Fire Hazard Mapping

This series of maps shows how the effects of slope and vegetation fuel on fire hazard differ across space. Using the Station Fire of 2009 as the study area, various data sets were obtained from the USGS and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. These included a digital elevation model (DEM), fuel risk data, vegetation data, and fire perimeter data. The data were then processed for hazard analysis, a technique used by fire prevention, urban planning, and forestry professionals.

The analysis took place in several steps. After creating a hillshade layer from the DEM, slope percent was calculated and reclassified to the NFPA 1144 standard. Greater slope means greater fire hazard. In a similar fashion, the fuel hazard data also was reclassified to the NFPA 1144 standard. Certain vegetation types burn more easily than others. Finally, both the slope and fuel hazard scores were combined into one map, showing a more complete assessment of fire risk.

My greatest challenge was data compatibility, especially with the fuel layer. Instead of reclassifying the fuel data, I had to edit individual values in the attribute table. Analysis proved to be even more difficult. Although I was able to convert both the slope and fuel hazard layers to raster format, something in the fuel layer prevented me from running the raster calculator. The Combined Slope and Fuel Hazard map (adapted from the CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) is similar to what a successful calculation would have produced. Issues with data compatibility may have been related to projection.

Suitability Analysis

Places are not the same. Certain locations possess greater value than others when seeking answers to questions of geography. The benefits and consequences of various factors can be quantified to produce scores of suitability. In the suitability analysis of landfills, several factors, both physical and human, contribute to the suitability of a parcel of land. This type of analysis is used by urban planners, developers, consultants, and politicians to determine the best (and worst) locations for a landfill based on certain criteria. Regarding the Kettleman City landfill, suitability analysis can be used on the area to determine how ideal the current site is for toxic waste disposal and where the best places for expansion (if any) are.

Potential landfill sites would receive scores based on the area’s terrain features and the site’s relationship to human-made features. Terrain features would include soil drainage, proximity to bodies of water, and elevation. Human factors would include proximity to other development (especially residential zones), access to the entire region (waste transportation), and the effect of the site on local health. In order to determine suitability, these features, along with many others, would be given a score range. With many of the factors, it is up to the analyst to decide a location’s score and differences between scores. Some values may have their own classes, while values for another factor may be arbitrarily grouped into larger classes.

One of the more influential factors would be “potential risks to local health”. Areas near residential zones, agriculture, and water supplies are not ideal and should be given very low suitability scores. Arsenic in drinking water is already an issue in Kettleman City and residents do not need anymore sources of harmful chemicals. Ideal locations would be large parcels of unused land in rural places, far removed from the city and its water infrastructure.

After analysis is completed on the area, the results may indicate that the current landfill is not an ideal location at all. While it is too late to move the current waste, it is possible to seal the site and divert all future waste to a new location. This may prove more costly to the waste management company than simply using open land adjacent to the current site, but it may be necessary to prevent further negative impacts to residents. Human life is more valuable than company profits. If expansion continues around the current site, there could be more consequences than birth defects.

Suitability analysis is a useful tool, but gives the analyst much power. Depending on the analyst’s stance or employer, criteria can be modified and places can be given biased scores. This problem is difficult to avoid when quantifying subjective concepts such as “suitability”, as certain factors inevitably carry more weight than others. Nevertheless, suitability analysis is a vital technique in planning and development that has the ability to shape both policy and, by extension, reality. Until sound analysis is carried out on the Kettleman City region, landfill expansion should not take place.

Quiz #1

I am in favor of the ordinance mandating that all marijuana dispensaries be at least 1,000ft away from places where children gather (i.e. schools, parks, libraries). These vendors cannot, or do not, always screen their customers before purchases are made. Marijuana could very well find its way into the hands of children. Even if the stores do not directly sell to children, there are those who may attempt to resell their marijuana for a profit. Those who would sell marijuana to children are should not be frequenting the same places as children. With greater distance between the children and the dispensaries, there is less chance of children being in unsafe situations.

For those dispensaries already within 1,000ft of schools, libraries, or parks, this will mean relocation or closure. While this will hurt the violating dispensaries financially, it is a necessary step towards creating a safer environment for the youth of America.