Predicting and Assessing Wildfire Evacuation Decision-Making Using Machine Learning: Findings from the 2019 Kincade Fire

To develop effective wildfire evacuation plans, it is crucial to study evacuation decision-making and identify the factors affecting individuals’ choices. Statistic models (e.g., logistic regression) are widely used in the literature to predict household evacuation decisions, while the potential of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Fire technology 2023-03, Vol.59 (2), p.793-825
Hauptverfasser: Xu, Ningzhe, Lovreglio, Ruggiero, Kuligowski, Erica D., Cova, Thomas J., Nilsson, Daniel, Zhao, Xilei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 825
container_issue 2
container_start_page 793
container_title Fire technology
container_volume 59
creator Xu, Ningzhe
Lovreglio, Ruggiero
Kuligowski, Erica D.
Cova, Thomas J.
Nilsson, Daniel
Zhao, Xilei
description To develop effective wildfire evacuation plans, it is crucial to study evacuation decision-making and identify the factors affecting individuals’ choices. Statistic models (e.g., logistic regression) are widely used in the literature to predict household evacuation decisions, while the potential of machine learning models has not been fully explored. This study compared seven machine learning models with logistic regression to identify which approach is better for predicting a householder’s decision to evacuate. The machine learning models tested include the naïve Bayes classifier, K-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, neural network, classification and regression tree (CART), random forest, and extreme gradient boosting. These models were calibrated using the survey data collected from the 2019 Kincade Fire. The predictive performance of the machine learning models and the logistic regression was compared using F1 score, accuracy, precision, and recall. The results indicate that all the machine learning models performed better than the logistic regression. The CART model has the highest F1 score among all models, with a statistically significant difference from the logistic regression model. This CART model shows that the most important factor affecting the decision to evacuate is pre-fire safety perception. Other important factors include receiving an evacuation order, household risk perception (during the event), and education level.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10694-023-01363-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2781027586</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2781027586</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-d550c591db11ff84f470e784a579f303afbe69b9bd3a27a72578cc6c311962843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1OAyEUhYnRxFp9AVckrtELzAyDu6ZaNdboQuOSMAy01JapMDX69lJr4s7V_fvOuclB6JTCOQUQF4lCJQsCjBOgvOKE7qEBLQUjNUi5jwYAtCSsqotDdJTSAgCkqGCAPp-ibb3pfZhhHVo8SsmmtJ1e_bJ1Plp8_aHNRve-C_jKGp9yQx7025Z5-SEftJn7YPHU6hjy4hJPfGhzk7CL3Qr3c4sZUInvfTC6tfkc7TE6cHqZ7MlvHaKXyfXz-JZMH2_uxqMpMZzKnrRlCaaUtG0oda4uXCHAirrQpZCOA9eusZVsZNNyzYQWrBS1MVUWU1mxuuBDdLbzXcfufWNTrxbdJob8UjFRU2CirKtMsR1lYpdStE6to1_p-KUoqG3Capewygmrn4QVzSK-E6UMh5mNf9b_qL4BUDp9sA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2781027586</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Predicting and Assessing Wildfire Evacuation Decision-Making Using Machine Learning: Findings from the 2019 Kincade Fire</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Xu, Ningzhe ; Lovreglio, Ruggiero ; Kuligowski, Erica D. ; Cova, Thomas J. ; Nilsson, Daniel ; Zhao, Xilei</creator><creatorcontrib>Xu, Ningzhe ; Lovreglio, Ruggiero ; Kuligowski, Erica D. ; Cova, Thomas J. ; Nilsson, Daniel ; Zhao, Xilei</creatorcontrib><description>To develop effective wildfire evacuation plans, it is crucial to study evacuation decision-making and identify the factors affecting individuals’ choices. Statistic models (e.g., logistic regression) are widely used in the literature to predict household evacuation decisions, while the potential of machine learning models has not been fully explored. This study compared seven machine learning models with logistic regression to identify which approach is better for predicting a householder’s decision to evacuate. The machine learning models tested include the naïve Bayes classifier, K-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, neural network, classification and regression tree (CART), random forest, and extreme gradient boosting. These models were calibrated using the survey data collected from the 2019 Kincade Fire. The predictive performance of the machine learning models and the logistic regression was compared using F1 score, accuracy, precision, and recall. The results indicate that all the machine learning models performed better than the logistic regression. The CART model has the highest F1 score among all models, with a statistically significant difference from the logistic regression model. This CART model shows that the most important factor affecting the decision to evacuate is pre-fire safety perception. Other important factors include receiving an evacuation order, household risk perception (during the event), and education level.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-2684</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8099</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10694-023-01363-1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Characterization and Evaluation of Materials ; Civil Engineering ; Classical Mechanics ; Decision making ; Decision trees ; Engineering ; Evacuation ; Fire protection ; Fire safety ; Learning algorithms ; Machine learning ; Neural networks ; Perception ; Performance prediction ; Physics ; Regression analysis ; Regression models ; Risk perception ; Statistical analysis ; Support vector machines ; Wildfires</subject><ispartof>Fire technology, 2023-03, Vol.59 (2), p.793-825</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-d550c591db11ff84f470e784a579f303afbe69b9bd3a27a72578cc6c311962843</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-d550c591db11ff84f470e784a579f303afbe69b9bd3a27a72578cc6c311962843</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6134-522X ; 0000-0002-7903-4806 ; 0000-0001-6121-4983 ; 0000-0003-4596-7656</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10694-023-01363-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10694-023-01363-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xu, Ningzhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lovreglio, Ruggiero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuligowski, Erica D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cova, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nilsson, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Xilei</creatorcontrib><title>Predicting and Assessing Wildfire Evacuation Decision-Making Using Machine Learning: Findings from the 2019 Kincade Fire</title><title>Fire technology</title><addtitle>Fire Technol</addtitle><description>To develop effective wildfire evacuation plans, it is crucial to study evacuation decision-making and identify the factors affecting individuals’ choices. Statistic models (e.g., logistic regression) are widely used in the literature to predict household evacuation decisions, while the potential of machine learning models has not been fully explored. This study compared seven machine learning models with logistic regression to identify which approach is better for predicting a householder’s decision to evacuate. The machine learning models tested include the naïve Bayes classifier, K-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, neural network, classification and regression tree (CART), random forest, and extreme gradient boosting. These models were calibrated using the survey data collected from the 2019 Kincade Fire. The predictive performance of the machine learning models and the logistic regression was compared using F1 score, accuracy, precision, and recall. The results indicate that all the machine learning models performed better than the logistic regression. The CART model has the highest F1 score among all models, with a statistically significant difference from the logistic regression model. This CART model shows that the most important factor affecting the decision to evacuate is pre-fire safety perception. Other important factors include receiving an evacuation order, household risk perception (during the event), and education level.</description><subject>Characterization and Evaluation of Materials</subject><subject>Civil Engineering</subject><subject>Classical Mechanics</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision trees</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Evacuation</subject><subject>Fire protection</subject><subject>Fire safety</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Neural networks</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Performance prediction</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Risk perception</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Support vector machines</subject><subject>Wildfires</subject><issn>0015-2684</issn><issn>1572-8099</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1OAyEUhYnRxFp9AVckrtELzAyDu6ZaNdboQuOSMAy01JapMDX69lJr4s7V_fvOuclB6JTCOQUQF4lCJQsCjBOgvOKE7qEBLQUjNUi5jwYAtCSsqotDdJTSAgCkqGCAPp-ibb3pfZhhHVo8SsmmtJ1e_bJ1Plp8_aHNRve-C_jKGp9yQx7025Z5-SEftJn7YPHU6hjy4hJPfGhzk7CL3Qr3c4sZUInvfTC6tfkc7TE6cHqZ7MlvHaKXyfXz-JZMH2_uxqMpMZzKnrRlCaaUtG0oda4uXCHAirrQpZCOA9eusZVsZNNyzYQWrBS1MVUWU1mxuuBDdLbzXcfufWNTrxbdJob8UjFRU2CirKtMsR1lYpdStE6to1_p-KUoqG3Capewygmrn4QVzSK-E6UMh5mNf9b_qL4BUDp9sA</recordid><startdate>20230301</startdate><enddate>20230301</enddate><creator>Xu, Ningzhe</creator><creator>Lovreglio, Ruggiero</creator><creator>Kuligowski, Erica D.</creator><creator>Cova, Thomas J.</creator><creator>Nilsson, Daniel</creator><creator>Zhao, Xilei</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>U9A</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6134-522X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7903-4806</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-4983</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4596-7656</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230301</creationdate><title>Predicting and Assessing Wildfire Evacuation Decision-Making Using Machine Learning: Findings from the 2019 Kincade Fire</title><author>Xu, Ningzhe ; Lovreglio, Ruggiero ; Kuligowski, Erica D. ; Cova, Thomas J. ; Nilsson, Daniel ; Zhao, Xilei</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-d550c591db11ff84f470e784a579f303afbe69b9bd3a27a72578cc6c311962843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Characterization and Evaluation of Materials</topic><topic>Civil Engineering</topic><topic>Classical Mechanics</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision trees</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Evacuation</topic><topic>Fire protection</topic><topic>Fire safety</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Neural networks</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Performance prediction</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Risk perception</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Support vector machines</topic><topic>Wildfires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xu, Ningzhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lovreglio, Ruggiero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuligowski, Erica D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cova, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nilsson, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Xilei</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade &amp; Industry (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade &amp; Industry</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Fire technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xu, Ningzhe</au><au>Lovreglio, Ruggiero</au><au>Kuligowski, Erica D.</au><au>Cova, Thomas J.</au><au>Nilsson, Daniel</au><au>Zhao, Xilei</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Predicting and Assessing Wildfire Evacuation Decision-Making Using Machine Learning: Findings from the 2019 Kincade Fire</atitle><jtitle>Fire technology</jtitle><stitle>Fire Technol</stitle><date>2023-03-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>793</spage><epage>825</epage><pages>793-825</pages><issn>0015-2684</issn><eissn>1572-8099</eissn><abstract>To develop effective wildfire evacuation plans, it is crucial to study evacuation decision-making and identify the factors affecting individuals’ choices. Statistic models (e.g., logistic regression) are widely used in the literature to predict household evacuation decisions, while the potential of machine learning models has not been fully explored. This study compared seven machine learning models with logistic regression to identify which approach is better for predicting a householder’s decision to evacuate. The machine learning models tested include the naïve Bayes classifier, K-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, neural network, classification and regression tree (CART), random forest, and extreme gradient boosting. These models were calibrated using the survey data collected from the 2019 Kincade Fire. The predictive performance of the machine learning models and the logistic regression was compared using F1 score, accuracy, precision, and recall. The results indicate that all the machine learning models performed better than the logistic regression. The CART model has the highest F1 score among all models, with a statistically significant difference from the logistic regression model. This CART model shows that the most important factor affecting the decision to evacuate is pre-fire safety perception. Other important factors include receiving an evacuation order, household risk perception (during the event), and education level.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s10694-023-01363-1</doi><tpages>33</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6134-522X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7903-4806</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-4983</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4596-7656</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0015-2684
ispartof Fire technology, 2023-03, Vol.59 (2), p.793-825
issn 0015-2684
1572-8099
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2781027586
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Characterization and Evaluation of Materials
Civil Engineering
Classical Mechanics
Decision making
Decision trees
Engineering
Evacuation
Fire protection
Fire safety
Learning algorithms
Machine learning
Neural networks
Perception
Performance prediction
Physics
Regression analysis
Regression models
Risk perception
Statistical analysis
Support vector machines
Wildfires
title Predicting and Assessing Wildfire Evacuation Decision-Making Using Machine Learning: Findings from the 2019 Kincade Fire
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T18%3A39%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Predicting%20and%20Assessing%20Wildfire%20Evacuation%20Decision-Making%20Using%20Machine%20Learning:%20Findings%20from%20the%202019%20Kincade%20Fire&rft.jtitle=Fire%20technology&rft.au=Xu,%20Ningzhe&rft.date=2023-03-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=793&rft.epage=825&rft.pages=793-825&rft.issn=0015-2684&rft.eissn=1572-8099&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10694-023-01363-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2781027586%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2781027586&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true