s colleagues are now testing the new result in greater detail through computer simulations.

“Unique discoveries like this demonstrate how XMM-Newton keeps providing astronomers with fresh material to improve our understanding of the most energetic processes in the Universe,” says Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton project scientist at ESA.


Notes for Editors

The paper “A changing wind collision,” by Y. Nazé et al. is published in the Astrophysical Journal, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa29c

For further information, please contact:

Yaël Nazé
Université de Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 4 366 97 20
Email: naze@astro.ulg.ac.be

Norbert Schartel
XMM-Newton Project Scientist
European Space Agency
Email: Norbert.Schartel@esa.int

Markus Bauer
Head of the Joint Communication Office
European Space Agency
Tel: +31 71 565 6799
Mob: +31 61 594 3 954
Email: markus.bauer@esa.int

Sentinel-3B good to go

2 February 2018
After being put through its paces to make sure it is fit for life in orbit around Earth, the Copernicus Sentinel-3B satellite is ready to be packed up and shipped to Russia for liftoff.

Its twin, Sentinel-3A, has been in orbit since February 2016, systematically measuring our oceans, land, ice and atmosphere. The information feeds a range of practical applications and is used for monitoring and understanding large-scale global dynamics.

The pairing of identical satellites provides the best coverage and data delivery for Europe’s Copernicus programme – the largest environmental monitoring programme in the world.

Sentinel-3B has spent the last year at Thales Alenia Space’s premises in Cannes, France, being assembled and tested, and now it is fit and ready for its journey to the Plesetsk launch site in northern Russia.

ESA’s Jean-Francois Flamand said, “The satellite has been through a number of tests that mimic the harsh environment of space to ensure that it works as it should.


Working on Sentinel-3B
“This included putting it in a vacuum chamber, exposing it to extreme temperatures, and we have also simulated the vibrations it will be subjected to during launch.”

With liftoff expected to be confirmed for the end of April, the satellite will start its journey to Russia in March.

Both Sentinel-3 satellites carry a suite of cutting-edge instruments to supply a new generation of data products, which are particularly useful for marine applications. For example, they monitor ocean-surface temperatures for ocean and weather forecasting services, aquatic biological productivity, ocean pollution and sea-level change.

The mission also delivers unique and timely information about changing land cover, vegetation, urban heat islands, and for tracking wildfires.


A multitalented mission
Access the video
Sentinel-3B also marks a milestone in Europe’s Copernicus programme.

With the Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 pairs already in orbit monitoring our environment, the launch of Sentinel-3B means that three mission constellations will be complete. In addition, Sentinel-5P, a single-satellite mission to monitor air pollution, has been in orbit since October 2017.

While the Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 satellites circle Earth 180° apart, the configuration for Sentinel-3 will be slightly different: the 140° separation will help to measure ocean features such as eddies as accurately as possible.

Prior to this, however, they will fly just 223 km apart, which means that Sentinel-3B will be a mere 30 seconds behind Sentinel-3A.


Mediterranean from Sentinel-3A
Flying in tandem like this for around four months is designed to understand any subtle differences between the two sets of instruments – measurements should be almost the same given their brief separation.

ESA’s ocean scientist, Craig Donlon, explains, “Our Sentinel-3 ocean climate record will eventually be derived from four satellites because we will be launching two further Sentinel-3s in the future.

“We need to understand the small differences between each successive satellite instrument as these influence our ability to determine accurate climate trends.

“The Sentinel-3 tandem phase is a fantastic opportunity to do this and will provide results so that climate scientists can use all Sentinel-3 data with confidence.”

With the satellite declared fit and ready, it will soon be carefully packed up for shipment to Russia, where it will be tested again before being fitted to the Rockot launcher for the ride into orbit.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-3/Sentinel-3B_good_to_go

Earth from Space: special edition

CELA PEUT NOUS ÊTRE UTILE SUR LES MOUVEMENTS DES SYNTHÈSES
DU FEU DANS LE VENT ET LA MASSE OU LE VIDE.
Y'BECCA.
TAY

AINSI,

TIGNARD YANIS
‏@TIGNARDYANIS 5 h il y a 5 heures
TOUTE GÉNÉRATION NAISSANTE CHERCHE À BRISER SA NAÏVETÉ POUR AFFIRMER LA NATURE ET LES NOTIONS DE SA CONSCIENCE. JE FAIS PARTIE DE LA QUARANTAINE D'ANNÉES ET JE VOIS CETTE GÉNÉRATION FINALEMENT ENGLUÉE DANS LES CIRCONSTANCES D'AUTREFOIS.
TAY

LE TRIOMPHE D'UNE GÉNÉRATION AVAIT ON TITRÉ AUX VICTOIRES DE CES MARCHEURS. ON SE RENDS COMPTE QUE LA GÉNÉRATION DE LA SOIXANTE-DIX ET ANNÉE QUATRE VINGT EST DÉJÀ SUR LE DÉCLIN: LE NUMÉRIQUE ET LA RÉALITÉ. TAY

AUTREFOIS, CE FÛT LA LIBERTÉ, LA MODERNITÉ ET LA MORALE. MAINTENANT, IL Y A L'INFINI, L'ÉVOLUTION ET L'EXISTENCE, LE CAPITALISME EST DÉVORÉ PAR CETTE GRANDE EXPANSION: LA JEUNESSE VEUT RETROUVER L'APPEL DE LA FORÊT ET ON THE ROAD DANS L'ÉTENDUE DU SAVOIR ET DES MOUVEMENTS.
TAY

FRANCE; LE RÊVE FÛT CE QUI A MARQUÉ, DURANT DES SIÈCLES, LE PROGRÈS HUMAIN MAIS ON S'APPLIQUA À INSTAURER UN RÉVEIL POUR ÉTABLIR L'HORLOGE HUMAINE AUX PLAISIRS DE LA HIÉRARCHIE QUI AVAIT PERDU SES ESCLAVES ET SES DOGMATIQUES: AINSI NAQUIT LE BANQUIER NARCISSIQUE OU PÉRICLÈS.
TAY

PÉRICLÈS FUT UN SOUVERAIN DE L'ANTIQUE RÉPUBLIQUE D'ATHÈNES QUI FUT UN GRAND MÉCÈNE, UN GRAND DIPLOMATE ET QUI AVAIT UNE DÉMESURE DE LA BEAUTÉ: IL FIT CONSTRUIRE L'ACROPOLE SUR LE DOS DE LA LIGUE DE DÉLOS, PÉRICLÈS CROYAIT ÊTRE ZEUS ET PÈRE D'ATHÉNA.
TAY

LE PEUPLE D'ATHÈNES AIMA PÉRICLÈS POUR TOUS LE BIEN QU'IL AVAIT DONNÉ À LA CITÉ DE L'OLIVIER. MAIS, SES VOISINS NE FURENT PAS JALOUX CAR ILS AVAIENT CONFIANCE EN LUI: ILS DEMANDÈRENT À VOIR LE TRÉSOR, IL MONTRA L'ACROPOLE ET CELA LES RENDIT TRISTE.
TAY

PÉRICLÈS FUT UN INCOMPRIS CAR IL INSTAURA LE CULTE DE JANUS À SA MANIÈRE, VOUS DIRA LE BANQUIER NARCISSIQUE. LE PANTHÉON ÉTAIT UNE MERVEILLE MAIS IL ÉTAIT MORALE PLUS QUE PHYSIQUE. LES ALLIÉS D'ATHÈNES PACTISA AVEC SPARTE DIT TAY.
Y'BECCA

LE PANTHÉON ÉTAIT UN BON INVESTISSEMENT SI IL Y AVAIT EU UNE RÉPONSE POSITIVE DES ACTES À CE SUJET. AINSI, DANS SA QUÊTE DE BEAUTÉ, PÉRICLÈS RENDIT HEUREUSE SON ÉLITE. MAIS, IL Y AVAIT LA RÉALITÉ ET L'ÉTHIQUE DE SES ENGAGEMENTS ENVERS SES SOLDATS.
TAY

FRANCE, PÉRICLÈS MOURÛT DE LA PESTE DURANT LE SIÈGE D'ATHÈNES PENDANT LEQUEL SPARTE AFFIRMA SA PUISSANCE MILITAIRE MAIS SON INCAPACITÉ À SURPASSER LA TERREUR QUE PEUT ENGENDRER LA PESTE. SPARTE VAINQUIT PÉRICLÈS MAIS LE PANTHÉON RESTA DEBOUT.
TAY

AINSI LE PANTHÉON DE PÉRICLÈS DEVINT L'ACROPOLE D'ATHÈNES, IL VIVA DURANT DES SIÈCLES VOYANT LES CIVILISATIONS ET LES EMPIRES ADMIRAIENT SA STATURES JUSQU'AU JOUR, OÙ LA BANQUE DE VENISE ASSIEGEA ATHÈNES OCCUPÉE PAR LES OTTOMANS: ET BOUM.
TAY

L'ACROPOLE DE ATHÈNES S'APPELA LE PANTHÉON DE PÉRICLÈS. NOUS VOYONS QUE L'HOMME EST PETIT DEVANT LA CIVILISATION ET SA SOCIÉTÉ. PÉRICLÈS EST CONNU CAR ÉTANT NÉ À ATHÈNES: IL A CERTES RÉUSSI MAIS IL DOIT TOUT À SA RÉPUBLIQUE, CHER EMMANUEL MACRON.
LE SERVICE PUBLIC, Y'BECCA ET TAY

NUANCES DE GREY, LE NÉNUPHAR ET L'ABEILLE: SELON SON HUMEUR, LA FLEUR SE NOURRIT OU UTILISE LE PAUVRE INSECTE. TOUT CELA DANS UN CYCLE DE REPRODUCTION BIEN HUILÉ. LE NÉNUPHAR RÉCOLTE OU TRANSMET DES INFORMATIONS À TRAVERS L'ABEILLE.
TAY

DANS LA CIRCONSTANCE DE LA  CONSCIENCE, L'ÉCONOMIE SE RAPPROCHE DE L'ÉTHIQUE ET DE L'ESPÉRANCE QUI SE TROUVE ÊTRE LA PLUS PROCHE DE SA CONSCIENCE OUBLIANT LA CONSCIENCE DE RÉALITÉ POUR UN NARCISSISME ARCHAÏQUE.
LE CLANS DES MOUETTES ET TAY

CERTAINS CHERCHENT, EN L'INFINI, UNE IMMORTALITÉ. D'AUTRES TROUVENT, DANS LE POUVOIR, LA GLOIRE ET D'AUTRES NE CHERCHENT RIEN EN NE LE TROUVANT JAMAIS: PARADOXE DES VIES DANS LE VIVRE; IL Y A CEUX QUI VIVENT HUMBLEMENT ET CEUX QUI REGARDENT EN ADMIRANT LA RÉALITÉ DES NATURES.
TAY

PROFONDEUR DE L'ABYME MONTRE LA DIVERSITÉ DES CONVICTIONS, DES CONSCIENCES ET DES ACTES DANS L'ANTHROPOLOGIE ET SES ESPÉRANCES. LA DÉCISION DEVANT LA DÉCOUVERTE ET LE RECUEILLEMENT. LE RÉCONFORT ET LE TEMPS DANS L'ADVERSITÉ: L'ARTICLE DE L'ESPRIT DANS L'ESPACE. TAY

FRANCE, LE PEUPLE SE NOIE ET LES SAUVETEURS SORTENT LES DENTS DANS LE SOUFFLE DU FROID: AU LIEU D'ENTENDRE DES LOUANGES DE PRÊTRES, DES ACTES DE RABBINS ET DES PRIÈRES D’IMAMS; LE POUVOIR EXÉCUTIF ET LE PRÉSIDENT NOUS PARLENT DE RÉDUCTION D'EFFECTIFS AU SEIN DU TRÉSOR PUBLIC. TAY

ON PEUT REPROCHER BEAUCOUP DE CHOSES À PÉRICLÈS DE L'ANTIQUE RÉPUBLIQUE D'ATHÈNES MAIS DEVANT LES RÉALITÉS DE LA DÉFAITE ET DE LA PESTE, CE POLITICIEN DIRIGEANT EST RESTÉ AVEC SON PEUPLE DANS L'ADVERSITÉ DE L'HISTOIRE, MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE. TAY

ON PARLE D'AGENDA, DE PROTOCOLE, DE POLITESSE OU DE CERTAINES RAISONS MAIS QUAND UN PAYS TRAVERSE UN TEL FLÉAU CLIMATIQUE: LA PLUIE ET UN MANQUE DE SOLEIL OBSERVÉ DEPUIS TROIS MOIS EN LA RÉGION NORD, EN FRANCE MÉTROPOLITAINE ET DOM-TOM: ON DOIT SENTIR LE FEU AU POUDRE. TAY

INONDATIONS, LE CARACTÈRE DE LA FEMME ET DE L'HOMME EST D'INTERPELLER OÙ L'ÉVIDENCE MONTRE QUE LE PEUPLE A BESOIN DE L'EXISTENCE PHYSIQUE DU CITOYEN ÉLU QUE DE L'ATTRAIT DE SA CONDITION MORALE: IL Y A UNE FAUTE DE JUGEMENT DU PRÉSIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE. TAY

LE NUAGE PLANE SUR LE TEMPS ET LA CONDITION CONSTRUIT LE TERRAIN. LA MATIÈRE DEVIENT UNE MASSE ET LA POUSSIÈRE SE DÉVELOPPE EN GALAXIE: LA NUIT DES ÉTOILES FILANTES ET LA LUNE ROUSSE. Y'BECCA ET TAY

LA FACULTÉ JEAN JAURÈS, LE MIRAIL, Y'BECCA ET TOULOUSE.
http://leclandesmouettes.bbflash.net/t683-la-faculte-jean-jaures-le-mirail-y-becca-et-toulouse
Y'becca ou murmure de l'Arbre-Olivier.
http://leclandesmouettes.bbflash.net/t41-y-becca-ou-murmure-de-l-arbre-olivier
QUAI-DES-ORFÉVRES: NIKÉ LA DÉESSE, POLICE LA COATIE, Y'BECCA.
http://leclandesmouettes.bbflash.net/t424-quai-des-orfevres-nike-la-deesse-police-la-coatie-y-becca
Y'BECCA.
TAY
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.atelier-yannistignard.com
yanis la chouette



Nombre de messages : 6850
Localisation : http://yanis.tignard.free.fr
Date d'inscription : 12/11/2005

MessageSujet: Re: Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.   Sam 3 Fév à 3:26

The size of a cereal box: ESA’s first satellite of 2018

2 February 2018
ESA’s first mission of the year was launched today: GomX-4B is the Agency’s most advanced technology-tester yet, featuring a hyperspectral camera and tiny thrusters to manoeuvre thousands of kilometres from its near-twin to try out their radio link.

These CubeSats are built around standard 10x10 cm units by GomSpace in Denmark. As ‘six-unit’ CubeSats they are as big as cereal boxes – but double the size of their predecessor GomX-3, released from the International Space Station in 2015.

“ESA is harnessing CubeSats as a fast, cheap method of testing promising European technologies in orbit,” comments Roger Walker, heading ESA’s technology CubeSat efforts.

“Unlike GomX-3, GomX-4B will change its orbit using cold-gas thrusters, opening up the prospect of rapidly deploying future constellations and maintaining their separations, and flying nanosatellites in formations to perform new types of measurements from space.”


GomX-4B launch
The pair was launched at 07:51 GMT (08:51 CET) from Jiuquan, China, piggybacking on a Long March 2D rocket carrying a Chinese satellite to detect electromagnetic disturbances that might offer early warnings of earthquakes.

The focus of Denmark’s GomX-4A on imaging includes monitoring Arctic territory. It carries no thrusters but the agile GomX-4B will fly behind it, allowing the pair to test their radio link across various distances up to 4500 km.

“While these two CubeSats are closely related, they have different goals – but by flying them together we all gain extra opportunities demonstrations in space,” adds Roger.


Butane thrusters
Some four hours after launch, they flew over their mission control centre – GomSpace’s premises in Aalborg, Denmark – at which point their early operations could begin.

“Just as in the case of a full-size mission, the two must be switched on and checked ahead of full operations.”

GomX-4B’s work can then begin for ESA. It will also monitor the performance of off-the-shelf computer parts in the harsh space environment, and test a new startracker for Dutch CubeSat manufacturer ISIS: https://www.isispace.nl/ .

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/The_size_of_a_cereal_box_ESA_s_first_satellite_of_2018

Title Tunis wetlands
Released 02/02/2018 10:00 am
Copyright contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data (2017), processed by ESA, CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
Description
This Copernicus Sentinel-2 image features Tunisia’s capital Tunis, in North Africa, and highlights some of the country’s important wetlands.

Captured on 15 December 2017, the image shows part of the Mediterranean’s Gulf of Tunis, which provides natural protection for this ancient city and busy port. The area has seen a series of settlements over the last 3000 years, but arguably the most famous is Carthage, which now forms a suburb to the northeast of the centre of Tunis.

While the image offers sharp contrast between the city’s urban environment and surrounding hills and agricultural fields, it also depicts several bodies of water, which are protected under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

World Wetlands Day is celebrated every year on 2 February, and with this year’s theme being Wetlands for a Sustainable Urban Future, this image of Tunis highlights how important these wetlands are to the city.

There are seven Ramsar sites around Tunis, five of which are visible in the image. Lake Tunis can be seen close to the coast and features a causeway. It is a brackish lagoon surrounded by intertidal marshes. It offers good nesting grounds for several species of bird and wintering grounds for species such as the Greater Flamingo. Mammals include rodents and bats, and it is an important source of food, a spawning ground and a nursery for several fish species. The main human activity carried out is fishing, regulated according to its protected status.

The shallow lake of Sebkhet Sejoumi is west of Lake Tunis and is one of the largest water reservoirs protecting the capital from floods. Unlike other sebkhets – or salt lakes – in the area, Sejoumi retains some water all year and is therefore particularly important for wildlife in the summer when other sebkhets dry up.

The smaller protected lakes of Ghdir El Golla and Barrage Mornaguia can be seen further west on the outskirts of the city. To the north of the city, lies Sebkhet Ariana which loses much of its water in the summer.

Through its GlobWetland Africa project, ESA works in partnership with the Ramsar Secretariat to use information from satellites to help conserve and manage vulnerable wetlands such as these.

This image is featured on the Earth from Space video programme.

Id 389652

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2018/02/Tunis_wetlands


LATEST NEWS
NASA JPL latest news release
Mount Sharp 'Photobombs' Mars Curiosity Rover
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7051&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NASAJPL&utm_content=msl20180131

A new self-portrait of NASA's Curiosity Mars rover shows the vehicle on Vera Rubin Ridge, which it has been investigating for the past several months. Directly behind the rover is the start of a clay-rich slope scientists are eager to begin exploring. In coming weeks, Curiosity will begin to climb this slope. In the image, north is on the left and west is on the right, with Gale Crater's rim on the horizon of both edges.

Poking up just behind Curiosity's mast is Mount Sharp, photobombing the robot's selfie. When Curiosity landed on Mars five years ago, the team's intention was to study lower Mount Sharp, where the rover will remain for all of its time on Mars. The mountain's base provides access to layers formed over millions of years. These layers formed in the presence of water -- likely due to a lake or lakes where sediments accumulated, which formed these layers inside IGale Crater.

The mosaic was assembled from dozens of images taken by Curiosity's Mars Hands Lens Imager (MAHLI). They were all taken on Jan. 23, 2018, during Sol 1943.

For news about other Mars missions this month, view the first episode of a new video series, "The Mars Report."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWr6GoGaqdQ&list=PLTiv_XWHnOZpDDRIMGNxDTAORJVK2RS7I&index=1

Additonal information about NASA's exploration of Mars is at:

https://mars.nasa.gov/

CELA PEUT NOUS ÊTRE UTILE SUR LES MOUVEMENTS DES SYNTHÈSES
DU FEU DANS LE VENT ET LA MASSE OU LE VIDE.
Y'BECCA.
TAY
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.atelier-yannistignard.com
yanis la chouette



Nombre de messages : 6850
Localisation : http://yanis.tignard.free.fr
Date d'inscription : 12/11/2005

MessageSujet: Re: Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.   Sam 3 Fév à 3:27

Where no mission has gone before.

2 February 2018
Living near a star is risky business, and positioning a spacecraft near the Sun is a very good way to observe rapidly changing solar activity and deliver early warning of possibly harmful space weather. ESA is now looking at doing just that.

On most days, our normally calm Sun goes about its business, delivering a steady and predictable amount of heat and light that keeps planet Earth and its humans ticking.

But just as the Sun drives weather on Earth, solar activity is responsible for disturbances in our space environment, dubbed ‘space weather’.

Besides emitting a continuous stream of electrically charged atomic particles, the Sun periodically sneezes out billions of tonnes of material threaded with magnetic fields in colossal-scale ‘coronal mass ejections’.

These immense clouds of matter usually miss Earth, but if one reaches us it can disrupt Earth’s protective magnetic bubble and upper atmosphere, affecting satellites in orbit, navigation, terrestrial power grids, and data and communication networks, among other effects.

Getting a view of the action
ESA’s Sun-watching Proba-2 minisatellite shows the aftermath of 18 February 2014’s ‘coronal mass ejection’
Solar loops after eruption
Obtaining warnings of such events would be immensely helpful: a recent ESA study estimated the potential impact in Europe from a single, extreme space weather event could be about €15 billion.

As just one example, even moderate space weather events can affect electrical power grids that supply electricity to homes, hospitals and schools. Improved warning times for larger events would allow grid operators to take measures to protect their networks and ensure continued power delivery.

“One of the best ways to observe rapidly changing solar activity is to position a dedicated spacecraft slightly away from our direct line to the Sun, so that it can observe the ‘side’ of our star before it rotates into view,” says Juha-Pekka Luntama, responsible for space weather at ESA’s mission control centre, Darmstadt, Germany.

Virtual points in space
One of these, the 5th Lagrange point, lags 60º degrees behind Earth in its orbit – an ideal location for monitoring mass ejections from the ‘side’ so as to give early warning and better estimates of the speed and direction.

Diagram of the Lagrange points associated with the Sun-Earth system.
The Lagrange points associated with the Sun–Earth system
“L5 is an excellent spot for a future ESA space weather mission because it gives advance views of what’s happening at the Sun,” says Juha-Pekka.

“The spacecraft would provide crucial data that will help us spot Earth-arriving ejections, improve our forecasts of the arrival time at Earth and provide advance knowledge of active regions on the Sun as they rotate into view.”

First-ever mission to L5

Today, ESA began studies to examine exactly this concept. Four European industrial and scientific consortiums including leading experts on space systems and instrument design will develop concepts for flying a mission to L5.

Based on the results, ESA will select a final design in about 18 months.

A rear artist view of Proba-2 as it looks towards the Sun
Proba-2
This space weather mission would provide data for operational applications such as forecasts and nowcasts of solar activity.

These are part of ESA’s Space Weather Service Network, which will issue warnings and alerts to scientific, commercial and civil customers when solar activity poses any risk to critical civil and economic activities.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Situational_Awareness/Where_no_mission_has_gone_before

CELA PEUT NOUS ÊTRE UTILE SUR LES MOUVEMENTS DES SYNTHÈSES
DU FEU DANS LE VENT ET LA MASSE OU LE VIDE.
Y'BECCA.
TAY
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.atelier-yannistignard.com
yanis la chouette



Nombre de messages : 6850
Localisation : http://yanis.tignard.free.fr
Date d'inscription : 12/11/2005

MessageSujet: Re: Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.   Sam 3 Fév à 3:27

Hidden cluster revealed.
OBSCURED SIRIUS REVEALS GAIA 1 CLUSTER
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2018/01/Obscured_Sirius_reveals_Gaia_1_cluster

Title Obscured Sirius reveals Gaia 1 cluster
Released 29/01/2018 10:00 am
Copyright H. Kaiser
Description
If you gazed at the night sky over the past few weeks, it is possible that you stumbled upon a very bright star near the Orion constellation. This is Sirius, the brightest star of the entire night sky, which is visible from almost everywhere on Earth except the northernmost regions. It is, in fact, a binary stellar system, and one of the nearest to our Sun – only eight light-years away.

Known since antiquity, this star played a key role for the keeping of time and agriculture in Ancient Egypt, as its return to the sky was linked to the annual flooding of the Nile. In Ancient Greek mythology, it represented the eye of the Canis Major constellation, the Great Dog that diligently follows Orion, the Hunter.

Dazzling stars like Sirius are both a blessing and a curse for astronomers. Their bright appearance provides plenty of light to study their properties, but also outshines other celestial sources that happen to lie in the same patch of sky.

This is why Sirius has been masked in this picture taken by amateur astronomer Harald Kaiser on 10 January from Karlsruhe, a city in the southwest of Germany.

Once the glare of Sirius is removed, an interesting object becomes visible to its left: the stellar cluster Gaia 1, first spotted last year using data from ESA’s Gaia satellite.

Gaia 1 is an open cluster – a family of stars all born at the same time and held together by gravity – and it is located some 15 000 light-years away. Its chance alignment next to nearby, bright Sirius kept it hidden to generations of astronomers that have been sweeping the heavens with their telescopes over the past four centuries. But not to the inquisitive eye of Gaia, which has been charting more than a billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy.

Mr Kaiser heard about the discovery of this cluster during a public talk on the Gaia mission and zealously waited for a clear sky to try and image it using his 30 cm-diameter telescope. After covering Sirius on the telescope sensor – creating the dark circle on the image – he succeeded at recording some of the brightest stars of the Gaia 1 cluster.

Gaia 1 is one of two previously unknown star clusters that have been discovered by counting stars from the first set of Gaia data, which was released in September 2016. Astronomers are now looking forward to Gaia’s second data release, planned for 25 April, which will provide vast possibilities for new, exciting discoveries.

More information about opportunities for amateur astronomers to follow up on Gaia observations here.

Id 389434

AND

Putting everyday computer parts to space radiation test
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Putting_everyday_computer_parts_to_space_radiation_test

29 January 2018
ESA’s next mission, the miniature GomX-4B, includes a piggyback experiment to test how well everyday commercial computer memories perform in the radiation-soaked environment of space.

Ready to be launched from China this Friday, GomX-4B was built from six standard 10 cm CubeSat units by GomSpace in Denmark.

Its main goal is to test radio links between satellites and micropropulsion, but GomX-4B also carryies a small, cheap but important secondary experiment: a single 10x10cm electronics board with 12 computer flash memories, made up of three examples of four different types, each purchased for a few euros.

Known as Chimera, this experiment will test how such ‘commercial-off-the-shelf’ parts cope with bombardments of high-energy electrically charged atomic particles from the Sun and deep space. A specially space-qualified monitoring chip will record the performance of the dozen memories.


GomX-4B
“Interaction with charged particles can induce ‘bit flips’ in computer memory, introducing errors,” explains Chimera team member Tomasz Szewczyk.

“We perform ground testing and software modelling to understand how different components are affected by radiation, but nothing beats real testing in space.

“There’s an increasing push to use more off-the-shelf parts in orbit because they are theoretically cheaper and more capable than space-designed parts, but there are question marks over their reliability.


Space radiation
“For instance, different batches of the same part may have radically different reactions to charged particles, based on small variations in the raw materials or the manufacturing process. That’s why we are flying three versions of each memory.”

Once it became clear there was a chance to fly on GomX-4B, Chimera was built and tested in a year, with ESA’s data engineers working together with quality assurance experts. The board was assembled by certified ESA engineers, with environmental testing for launch and space conditions using shaker tables and thermal–vacuum chambers.

“ESA missions have already been using a lot of different off-the-shelf parts, certainly across the last two decades,” comments computer scientist Gianluca Furano. “All the mass memory of currently flying missions is made up of purely commercial flash devices, for instance.

“And right now there are some component areas where we simply don’t have any space-qualified alternative. The problem is that off-the-shelf parts need to undergo a lot of testing in order to be sure they’ll meet the necessary performance and reliability, and this can mean their per-unit cost actually ends up much higher.”


GomX-4 pair
In addition, the capabilities of space-qualified parts typically lag several generations behind off-the-shelf parts, which benefit from the doubling of transistors per chip every two years or less.

One approach is to take commercial devices and devise methods to best use them for space applications, often with the help of manufacturers. For instance, programmable chips known as called ‘field programmable gate arrays’ can have error detection and correction mechanisms added.

“The more knowledge we have of how these parts behave in space operations, then the more we can develop effective countermeasures,” adds Gianluca.

“Terrestrial industry is becoming interested in such solutions as well. For large data centres using massive amount of memory, cosmic rays already set reliability limits. Such effects will also become a factor within chips for safety-critical applications, such as self-driving cars.”

“Flying technology experiments on CubeSats is opening up a plethora of opportunities to access space faster, and more cost effectively,” adds ESA’s Ali Zadeh. “The multidisciplinary nature of such experiments result in exciting collaborations across our Agency.”

RAPPORT DE
Y'BECCA.
TAY
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.atelier-yannistignard.com
yanis la chouette



Nombre de messages : 6850
Localisation : http://yanis.tignard.free.fr
Date d'inscription : 12/11/2005

MessageSujet: Re: Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.   Sam 3 Fév à 3:34

Microsoft Word - Final_Report_13_1_03_7.docx

FINAL REPORT
Title: Benefits and costs of implementing fuel treatments
on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands in Mississippi
JFSP PROJECT ID: 13-1-03-7
SEPTEMBER 2017
Dr. Robert K. Grala
Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University
Dr. J. Morgan Varner
Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service
Dr. Ian A. Munn
Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University
Dr. Stephen C. Grado
Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University
Dr. William H. Cooke
Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University
Dr. Hugh R. Medal
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Mississippi
State University
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as
representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government.
i
Table of Content
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms.................................................................................................... iv
Keywords ........................................................................................................................................ v
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Materials and Results ...................................................................................................................... 4
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 26
Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix A: Contact Information for Key Project Personnel ..................................................... A1
Appendix B: List of Completed/Planned Scientific/Technical Publications/Science Delivery
Products......................................................................................................................................... B1
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowner socio-demographic characteristics based
on responses to the mail survey conducted in Mississippi in 2015. ............................................... 7
Table 2. A total forest land area owned by nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) Mississippi
landowners participating in 2015 mail survey. ............................................................................... 8
Table 3. Wildfire occurrence in Mississippi based on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF)
landowner responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015. ........................................................... 10
Table 4. Landowner concern and experience with wildfires based on responses to a mail survey
conducted in 2015. ........................................................................................................................ 11
Table 5. Landowner interest in treating a forest land with fuel reduction treatments by a forest
land type based on responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015. .............................................. 13
Table 6. Implementation of fuel reduction treatments by Mississippi landowners based on
responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015. ............................................................................. 14
Table 7. Familiarity and participation in wildfire programs based on responses to 2015 mail
survey. ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 8. Landowner tolerance to smoke from various sources and management activities based
on mail survey conducted in 2015. ............................................................................................... 19
Table 9. Landowner willingness to implement a prescribed burn at randomly selected payment
levels based on 2015 mail survey conducted in Mississippi......................................................... 20
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. A conceptual diagram illustrating research activities involved in determining benefits
and costs of implementing fuel treatments on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands in
Mississippi. ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Distribution of an average forest land owned as reported Mississippi nonindustrial
private forest (NIPF) landowners participating in the mail survey in 2015. .................................. 8
Figure 3. Distribution of a total forest land owned as reported Mississippi nonindustrial private
forest (NIPF) landowners participating in the mail survey in 2015. ............................................... 9
Figure 4. Distribution of a landowner concern with property damage due to a wildfire based on
responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015. ............................................................................. 11
Figure 5. Distribution of a landowner concern with smoke damage due to a wildfire based on
responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015. ............................................................................. 12
Figure 6. Distribution of forest land owned that landowners in Mississippi were interested in
managing with fuel reduction treatments based 2015 mail survey. .............................................. 13
Figure 7. Landowner primary objective for implementing fuel reduction treatments based on
2015 mail survey. .......................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 8. A likelihood that a Mississippi forest landowner will implement a fuel reduction
treatment in the next five years based on responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015. ........... 16
Figure 9. Distribution of likelihood that a Mississippi forest landowner will implement a fuel
reduction treatment in the next five years based on 2015 mail survey. ........................................ 16
Figure 10. A likelihood that a neighbor’s decision to implement a fuel reduction treatment will
prompt a landowner to implement a treatment on her/his land based on 2015 mail survey. ........ 17
Figure 11. Importance of factors in landowner’s decision to implement a fuel reduction treatment
in the next five years based on 2015 mail survey and 5-point Likert scale: 1 – unimportant, 2 – of
little importance, 3 – moderately important, 4 – important, and 5 – very important. ................... 17
Figure 12. Reason why landowners in Mississippi were not willing to implement a prescribed
burn on their land implement based on 2015 mail survey. ........................................................... 20
Figure 13. Representation of a forested landscape as set of raster cells (A) and a directed network
of connected nodes (B). ................................................................................................................ 21
iv
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms
ac – acre
CVM – contingent valuation method
DoD – U.S. Department of Defense
EQIP – Environmental Quality Incentives Program
GSA – U.S. General Services Administration
JFSP – Joint Fire Science Program
MCS – Monte Carlo Simulation
NEA – Nash equilibrium allocation
NIPF – nonindustrial private forest
NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWOS – National Woodland Owner Survey
S.D. – standard deviation
WHIP – Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
WTP – willingness to pay
v
Keywords
Contingent valuation method, Cost; Cost-share, Fuel reduction treatment; Prescribed fire;
Mail survey; Monetary valuation; Optimization; Smoke; Wildfire; Willingness to pay.
1
Abstract
This study focused on prioritization of fuel reduction treatments in fire-prone
landscapes with diverse ownership patterns. In the first phase, the study implemented mail
survey and contingent valuation (CV) methods to identify Mississippi’s landowner attitudes
towards wildfires; determine trends in treatment implementation, their costs, and
implementation intervals; measure landowner willingness to participate in a prescribed burn
program, and quantify willingness to pay (WTP) for implementing a prescribed burn to
decrease wildfire hazard on landowner’s forest land. In the second phase, the study utilized
optimization modeling and Monte Carlo simulation to develop a simulation tool that will aid
resource managers in allocating cost-share funding to minimize a wildfire damage to the
landscape. Results indicated that while landowners were concerned with wildfire damage, only
a small proportion of them implemented fuel reduction treatments in the past or were planning
to implement such treatments in the near future. Most common reasons for not planning to
implement a fuel treatment in the future included liability due to escaped prescribed burn,
treatment cost, lack of equipment, and lack of experience. Additionally, most landowners were
not aware and did not participate in any wildfire mitigation program suggesting that they did
not fully utilize existing resources and that new outreach methods will need to be developed to
deliver program information to landowners. However, many landowners were willing to
participate in a prescribed burn program if a prescribed burn was implemented on their behalf
by qualified personnel. On average, landowners were willing to pay $63.57/ac for
implementing a prescribed burn which was higher than the average cost reported by
landowners for implementing prescribed burn, chemical vegetation control, and mechanical
vegetation control on their land. Simulation results indicated that the optimal cost-share
allocation was highly depended on the budget and the number of cost-share payment levels. In
situations where a budget was limited, a risk-based allocation approach resulted in the greatest
wildfire damage reduction because cost-share funds were allocated to most hazardous land
parcels. While a uniform cost-share payment allocation could provide similar damage reduction
levels, it would require a larger budget. Similarly, increasing the number of payment levels also
resulted in wildfire damage reduction because payment levels could more precisely customized
to landowner cost requirements. As a result, a budget could be used more effectively and a
prescribed burns could be implemented on a larger forest land area. Results help better
understand landowners’ opinions about wildfires and fuel reduction treatments and thus will
facilitate development of new outreach programs that better fit landowner needs as well as help
managers use limited budgets more effectively by prioritizing fuel reduction treatments to
maximize wildfire mitigation benefits.
2
Objectives
This research project examined the cost effectiveness of fuel treatments on nonindustrial
private forest (NIPF) lands in Mississippi. The study generated results that will help managers
more effectively prioritize fuel reduction treatments and improve their cost effectiveness. The
proposal addressed questions related to treatment costs outlined in Task 3 (Fuels treatment
effectiveness: Economics) of the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) Funding Opportunity Notice
2013-1. Specifically, the proposal examined the cost structure associated with different treatment
types and re-treatment intervals and determined least-cost re-treatment intervals that meet fire
behavior objectives. Results will facilitate quantification of trade-offs associated with
implementing various fuel treatments and facilitating more effective budget allocations. This
project proposal addressed the following questions:
Treatment costs
1. What are the costs associated with different treatment types and retreatment intervals?1
Implementation of fuel treatments by NIPF landowners might be dependent on treatment
costs. A mail survey was conducted to collect information on fuel treatment types
implemented by NIPF landowners, incurred costs, and re-treatment intervals. Based on this
information, we developed fuel treatment cost tables and determined willingness of NIPF
landowners to implement fuel treatments at specified payment levels.
2. What are the least-cost re-treatment intervals to meet fire behavior objectives?1
Re-treatment intervals applied by NIPF landowners might be dependent on landowner
wildfire prevention objectives, attitudes toward fuel treatments, wildfire risk aversion, fuel
treatment cost, and available budget. We collected this information via a mail survey and
used a regression analysis to examine impacts of these factors on applied fuel treatment
intervals. Further, we used an optimization model to identify least cost fuel treatment regimes
that meet specified fire behavior objectives.
Avoided wildfire costs
1. How do fuels treatments influence wildfire management and suppression decisions and costs?2
Wildfire management and suppression decisions and costs might be influenced by a decision
mechanism and involvement of NIPF landowners in the decision process. We simulated three
decision-making approaches to examine the impact of each approach. We computed the Nash
Equilibrium Allocation (NEA), using numerical optimization techniques such as nonlinear
programming (Bazaraa & Shetty, 2006) and examined sensitivity of the NEA to changes in
input data. A NEA provides an allocation decision in which no single NIPF landowner can
improve their individual wildfire prevention objective if the other allocations remain
unchanged (Dutta 1999). Knowing the NEA structure will help decision-makers develop
strategies related to optimal allocation plans for wildfire suppression and fuel treatments. We
also examined impacts of decentralized decision-making by using a system-optimal model and

1 Contributing authors in the results section included Robert K. Grala, Jason S. Gordon, Hugh R. Medal, and
Katarzyna Grala.
2
Contributing authors in the results section included Hugh R. Medal, Eghbal Rashidi, Tanveer H. Bhuiyan, Max
Moseley, and Robert K. Grala.
3
comparing its results with those produced by a landowner-optimal model. This comparison
will help managers measure the value of providing incentives to landowners. Finally, we
examined the effect of NIPF landowner behavior on prescribed resource allocation by
comparing different resource allocation strategies. The first strategy allocated resources
uniformly across forest parcels (i.e., uniform allocation), whereas the second allocated
resources proportionally based on the characteristics of the forest parcel (i.e., proportional
allocation). Unfortunately, these two methods may not minimize fuel treatment and other
suppression costs because they do not consider landowner behavior. Thus, we compared the
allocation produced by the landowner-optimal model to the uniform and proportional
allocations to identify strategies that minimize fuel suppression costs.
Background
Many decades of wildfire suppression have resulted in extensive forest fuels accumulation
which increases the likelihood of large wildfires (Agee and Skinner, 2005; Donovan and Brown,
2008). This problem is exacerbated due to the increasing number of people and valuable property
intermingled with fire-prone wildlands (Cochrane et al., 2012; McCaffrey, 2009). Fuels
management in these areas can reduce wildfire hazard but also restore and maintain healthy
ecosystems (Agee and Skinner, 2005). An appropriate application of various fuel treatments can
help decrease probability of wildfire occurrence as well as manage its size and spread (Cochrane
et al., 2012). In reality, most fire-prone landscapes face a “fire-deficit,” with far fewer areas
burned than needed to meet fire hazard or ecological objectives (Stephens, 2005). In particular,
prescribed fire treatments and other fuels treatments are less utilized on NIPF lands (Haines et al.,
2001), a major problem considering their extent in many fire-prone regions and the typical
juxtaposition of these wildlands with homes and structures.
While some research has indicated that a majority of NIPF landowners implement some
activities to protect themselves from hazardous wildfires (Jarrett et al., 2009), others reported that
landowners failed to do enough to prevent wildfire occurrence on their own land (Busby and
Albers, 2010). In some cases, landowners might simply be unaware of available wildfire
prevention programs or think that such programs do not provide sufficient incentives to
participate and coordinate their efforts (Jarrett et al., 2009). However, another reason might be
that NIPF landowners often do not bear all the costs of wildfire suppression and, therefore, their
decisions regarding implementation of fuel treatments might not coincide with the fuel treatment
level that is in the public interest. A similar argument was made by Busby and Albers (2010) who
indicated that, in mixed-ownership scenarios, private landowners do not have to incur wildfire
prevention costs while they still can utilize the benefits of public wildfire protection.
Understanding fuel treatment decisions of NIPF landowners will help develop better
wildfire prevention strategies. In regions with mixed ownership and a large number of individual
owners, planning large-scale or coordinated wildfire prevention requires involvement,
cooperation, and commitment from NIPF landowners (Rummer, 2008). While NIPF landowners
are crucial for successful coordination of wildfire prevention strategies, encouraging their greater
participation might be challenging due to diverse ownership objectives (Jarrett et al., 2009). By
participating in a fuel reduction program, NIPF landowners can not only help achieve public
4
wildfire prevention objectives and decrease government expenditures but also limit their private
losses.
Improved communication of wildfire prevention benefits by government agencies can
help increase landowner participation in reducing fuel accumulation and decrease wildfire
occurrence (Amacher et al., 2005). Fuels managers have at their disposal various fuel treatment
options, such as prescribed burning, mechanical fuel reduction, herbicidal treatment, grazing, and
manual methods to achieve desired fuel arrangements as well as satisfy their diverse forest
management objectives (Wolcott et al., 2007). However, public agencies and NIPF landowners
cannot make fully informed decisions regarding fuel treatments and allocation on private lands
without knowing their costs and expected benefits. Often the inability to implement and
coordinate wildfire prevention efforts is related to budgetary constraints and necessitates a
comparison of fuel treatment costs and expected wildfire prevention benefits to determine the
best allocation of available resources (Rummer, 2008). Limited information on actual fuel
treatment costs and benefits does not allow for making reliable trade-off analyses; a full
understanding of involved costs and benefits as well as avoided costs is critical for making
effective decisions regarding allocation of resources related to wildfire prevention and
suppression.
Materials and Results
The primary data used in this study was collected through a mail survey sent to
Mississippi’s NIPF landowners. The sampling frame included NIPF landowners who owned at
least 16 ha (40 acres) of uncultivated land in Mississippi. Names and addresses of NIPF
landowners included in the sampling frame were obtained from county tax assessors and were
identified based on tax rolls. The survey was deployed on a sample of 2,000 NIPF landowners
who were invited to participate in the mail survey. Based on previous research (Grala et al.,
2009; Grala et al., 2010; Grala et al., 2012; Jarrett et al., 2009) and an expected response of rate
30%, this sample size was sufficient to receive at least 283 completed questionnaires and
maintain a sampling error of 5% or better at the 95% confidence interval.
To increase the response rate, the survey followed the Tailored Design Method described
by Dillman et al. (2009) and consisted of five mail contacts including a brief introductory letter,
first questionnaire, thank you/reminder postcard, second replacement questionnaire, and
third/final replacement questionnaire. Survey responses were tested for a nonresponse bias by
comparing socio-demographic characteristics of surveyed NIPF landowners with those
published in the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) (Butler, 2016; Greene, 2008;
Mitchell & Carson, 1989; Wooldridge, 2000). The study was completed in two phases. In Phase
I, a mail survey was used to collect information on owned forest land and landownership goals;
landowner opinions about wildfires, landowner willingness to implement a prescribed burn, and
landowner socio-demographic information. In Phase II, responses survey responses were
incorporated into cost-share simulation modeling.
5
Figure 1. A conceptual diagram illustrating research activities involved in determining benefits
and costs of implementing fuel treatments on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands in
Mississippi.
Types of fuel treatments applied on NIPF lands, incurred treatment costs, and
expected wildfire prevention benefits. This portion of the study summarized information on
fuel reduction treatments on NIPF lands, geographic distribution of applied treatments,
landowner interest in implements fuel treatments, landowner opinions about wildfires and
smoke, wildfire occurrence; and landowner socio-demographic characteristics. Landowner
responses were elicited using closed-ended questions with ordered choices, close-ended
questions with unordered choices, rank questions, and open-ended questions. Case frequencies,
percentage distributions as well as mean and median ranking scores were calculated to evaluate
landowner responses. Pearson’s Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were used to examine
statistical differences in responses between NIPF landowners who implemented fuel treatments
on their forest land and those who did not implement any treatments. The analysis was
completed using SPSS Statistics.
Willingness of NIPF landowners to pay for fuel treatments to prevent the
occurrence of wildfires. This portion of the study collected information on landowners’
willingness to implement a prescribed on their forest land. The contingent valuation method
(CVM) was used to create a hypothetical scenario to determine landowner willingness to pay
(WTP) for fuel treatments. Landowners were asked to assume that they owned 40-acre tract of
loblolly pine tract managed for timber. The stand was 20 years old and was scheduled for
harvest at age of 35 years. Landowners were presented with an opportunity to implement a
prescribed burn by a consulting forester. The foresters would develop a written prescribed burn
plan, obtain a prescribed burn permit, rent needed equipment, hire labor and certified burn
manager, and implement the burn at per acre (ac) fee. Landowners were randomly assigned
preselected payment levels and a dichotomous choice question was used to elicit their response
whether they would be willing to implement a prescribed burn on their land at a presented
6
payment level. A binary probit regression model was constructed to quantify landowner WTP
and determine impacts of attitudinal factors, and landowner socio-demographic characteristics
on reported WTP amounts (Greene, 2008; Wooldridge, 2000). The study used Delta method to
estimate a mean WTP. The analysis was completed using SAS and SPSS.
A cost-share allocation model for fuel reduction treatments. This study portion
focused portion on developing a decision-making tool that will help managers allocate limited
cost-share resources among landowners in order to maximize wildfire risk reduction. The model
unique feature is that it incorporated uncertainty related to whether landowners would implement
a fuel reduction treatment on their land or not. The model incorporated stochastic programming
with endogenous uncertainty where the probability that a landowner will implement a fuel
reduction treatment at a proposed cost-share level was treated as endogenous to the model. The
cost-share allocation problem was modeled as a two-stage stochastic mixed-integer programming
model.
The first stage, MinExpDamage, involved allocation of available cost-share resources
among landowners and determination of which landowners will decide to participate or not
participate in the cost-share program. This stage determined an optimal of cost-share assistance
to each landowner in order to minimize damage due to wildfire. The second stage simulated the
spread of wildfire and quantified the damage to the landscape using FlamMap and Monte Carlo
Simulation for a specified level of cost-share assistance and accounting for landscape
characteristics, fuel brakes placements, and fire ignition location.
Results and Discussion
Of 2,000 sent questionnaires, 569 were returned completed and useable for analysis. An
adjusted response rate was 32.24% after accounting for non-eligible, deceased, non-reachable
landowners and those who refused to participate in the survey. The survey response rate was
consistent with other studies examining opinions of Mississippi landowners (Mutandwa et al.
2016a and 2016b). A summary of landowner socio-demographic characteristics is presented in
Table 1. Landowner’s mean age was 67 years with majority of landowners being males (77.2%)
and 28.2% being females. In terms of education, 77.0% of landowners had some college or
higher education, of which 48.4% had four-year college as well as Mater’s, Doctoral, and
professional degrees. Only a small portion of landowners had high school, General Educational
Development, or less than high school education. Landowners differed in terms of their
residence proximity to s wildland area. Majority of landowners (24.2%) lived more than three
miles away from a wildland area. However, 17.2% lived within a wildland area and 11.1% were
adjacent to such area. A small proportion (12.2%) lived within 100 yards to one mile from a
wildland area. More than half landowners (61.4%) were members of various natural resourcebased
organizations. However, individual landowners could belong to multiple organizations.
Most frequently landowners belonged to county forestry (11.9%) and agriculture or farm-based
(11.9%) organizations, followed by state/national forestry (9.1%) and agriculture of farm-based
(7.3%) organizations, conservational or environmental organizations (7.1%), and community
service organizations (6.6%). Other organization types accounted for less than 5.0%. An average
7
before-taxes household income was $64,515 with 55.48% of landowners reporting income up to
$80,000 and 44.52% above $80,000. The average household income reported by forest
landowner was larger than the national average of $54,906 for year 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau
2017). Results related to landowner’s gender, age, and income were consisted with NWOS
estimates reported for landowners owning at least 10 ac of forest land (Butler and Butler 2016,
Butler at al. 2016).
Table 1. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowner socio-demographic characteristics based
on responses to the mail survey conducted in Mississippi in 2015.
Socio-demographic characteristic Frequency (%)a
Age (mean = 67 years)
Gender
Male
Female
77.2
28.2
Education
Less than high school
High school or General Education (GED) test
Some college
Two-year college degree
Four-year college degree
Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
Professional Degree (JD, MD)
3.3
19.7
20.2
8.4
26.0
12.9
3.5
6.0
Proximity of residence to wildland area
Within wildland area
Adjacent to wildland area
Between 100 and 300 yards
More than 300 yards but less and 1 mile
Between 1 and 3 miles
More than 3 miles
Don’t know
17.9
11.1
7.2
5.2
9.2
24.2
25.3
Membership in organizations1
State/national forestry organization
State/national wildlife organization
State/national agriculture or farm-based organization
County forestry organization
County wildlife organization
County agriculture or farm-based organization
Conservation or environmental organization
Community service organization
Other
9.1
3.9
7.3
11.9
1.6
10.7
7.1
6.6
3.2
Household income (mean=$64,515)
a
Individual percentages add to more than 100% due to membership multiple organizations.
Surveyed landowners cumulatively owned 97,305 ac of forest land. On average, they
owned 185 ac; however, there was a substantial variation in the area of owned forest land (S.D. =
8
344.34 ac) with an average ownership ranging from 54 to 1,215 ac (Figure 2) and individual
ownership as large as 5,000 ac (Table 2, Figure 3)
Table 2. A total forest land area owned by nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) Mississippi
landowners participating in 2015 mail survey.
Figure 2. Distribution of an average forest land owned as reported Mississippi nonindustrial
private forest (NIPF) landowners participating in the mail survey in 2015.
Statistics Forest land area owned
(acres)
Minimum 0
Maximum 5,000
Mean 184.99
Std. Deviation 344.45
Total 97,305
9
Figure 3. Distribution of a total forest land owned as reported Mississippi nonindustrial private
forest (NIPF) landowners participating in the mail survey in 2015.
Landowners owned forest land for a variety of reasons, from which production of
traditional forest products, wildlife habitat, long-term investment, legacy to heirs, and personal
recreation received high importance rankings (4 on 1-5 Likert scale where 1 – unimportant, 2
of little importance, 3 – moderately important, 4 – important, and 5 – very important). A feebased
recreation was assigned a little importance (2 on 1-5 Likert scale) (Table 3). Majority of
landowners (82.4%) did not have a written management for their forested tracts, 14.6% had
such plan, and 2.9% were unsure. Of those landowners who had the plan, only 13.6% indicated
that fuel reduction treatments were part of the plan, whereas 72.4% reported that fuel
treatments were not part of the plan and 14.0% were unsure.
Some landowners have experienced wildfires on their forest land as well as indicated
that wildfires occurred on neighboring properties (Table 3). Approximately 20.2% of
landowners reported wildfires on their forest land, whereas 18.2% reported wildfires on
neighboring properties. In terms of wildfire occurrence on forest land owned by landowners, an
area affected by wildfires ranged substantially from one to 260 ac. In total, wildfires occurred
on 3,463 ac owned by landowners and a mean wildfire size was 35.34 ac. Wildfire occurrence
on neighboring properties affected substantially larger forest land area with wildfires occurring
on forest tracts as large as 1,000 ac and a mean wildfire size of 73.45 ac. Landowners indicated
that a total of 4,407 ac of neighboring forest lands were affected by wildfire occurrence.
10
Table 3. Wildfire occurrence in Mississippi based on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF)
landowner responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015.
Wildfire occurrence Frequency
(%)
Past wildfire past occurrence on landowner property
Yes
No
Don’t know
20.2
72.8
7.0
Past wildfire occurrence on landowner neighbor’s property
Yes
No
Don’t know
18.2
58.7
23.1
Majority of landowners (86.6%) were concerned with a property damage due to a
wildfire, whereas a relatively smaller proportion of landowners (67.6%) was also concerned
with a smoke damage due to wildfire resulting in a vehicular accident or a sickness (Table 4).
On average, both issues were assigned a mean ranking scores of 4 on a 1-5 Likert scale with
the following ranking categories: 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – undecided, 4 – agree,
and 5 – strongly agree. However, only 4.3% of landowners knew someone who experienced
personal health effects due wildfire smoke (Table 4). Most landowner expressing the highest
level of concern (5 on 1-5 Likert scale) owned a forest land in counties in southwestern,
southcentral, and southeast Mississippi, whereas landowners in northwest and north east
Mississippi expressed a moderate concern (4 on 1-5 Likert scale) (Figure 3).
11
Table 4. Landowner concern and experience with wildfires based on responses to a mail survey
conducted in 2015.
Importance of wildfire damage Frequency
(%)
Importance of property damage due wildfire as an issue
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
55.0
31.6
7.2
4.5
1.6
Importance of smoke damage due to wildfire as an issue
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
32.0
35.6
67.6
85.9
96.7
Experience of personal health effects due to wildland fire
smoke
Yes
No
4.3
95.7
Figure 4. Distribution of a landowner concern with property damage due to a wildfire based on
responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015.
12
Figure 5. Distribution of a landowner concern with smoke damage due to a wildfire based on
responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015.
Landowners expressed a varying interest in implementing fuel reduction treatments on
their land and they were interested in treating from 13.23% to 49.52% of their land depending
on a forest land type (Table 4). Most commonly, landowners were interested in implementing
treatments on pine plantation lands where they were willing to treat 49.2% of owned forest land
area. On average, landowners were interested in treating 16.39% (145.61 ac) of pine
plantations with a total of potentially treatable area amounting to 24,803 ac. In terms of natural
pine stands, landowners were willing to treat 38.63% (3,040 ac) of their land and, on average,
they were interested in treating 34.88 ac. These two forest types were followed by natural
mixed pine and hardwood stands, natural hardwood stands, and bottomland hardwoods were
landowners were interested in treating 29.00, 18.68, and 13.23% of owned forest land area.
These percentages corresponded to potentially treatable total forest land areas of 4,473, 1,188,
and 1,393 ac, whereas average treatable forest land areas corresponded to 32.89, 15.84, and
16.39 ac.
13
Table 5. Landowner interest in treating a forest land with fuel reduction treatments by a forest
land type based on responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015.
Forest Land Type Forest Land Owned
(ac)
Acres Landowner
Would Like to Treat
with Fuel Reduction
Treatments
Percentag
e
(%)
Mean Total Mean Total
Pine plantations 197.18 50,083 145.05 24,803 49.52
Bottomland
hardwoods
76.30 10,530 16.39 1,393 13.23
Natural pine stands 57.86 7,869 34.55 3,040 38.63
Natural hardwood
stands
51.71 6,360 15.84 1,188 18.68
Natural mixed pine
and hardwood stands
71.07 15,423 32.89 4,473 29.00
Other 41.70 959 20.21 283 29.51
Figure 6. Distribution of forest land owned that landowners in Mississippi were interested in
managing with fuel reduction treatments based 2015 mail survey.
14
A relatively large proportion of landowners implemented some type of fuel reduction
treatments on their forest lands in the past (Table 6). Most frequently, it was a prescribed burn
which was implemented on 11,167 acres at average cost of $10.70/ac and interval of three
years between treatments. A mechanical vegetation control was implemented, on average,
every six years at the cost of $55.91/ac. The total forest land area treated with mechanical
vegetation control amounted to 2,662 acres. A chemical vegetation control was implemented
less frequently with an average interval of eight years and the cost of $53.75/ac. However, in
terms of area treated it was the second preferred treatment after prescribed burn (6,623 acres).
A relatively small proportion of landowners (1.4%) implemented other fuel treatments that
included a site preparation, grazing, mowing fire lanes, collecting logging debris, and thinning.
Table 6. Implementation of fuel reduction treatments by Mississippi landowners based on
responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015.
Fuel Reduction Treatmenta
Area Treated
(ac)
Average Cost
($/ac)
Average
Implementation
Intervalb
(years)
Prescribed burn 11,167 10.70 3
Mechanical vegetation control 2,662 55.91 6
Chemical vegetation control 6,623 53.75 8
a
58.1% of landowners did not implement any fuel treatment, whereas 1.4% implemented other
fuel reduction treatments. b
Rounded to full years.
Landowners had various forest land management objectives when implementing fuel
reduction treatments (Figure 7). Most landowners implemented treatments to manage undesired
vegetation (60.90%), promote tree growth (57.70%), improve wildlife habitat (56.30%), reduce
a likelihood of wildfire (54.70%), and reduce spread of diseases (49.00%). A smaller number of
landowners implemented fuel reduction treatments to improve forest appearance (32.30%),
dispose logging residues (26.10%), and prepare a forest site for replanting (25.40%).
15
Percentage (%)
Figure 7. Landowner primary objective for implementing fuel reduction treatments based on
2015 mail survey.
A relatively large proportion of landowners (29.10%) was likely or very likely to
implement a fuel reduction treatment in the next five years (Figure Cool. However, even a larger
proportion (41.00%) of landowners indicated they were very unlikely or very unlikely to
implement a fuel treatment, whereas 29.90% were neutral. Areas on a likely fuel reduction
treatment implementation concentrated mostly in two county clusters in southwestern and
southeastern Mississippi (Figure 9). A landowner decision to implement a fuel reduction
treatment was, to some extent, influenced by a neighbor’s decision to implement such
treatment (Figure 10) where 9.70% of landowners indicated that neighbor’s decision to
implement would definitely affect their decision and 52.60% indicated that maybe it would
affect their decision. For 37.70% of landowners a neighbor’s decision to implement a fuel
reduction treatment would not have any bearing on their own decision to do so.
There were numerous reasons that landowners reported for not implementing fuel
reduction treatments in the future (Figure 11). The most important reasons involved a potential
liability due to escaped prescribed burn fire (4.1 on 1-5 Likert scale where 1 – unimportant, 2 –
of little importance, 3 – moderately important, 4 – important, and 5 – very important), fuel
treatment cost (4.0), lack of needed equipment (3.Cool, lack of experience (3.Cool, and smokerelated
vehicular accident or a sickness (3.6). Other reason of moderate importance included
complaints from neighbors (3.3), difficulty in obtaining a prescribed burn fire permit (3.3), and
implementation of similar treatments by neighbors (3.2).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Manage undesired vegetation
Promote tree growth
Improve wildlife habitat
Reduce likelihood of wildfire
Reduce spread of diseases
Dispose of logging residues
Prepare site for replanting
Improve forest appearance
Other
16
Percentage (%)
Figure 8. A likelihood that a Mississippi forest landowner will implement a fuel reduction
treatment in the next five years based on responses to a mail survey conducted in 2015.
Figure 9. Distribution of likelihood that a Mississippi forest landowner will implement a fuel
reduction treatment in the next five years based on 2015 mail survey.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very likey Likey Niether likely nor
unlikely
Unlikely Very unlikely
17
Percentage (%)
Importance (1‐5 Likert scale)
Figure 10. A likelihood that a neighbor’s decision to implement a fuel reduction treatment will
prompt a landowner to implement a treatment on her/his land based on 2015 mail survey.
Figure 11. Importance of factors in landowner’s decision to implement a fuel reduction treatment
in the next five years based on 2015 mail survey and 5-point Likert scale: 1 – unimportant, 2 – of
little importance, 3 – moderately important, 4 – important, and 5 – very important.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Definitely Maybe Not at all
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Fuel treatment cost
Lack of experience
Lack of needed equipment
Lack of technical assistance
Difficulty of obtaining a prescribed burn permit
Potential liability due to escape of prescribed burn fire
Smoke causing a vehicular accident or making
someone sick
Complaints from neighbors
Implementation of similar fuel treatments by
neighboring landowners
18
Majority of landowners were not familiar and did not participate in any of the listed
wildfire- or prescribed burn-related programs (79.4 to 93.5% depending on the program) (Table
7). A small proportion of landowners was familiar with the program but did not participate (3.7
to 15.2% depending on the program). A number of landowners participating in programs was
also relatively low and ranged from one to 6.1%, depending on the program. Most commonly,
landowners participated in Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) (6.1%), Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) offered by NRCS (5.5%), and Firewise (3.9%).
Table 7. Familiarity and participation in wildfire programs based on responses to 2015 mail
survey.
Program Participated Did not
participate but
familiar with
the program
Did not
participate and
not familiar
with the
program
Firewise 3.9 9.1 87.0
DoD Fire Assistance Program 1.0 3.9 95.0
Volunteer Fire Assistance
Program
2.4 13.4 84.2
GSA Wildland Fire Program 1.0 3.7 95.3
Prescribed Burn Association 2.6 11.6 85.7
Informal group of landowners
working together to implement
fuel treatments
1.2 6.6 92.2
Certified Prescribed Burn
Manager Training (Mississippi
Forestry Commission and
Mississippi State University)
3.1 12.9 84.1
Prescribed Fire Councils 1.2 6.0 92.8
Fire on the Forty 3.3 4.9 91.8
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP)
offered by NRCS
6.1 10.2 83.6
Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program (WHIP) offered by
NRCS
5.5 15.2 79.4
19
Landowners were relatively indifferent and relatively tolerant in terms of smoke from
various sources and management practices, except smoke from a fire ignited by an arsonist which
received a little tolerance ranking (4 on 1-5 Likert scale where 1 – very tolerant, 2 – tolerant, 3
moderately tolerant, 4 – of little tolerance, and 5 – intolerant) (Table Cool.
Table 8. Landowner tolerance to smoke from various sources and management activities based
on mail survey conducted in 2015.
Smoke Source/Management Approach Mean Rankinga
Lightning 2.33
Fire ignited by an arsonist 3.96
Prescribed burn for management 2.10
Prescribed burn ignited by land managers on public lands 2.22
Fire ignited by land managers on private lands 2.17
Prescribed burn ignited by land managers on private lands 2.04
Prescribed burn to achieve forest health objectives 2.11
Smoke from fire that is allowed to burn itself our 2.56
Smoke from fire suppressed on one or more flanks 2.53
a
Measured on 1-5 Likert scale were 1 – very tolerant, 2 – tolerant, 3- moderately tolerant, 4 – of
little tolerance, 5 – intolerant.
A total of 525 landowners provided an answer to a hypothetical scenario in which a
consulting forester would implement a prescribed burn on their land (Table 9). Of this number,
26.48% of landowners were willing to implement a prescribed burn at a suggested payment
level, 43.24% were not willing to implement the burn, and 30.29% were unsure. The number of
landowners willing to implement a prescribed burn decreased at higher payments levels. For
example, at 44.79% of landowners were willing to pay $4.00/ac or less to implement a
prescribed burn on their land, 32.12 % would pay $64.00/ac or less, and only 27.04% would
pay $254.00/ac or less. A mean WTP, estimated using Delta method, was $63.57/ac. There
were numerous reasons of why landowners were not willing to implement a prescribed buring
on their land at offered payment levels.
20
Table 9. Landowner willingness to implement a prescribed burn at randomly selected payment
levels based on 2015 mail survey conducted in Mississippi.
Vote
Payment level
($/ac)
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 Total
Yes 30 29 14 20 13 7 2 8 3 3 139
No 7 8 16 17 18 24 27 36 29 45 227
Unsure 17 17 15 20 16 16 15 15 17 11 159
Total 54 54 55 57 47 47 44 59 49 59 525
Figure 12. Reason why landowners in Mississippi were not willing to implement a prescribed
burn on their land implement based on 2015 mail survey.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
The payment amount is too high
I don’t think such program is realistic
I don’t think this program will decrease a likelihood of
wildfire on my forest land
I don’t think this program will help me achieve
management objectives for my forest tract
I don’t want be involved in active fuel reduction
management
I am concerned with potential liability
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.atelier-yannistignard.com
yanis la chouette



Nombre de messages : 6850
Localisation : http://yanis.tignard.free.fr
Date d'inscription : 12/11/2005

MessageSujet: Re: Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.   Sam 3 Fév à 3:35

Microsoft Word - Final_Report_13_1_03_7.docx

19
Landowners were relatively indifferent and relatively tolerant in terms of smoke from
various sources and management practices, except smoke from a fire ignited by an arsonist which
received a little tolerance ranking (4 on 1-5 Likert scale where 1 – very tolerant, 2 – tolerant, 3
moderately tolerant, 4 – of little tolerance, and 5 – intolerant) (Table Cool.
Table 8. Landowner tolerance to smoke from various sources and management activities based
on mail survey conducted in 2015.
Smoke Source/Management Approach Mean Rankinga
Lightning 2.33
Fire ignited by an arsonist 3.96
Prescribed burn for management 2.10
Prescribed burn ignited by land managers on public lands 2.22
Fire ignited by land managers on private lands 2.17
Prescribed burn ignited by land managers on private lands 2.04
Prescribed burn to achieve forest health objectives 2.11
Smoke from fire that is allowed to burn itself our 2.56
Smoke from fire suppressed on one or more flanks 2.53
a
Measured on 1-5 Likert scale were 1 – very tolerant, 2 – tolerant, 3- moderately tolerant, 4 – of
little tolerance, 5 – intolerant.
A total of 525 landowners provided an answer to a hypothetical scenario in which a
consulting forester would implement a prescribed burn on their land (Table 9). Of this number,
26.48% of landowners were willing to implement a prescribed burn at a suggested payment
level, 43.24% were not willing to implement the burn, and 30.29% were unsure. The number of
landowners willing to implement a prescribed burn decreased at higher payments levels. For
example, at 44.79% of landowners were willing to pay $4.00/ac or less to implement a
prescribed burn on their land, 32.12 % would pay $64.00/ac or less, and only 27.04% would
pay $254.00/ac or less. A mean WTP, estimated using Delta method, was $63.57/ac. There
were numerous reasons of why landowners were not willing to implement a prescribed buring
on their land at offered payment levels.
20
Table 9. Landowner willingness to implement a prescribed burn at randomly selected payment
levels based on 2015 mail survey conducted in Mississippi.
Vote
Payment level
($/ac)
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 Total
Yes 30 29 14 20 13 7 2 8 3 3 139
No 7 8 16 17 18 24 27 36 29 45 227
Unsure 17 17 15 20 16 16 15 15 17 11 159
Total 54 54 55 57 47 47 44 59 49 59 525
Figure 12. Reason why landowners in Mississippi were not willing to implement a prescribed
burn on their land implement based on 2015 mail survey.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
The payment amount is too high
I don’t think such program is realistic
I don’t think this program will decrease a likelihood of
wildfire on my forest land
I don’t think this program will help me achieve
management objectives for my forest tract
I don’t want be involved in active fuel reduction
management
I am concerned with potential liability
Other
21
The damage due to a wildfire was quantified by simulating a wildfire spread in a
forested landscape that was divided into raster cells following the approach described by
Rashidi et al. (2017) where the center of each cell was considered as a node. Nodes were
connected with the neighboring nodes through directed arcs and together represented the
forested landscape as a directed network (Figure 13).
A B
Figure 13. Representation of a forested landscape as set of raster cells (A) and a directed network
of connected nodes (B).
It was further assumed that if a landowner accepted a cost-share payment, a fuel
reduction treatment was also implemented and a respective land raster cell would not be
passable for a wildfire. Sets of wildfire scenarios and subscenarios were based on random
location of multiple locations of wildfire ignition points. The number of ignition points in
subscenarios was varied from one to five resulting in more than 40 million possible wildfire
subscenarios. To overcome computational difficulties for this large number of simulations, a
Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was implemented to produce a random sample of 5,000
subscenarios, whereas FlamMap was used to quantify a wildfire spread rate and fire direction
in each landscape grid cell. Wildfire damage was simulated using MinExpDamageMIP
deployed on Python 2.7 with Gurobi solver for a scenario involving 10 landowners and 625
land parcels accounting for land characteristics related to elevation, slope, and moisture content
(Gurobi Optimization 2017). The analysis involved identification of multiple random ignition
points (nodes) in the landscape where wildfire could ignite simultaneously.
Model experimentation was based on a selected area in Santa Fe National Forest
assuming 10 landowners and a total of 625 parcel. Each parcel differed in vegetation density,
proximity to population, and economic value and, therefore, was assigned a corresponding
numerical weight. The weight represented a wildfire risk to surrounding parcels and was used to
allocate a cost-share assistance. Different forested landscapes were developed by renumbering
original landowners and producing landscapes with three, four, five, and six landowners and
reassigning owned land parcels accordingly (Table 15). While the total land area owned
remained the same (2,161 ac), the size of individual parcels differed depending how many
landowners were assigned to the landscape (Table 16).
22
Table 15. Landowner reassignment in the selected area of Santa Fe National.
Original
landowners
Number of landowners
3 4 5 6
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 1 4 4 4
5 2 1 5 5
6 3 2 1 6
7 1 3 2 1
8 2 4 3 2
9 3 1 4 3
10 1 2 5 4
Table 16. Forest land acreage owned by each reassignment landowner.
Landowner Number of landowner
3 4 5 6
1 1,207.4 615.8 366.7 332.1
2 484.3 484.3 304.4 480.9
3 470.5 470.5 646.9 477.4
4 - 591.6 422.1 422.1
5 - - 422.1 276.8
6 - - - 173.0
A risk-based allocation of cost-share funding was based on a combination of landowner,
allocation, and cost-share budget levels (Table 17). Based on these parameters, the amount of
allocated approximate cost-share assistance varied from $0.00 to $38.41 per ac (Table 18).
Table 17. Parameters used to simulate allocation of cost-share funding to minimize landscape
damage due to wildfire.
Parameter Value
Number of landowners 3, 4, 5, 6
Number of allocation levels 2, 5, 10, 15
Budget level $20,000, $40,000, $60,000, $80,000, $100,000
23
Table 18. An approximated cost-share amount for each allocation level and the total number of
allocation levels.
Level Number of levels
2 5 10 15
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1 $19.91 $4.98 $2.21 $1.42
2 - $14.94 $6.64 $4.27
3 - $24.89 $11.06 $7.11
4 - $34.85 $15.49 $9.96
5 - - $19.91 $12.80
6 - - $24.34 $15.65
7 - - $28.77 $18.49
8 - - $33.19 $21.34
9 - - $37.62 $24.18
10 - - - $27.03
11 - - - $29.87
12 - - - $32.72
13 - - - $35.56
14 - - - $38.41
An overall cost-share budget had a substantial impact on the expected wildfire damage to
the landscape. Larger cost-share assistance to individual landowners and larger overall cost-share
budget were associated with smaller expected damage because larger individual cost-share
amounts offered to landowners increased the probability that they will participate in the costshare
program, whereas a larger overall cost-share budget allowed for offering larger cost-share
payments to all landowners. The greatest reduction in the number of damaged cells were
observed for a budget of up to $80,000 (Table 19). A budget increase from $80,000 to $100,000
resulted in a relatively minimal reduction in damaged cells, whereas budget increases beyond
$100,000 did not produce any additional reduction in damaged landscape cells. This trend took
place because the maximum individual cost-share allocation to a landowner was $38.41 per ac
and a required total budget to offer this maximum payment to every landowner was $83,004.
24
Table 19. Improvements in expected wildfire damage to the landscape at different budget and
allocation levels.
Number of
landowners
Budget Number of allocation levels Average
improvement
(%) 5 10 15
3 20,000 134.98 131.09 131.87 -
40,000 88.86 87.82 86.64 51.10
60,000 56.64 55.31 53.90 58.80
80,000 35.19 31.18 31.38 69.70
100,000 35.19 29.71 38.32 4.90
120,000 35.19 29.71 28.32 0.00
140,000 35.19 29.71 28.32 0.00
4 20,000 127.96 124.74 124.70 -
40,000 86.68 84.29 83.45 48.30
60,000 52.30 52.49 51.96 62.30
80,000 33.80 30.02 29.74 67.50
100,000 33.80 28.54 27.20 4.50
120,000 33.80 28.54 27.20 0.00
140,000 33.80 28.54 27.20 0.00
5 20,000 122.97 122.92 122.32 -
40,000 82.89 82.87 82.41 48.40
60,000 52.01 49.93 49.77 63.60
80,000 32.48 28.39 28.50 69.80
100,000 32.48 27.41 26.12 3.90
120,000 32.48 27.41 26.12 0.00
140,000 32.48 27.41 26.12 0.00
6 20,000 121.89 121.01 120.87 -
40,000 82.69 81.47 81.43 48.10
60,000 50.78 49.70 49.56 63.70
80,000 32.57 28.50 28.39 67.70
100,000 32.57 27.48 26.19 3.70
120,000 32.57 27.48 26.19 0.00
140,000 32.57 27.48 26.19 0.00
25
A change in the number of allocation levels was also associated with different numbers of
damaged landscape cells where a greater number of allocation levels translated into a greater
reduction in damaged cells (Tables 20 and 21). The greatest reductions were observed for
allocation level increases from five to 10 and then 15. This relation was due to the fact that a
larger number of allocation levels allowed for determining more precise cost-share payment
amounts that individual landowners would be willing to accept and thus, in terms of wildfire
damage reduction, utilize a budget in a more effective manner.
Table 20. Improvements in expected wildfire damage to the landscape at different allocation
levels for an experiments with three landowners.
Number of
allocation
levels
Budget Average
Improvement
(%)
$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000
Improvement level (%)
2 - - - - - -
5 2.27 11.02 48.12 138.41 138.41 67.65
10 2.97 1.19 2.42 12.85 18.43 7.57
15 -0.59 1.36 2.61 -0.62 4.92 1.54
20 0.16 0.62 0.57 2.55 2.30 1.24
50 0.73 0.68 0.47 -0.05 3.05 1.15
Table 21. Improvements in expected wildfire damage to the landscape at different allocation
levels for an experiments with four landowners.
Number of
allocation
levels
Budget Average
Improvement
(%)
$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000
Improvement level (%)
2 - - - - - -
5 6.17 10.92 55.41 140.44 140.44 70.67
10 2.59 2.83 -0.37 12.59 18.44 7.22
15 0.03 1.01 1.02 0.94 4.92 1.58
20 0.20 -0.10 0.49 0.75 2.29 0.73
50 0.12 0.61 0.62 0.46 3.94 1.16
26
Conclusions
Most landowners were concerned with a property damage due to a wildfire as well as a
smoke damage. However, majority of them did not implement any fuel reduction treatments to
reduce wildfire risk hazard on their land. Most commonly, in terms of frequency and total area
application, landowners implemented a prescribed burn, chemical vegetation control, and
mechanical vegetation control. Most likely, it was due the costs associated with implementing
these fuel treatments where a prescribed burn was associated with the lowest average cost and a
mechanical vegetation control with the highest. Most commonly, fuel reduction treatments were
implemented for purposes related to vegetation control, tree growth, and wildlife habitat,
whereas a wildfire hazard mitigation had medium frequency. Additionally, most landowners
were not familiar and did not participate in wildfire mitigation programs indicating the need to
intensify and diversify outreach efforts to reach relevant landowners with information on
available technical and financial resources related wildfire mitigation and fuel treatment
implementation.
Only one-third of landowners were planning to implement a fuel reduction treatment in
the next five years, and those who did not plan to do so most frequently reported lability due
escaped fire, cost, lack of equipment, and lack of experience indicating a need for both technical
and financial assistance. While a relatively small proportion of landowners participated or were
aware of existing wildfire programs, there was a substantially larger number of landowners who
were willing to participate in a program where all activities related to a prescribed burn were
implemented on their behalf by qualified personnel for a fee. On average, landowners were
willing to pay a fee that was higher than a reported average cost of implementing a fuel
treatment on landowner land. Thus, while a cost was most commonly reported a factor
prohibiting implementation of a fuel treatment, it is also possible that technical limitations
might be equally or more important particularly when implementing fuel treatments requiring
advanced training such as a prescribed burn.
A modeled wildfire damage varied depending on whether a financial assistance was
allocated based on damage risk or uniformly allocated among landowners. For the same budget,
a risk-based allocation resulted in a smaller wildfire damage because financial resources were
allocated to the most hazardous land parcels by offering owners of these parcels larger costshare
payments. The maximum reduction in wildfire damage due to a risk-based allocation was
27%. In terms of uniform allocation, the expected wildfire damage could also be decreased but
this approach would require larger budgets because all landowners would have to be offered the
same larger cost-share payment which might be challenging due to limited budgets. Therefore,
when budgets are limited and relatively small, a prioritization of cost-share payments and
prescribed burns to high wildfire risk areas would facilitate the largest reduction in wildfire
damage.
27
Literature Cited
Agee, J.K., and Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments.
Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1–2): 83-96.
Amacher, G.S., Malik, A.S., and Haight, R.G. 2005. Forest landowner decisions and the value
of information under fire risk. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35(11): 2603-2615.
Andrews, P.L., Bevins, C.D., and Seli, R.C. 2005. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version
4.0: User's Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106WWW Revised. Ogden, UT: Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 132p.
Basar, T.O. G. J. 1999. Dynamic noncooperative game theory. SIAM.
Busby, G., and Albers, H. 2010. Wildfire risk management on a landscape with public and
private ownership: Who pays for protection? Environmental Management, 45(2): 296-310.
Butler, B.J. (2008). Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS27.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research
Station. 72 p.
Butler, B.J., Butler and S.M. 2016. Family Forest Ownerships with 10+ Acres in Mississippi,
2011-2013. Res. Note NRS-224.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern
Research Station. Newtown Square, PA. 2 p.
Butler, B.J., Hewes, J.H., Dickinson, B.J., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S.M., and MarkowskiLindsay,
M. 2016. USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: National,
Regional, and State Statistics for Family Forest and Woodland Ownerships with 10+ Acres,
2011-2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern
Research Station. Newtown Square, PA. 39 p.
Cochrane, M.A., Moran, C.J., Wimberly, M.C., Baer, A.D., Finney, M.A., Beckendorf, K.L.,
Eidenshink, J., and Zhu, Z. 2012. Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels
treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(4): 357-367.
Cooke, W. H., Grala, K., Evans, D., and Collins, C. 2007. Assessment of pre- and postKatrina
fuel conditions as a component of fire potential modeling for southern Mississippi.
Journal of Forestry, 105(Cool: 389-397.
Dillman, D.A, Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode
Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley.
Donovan, G. H., and Brown, T. C. 2008. Estimating the avoided fuel-treatment costs of
wildfire. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 23(4): 197-201.
Grala, K., and Cooke, W. H. 2010. Spatial and temporal characteristics of wildfires in
28
Mississippi, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 19(1), 14-28.
Grala, R. K., Colletti, J. P., and Mize, C. W. 2009. Willingness of Iowa agricultural
landowners to allow fee hunting associated with in-field shelterbelts. Agroforestry Systems,
76(1): 207-218.
Grala, R. K., Tyndall, J. C., and Mize, C. W. 2010. Impact of field windbreaks on visual
appearance of agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems, 80(3): 411-422.
Grala, R. K., Tyndall, J. C., and Mize, C. W. 2012. Willingness to pay for aesthetics
associated with field windbreaks in Iowa, United States. Landscape and Urban Planning,
108(2–4): 71-78.
Greene, W. H. 2008. Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Gurobi Optimization. 2015. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, Version 7.5. URL:
http://www.gurobi.com.
Haines, T. K., Busby, R. L., and Cleaves, D. A. 2001. Prescribed burning in the South:
Trends, purpose, and barriers. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 25(4): 149-153.
Henderson, J. E., Munn, I.A, Perez-Verden, G., and Grebner, D.L. 2006. Forestry and forest
products: Mississippi’s 17.4 billion dollar industry. Publication FO469. Forest and Wildlife
Research Center, Mississippi State University.
Jarrett, A., Gan, J., Johnson, C., and Munn, I. A. 2009. Landowner awareness and adoption of
wildfire programs in the Southern United States. Journal of Forestry, 107(3): 113-118.
McCaffrey, S. 2009. Crucial factors influencing public acceptance of fuels treatments. Fire
Management Today, 69(1): 9-12.
MFA. 2012. Mississippi forest facts. Mississippi Forestry Association. Retrieved October 15,
2012 from http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Info/FF/Other/MFA_forestry_facts_flyer_2008.pdf
Mitchell, R. C., and Carson, R. T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent
valuation method. Washington, D.C. Resources for the Future.
Mutandwa, E., Grala, R.K., and Grado, S.C. 2016a. Family forest owners' familiarity with
conservation programs in Mississippi, USA. Small-scale Forestry.
Mutandwa, E., Grala, R.K., and Grebner, D.L. 2016b. Family forest land availability for the
production of ecosystem services in Mississippi, United States. Forest Policy and Economics
73:18-24.
29
Rardin, R. L. 1998. Optimization in operations research. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice
Hall.
Rashidi, E., Medal, H., Gordon, J., Grala, R., and Varner, J. 2017. A maximal covering
location-based model for analyzing the vulnerability of landscapes to wildfires: Assessing the
worst-case scenario. European Journal of Operational Research 258(3):1095-1105.
Rummer, B. 2008. Assessing the cost of fuel reduction treatments: A critical review. Forest
Policy and Economics, 10(6): 355-362.
Stephens, S. L. 2005. Forest fire causes and extent on United States Forest Service lands.
International Journal of Wildland Fire, 14(3): 213-222.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Income for the past 12 months: 2011-2015 American Community
survey 5-year estimates. U.S. Census, American FactFinder. Available at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
Wolcott, L., O'Brien, J. J., and Mordecai, K. 2007. A survey of land managers on wildland
hazardous fuels issues in Florida: A technical note. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry,
31(3): 148-150.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2000. Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Cincinnati, Ohio:
South-Western College.
A1
Appendix A: Contact Information for Key Project
Personnel
Personnel Role Contact Information
Dr. Robert K. Grala PI Department of Forestry
Mississippi State University
Box 9681
Mississippi State, MS 39762-9681
Phone: (662) 325-7039
Email: r.grala@msstate.edu
Dr. J. Morgan Varner CO-PI U.S. Forest Service
Research and Development
400 N 34th Street, Suite 201
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 732-7889
Email: julianvarner@fs.fed.us
Dr. Ian A. Munn CO-PI Department of Forestry
Mississippi State University
Box 9681
Mississippi State, MS 39762-9681
Phone: (662) 325-4546
Email: iam1@msstate.edu
Dr. Stephen C. Grado CO-PI Department of Forestry
Mississippi State University
Box 9681
Mississippi State, MS 39762-9681
Phone: (662) 325-2792
Email: s.c.grado@msstate.edu
Dr. William H. Cooke CO-PI Department of Geosciences
Mississippi State University
Box 5448
Mississippi State, MS 39762-5448
Phone: (662) 3915
Email: whc5@geosci.msstate.edu
Dr. Hugh Medal CO-PI Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
College of Engineering
Mississippi State University
Box 9542
Mississippi State, MS 39762-9542
Phone: (662) 325-3923
Email: hmedal@ise.msstate.edu
B1
Appendix B: List of Completed/Planned
Scientific/Technical Publications/Science Delivery
Products
1. Articles in peer-reviewed journals
Bhuiyan, T.H., Medal, H.R., Moseley, M., Rashidi, E., and Grala, R.K. In Preparation.
A cost-share allocation model for fuels treatment under uncertain landowner behavior.
To be submitted to European Journal of Operational Research in 2017.
Grala, K., Grala, R.K., Hussain, A, Cooke III, W.H., and Varner III, J.M. 2017. Impact
of human factors on wildfire occurrence in Mississippi, United States. Forest Policy and
Economics 81: 38-47.
Rashidi, E., Medal, H., Gordon, J., Grala, R., and Varner, M. 2017. A maximal
covering location-based model for analyzing the vulnerability of landscapes to
wildfires: Assessing the worst-case scenario. European Journal of Operational Research
258(3): 1095-1105.
2. Graduate dissertation
Shrestha, A. In preparation. Fuel Reduction Treatments by Nonindustrial Private Forest
Landowners in Mississippi. Ph.D. Dissertation. Mississippi State University.
3. Conference presentations and posters
Shrestha, A., Grala, R.K., Grado, S.C., Roberts, S.D., and Gordon, J.S. 2017. Fuel
reduction treatments by nonindustrial private forest landowners in Mississippi.
Graduate Student Research Symposium, March 25, 2017, Mississippi State University.
Poster.
Shrestha, A., Grala, R.K., Grado, S.C., Roberts, S.D., and Gordon, J.S. 2016.
Implementation of fuel reduction treatments on nonindustrial private forest lands in
Mississippi. International Society of Forest Resource Economics 2016 Conference.
April 3-5, 2016. Raleigh, North Carolina. Refereed. Poster.
Grala, R.K., Medal, H.R., Gordon, J.S., Varner, J.M., Grado, S.C. and Grala K. 2016.
Willingness of forest landowners to implement fuel treatments. International Society of
Forest Resource Economics 2016 Conference. April 3-5, 2016. Raleigh, North
Carolina. Paper presentation. Presented by J.S. Gordon.
Grala, R.K., Grala, K. Varner, J.M. Munn, I.A., Grado, S.C., Cooke, W.H., and Medal
B2
H.R. 2015. Reduction of wildfire hazard in Mississippi through implementation of fuel
treatments. Society of American Foresters 2015 National Convention. November 3-7,
2015. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Paper presentation.
4. Website development
Benefits and costs of implementing fuel treatments on nonindustrial private forest
(NIPF) lands. http://webdev.cfr.msstate.edu/wildfire/

https://www.firescience.gov/projects/13-1-03-7/project/13-1-03-7_final_report.pdf

LE NUAGE PLANE SUR LE TEMPS ET LA CONDITION CONSTRUIT LE TERRAIN. LA MATIÈRE DEVIENT UNE MASSE ET LA POUSSIÈRE SE DÉVELOPPE EN GALAXIE: LA NUIT DES ÉTOILES FILANTES ET LA LUNE ROUSSE.
Y'BECCA ET TAY

CELA PEUT NOUS ÊTRE UTILE SUR LES MOUVEMENTS DES SYNTHÈSES
DU FEU DANS LE VENT ET LA MASSE OU LE VIDE.
Y'BECCA.
TAY
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.atelier-yannistignard.com
Contenu sponsorisé




MessageSujet: Re: Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.   

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
 
Sentinel-3B good to go, Stellar winds et Y'BECCA.
Revenir en haut 
Page 1 sur 1
 Sujets similaires
-
» Cereal Lover (Let the Good Times Roll)
» MAC GOOD LUCK TROLLS COLLECTION -Ete 2016
» qui a testé la bronzing powder H&M ?
» Goodreads.com
» Flighty

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
La.cinquieme.République :: La.cinquieme.République-
Sauter vers: