Spatial assessment of wildfire risk using remote sensing and environmental variables in Thung Salaeng Luang national park, Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to analyze factors influencing wildfire occurrence and generate a wildfire risk map for Thung Salaeng Luang National Park. Hotspot data were acquired using the satellite sensor of Suomi NPP and the VIIRS system over the study period ranging from 2021 to 2025, having a total of 420 hotspot records. Maximum Entropy Modeling was conducted on the relationship between the presence of wildfire hotspot occurrences and five environmental geographic variables extracted from the remote sensing data such as Elevation Above Sea Level, Slope, Aspect, NDVI, and LST. It is observed that the statistical model performed well in terms of prediction of wildfire risk with an AUC value of 0.812. The most influential factors for wildfire occurrence and spatial distribution were NDVI, LST, Slope, Elevation Above Sea Level, and Aspect. Based on the analysis of the wildfire risk assessment model, the wildfire risk zones of Thung Salaeng Luang National Park were divided into five different levels: very high/extreme risk, high risk, moderate risk, low risk, and lowest risk, which belong to the very low-risk level and cover 724.77 km² (58.22%) of the total area. Following this, there are low-risk areas, which cover an area of 227.16 km² (18.25%), moderate-risk areas, which cover 177.12 km² (14.23%), high-risk areas, which cover 97.47 km² (7.83%), and very high-risk areas, which cover 18.45 km² (1.48%). The very high-risk zones are predominantly distributed in Wang Thong District and Noen Maprang District. These findings provide essential spatial information for wildfire risk management planning by ranking the relative importance of environmental and geographic factors, thereby enabling more efficient mitigation of wildfire occurrence and reducing potential damage and associated impacts within this study area.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
1. Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Burned forest areas within protected areas [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2026 Mar 6]. Available from: https://catalog.dnp.go.th/dataset/fire1. (in Thai).
2. Akka-akra S. Forest fire control in Thailand. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department; 2000.
3. World Health Organization. Wildfires [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/wildfires.
4. National Park Office. Management plan for Thung Salaeng Luang National Park (2023–2027). Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation; 2022.
5. Makaew P, Mangkita W, Chaimanee W, Khonkaen P. Development of a wildfire risk mapping model based on forest type and land use characteristics in Thung Salaeng Luang National Park, Phitsanulok Province [in Thai]. In: Jaradrattanapaiboon A, editor. Proceedings of the 6th national and the 4th international MJU-Phrae Conference; 2026 Jul 24; Phrae Nakara Hotel, Phrae, Thailand. Phrae: Maejo University-Phrae Campus; 2026. p. 298-312.
6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) [Internet]. Washington (DC): NASA; c2026 [cited 2027 Jul 12]. Available from: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/.
7. Paudel GP, Lamsal K, Bhattarai P, Bhattarai A, Tripathi S. Geospatial forest fire risk assessment and zoning by integrating MaxEnt in Gorkha District, Nepal. Heliyon. 2024;10(11):e31305.
8. Thamrongrat T, Kamyo T, Haopinjai I, Chueasa-ard T. Wildfire risk assessment using satellite imagery in Doi Phu Kha National Park, Nan Province. Thai J For. 2024;43(1):98-110.
9. U.S. Geological Survey. SRTM 1 Arc-Second Global [Entity ID: SRTM1N16E100V3] [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2026 Mar 6]. Available from: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.
10. Dontree S. Forest Fire and Haze Management: Lessons Learned from the Multi-stakeholder Collaborative Management in Chiang Mai Province. J Soc Sci Chiang Mai Univ [Internet]. 2019;27(2):121-55. Available from: https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jss/article/view/171653
11. Muangphet P. Application of geographic information systems and remote sensing for wildfire risk assessment in Mae Chaifa National Forest Reserve, Lampang Province [dissertation]. Nonthaburi: Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University; 2017.
12. Kamyo T, Kamyo P, Panthong K, Howpinjai I, Kamton R, Asanok L. Assessing Fire Risk Zones in Phrae Province, Northern Thailand, Using a MaxEnt Model. Geographies. 2025;5(3):51.
13. Chuvieco E, Cocero D, Riaño D, Martin P, Martínez-Vega J, de la Riva J, Pérez F. Combining NDVI and surface temperature for the estimation of live fuel moisture content in forest fire danger rating. Remote Sens Environ. 2004 Aug 30;92(3):322-31.
14. Pettinari CA, Chuvieco E. Fire danger assessment from remote sensing. Curr For Rep. 2016;2(3):159-70.
15. Jaiswal RK, Mukherjee S, Raju KD, Saxena R. Forest fire risk zone mapping from satellite imagery and GIS. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation. 2002;4(1):1-10.
16. Maimaun P, Charoenpanyanet A. Development of a wildfire occurrence prediction model based on climate variability using geoinformatics in Omkoi District, Chiang Mai Province. Burapha Sci J. 2023;28(2):949-75.
17. U.S. Geological Survey. Landsat 8 collection 2 Level 2 science product [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2026 Mar 6]. Available from: https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/LANDSAT_LC08_C02_T1_L2.
18. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model. 2006;190(3-4):231-59.
19. Phillips SJ, Dudík M. Modeling of species distributions with MaxEnt: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography. 2008;31(6):756-69.
20. Trisurat Y, Kanchanasaka B, Kreft H. Assessing potential effects of land use and climate change on mammal distributions in northern Thailand. Wildl Res. 2014;41(6):522-8.
21. Baldwin RA. Use of maximum entropy modeling in wildlife research. Entropy. 2009;11(4):854-66.
22. Swets JA. Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems. Science. 1988;240(4857):1285-93.
23. D'Souza J. Let's learn about AUC ROC curve! Medium. 2018 [cited 2026 Mar 6]. Available from: https://medium.com/greyatom/lets-learn-about-auc-roc-curve-4a94b4d88152.
24. Liu C, Berry PM, Dawson TP, Pearson RG. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography. 2005;28(3):385-93.
25. Phalanisong K, Traisurat Y, Bhumpakphan N, Sukchaloem D, Phochong S. Spatial distribution models for overlapping habitats of gaur and wild elephant in Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary, Chaiyaphum Province. Thai J Sci Technol. 2019;8(2):116-26.
26. Trisurat Y, Toxopeus AG. Modeling species distribution. In: Trisurat Y, Shrestha RP, Alkemade R, editors. Modeling species distribution. IGI Global; 2011. p. 171-97.
27. Rothermel RC. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1972. Report No.: Research Paper INT-115.
28. Albini FA. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1976.
29. Thamrongrat T. Application of geographic information systems for wildfire risk assessment in Doi Phu Kha National Park, Nan Province [dissertation]. Chiang Mai: Maejo University; 2024.
30. Holden ZA, Morgan P, Evans JS. A predictive model of burn severity based on 20-year satellite-inferred burn severity data in a large southwestern US wilderness area. Forest Ecol Manage. 2009;258(11):2399-406.
31. Laksanamaphan R, Wanthongchai K, Mianmit N. Forest fire risk area analysis in Khao Yai National Park using MaxEnt model. In: The 25th National Forestry Conference: Thai Forestry towards Green Economy; 2023; Kasetsart University. p. 21-30.