SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Engineering / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 4

Traceable Burned-Area Evidence for Territorial Governance: Scenario-Based multi-pyDEMATEL and ABBI Mapping in the Vesuvian Interface

Salvatore Polverino(Department Training and Internationalization, Ordine degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori della Provincia di Napoli, Via Benedetto Brin n. 55/A13, 80142 Napoli, Italy)0000-0002-5500-8443
Elif Gizem Yetkin(ALANYA HAMDULLAH EMİN PAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8775-8313
Hourakhsh Ahmad Nia(ALANYA HAMDULLAH EMİN PAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1083-280X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate a marked concentration of Vesuvian burned-area burden across a limited number of event and municipal supports, while the DEMATEL/PCA outputs help distinguish stable and divergent descriptor configurations within the administrative evidence system.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:MODIS/EFFIS burned-area archives provide reproducible information on wildfire occurrence, perimeter geometry, administrative attribution, mapped area, date fields, and land-cover composition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, their translation into proportionate municipal documentation, monitoring, coordination, and territorial-management evidence remains only partially formalized, especially in volcanic–urban interfaces where relatively compact burned-area records may still generate non-negligible administrative pressure.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate a marked concentration of Vesuvian burned-area burden across a limited number of event and municipal supports, while the DEMATEL/PCA outputs help distinguish stable and divergent descriptor configurations within the administrative evidence system.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:MODIS/EFFIS · Administrative Burned-Area · multi-pyDEMATEL

Abstract

MODIS/EFFIS burned-area archives provide reproducible information on wildfire occurrence, perimeter geometry, administrative attribution, mapped area, date fields, and land-cover composition. However, their translation into proportionate municipal documentation, monitoring, coordination, and territorial-management evidence remains only partially formalized, especially in volcanic–urban interfaces where relatively compact burned-area records may still generate non-negligible administrative pressure. This study develops a scenario-based multi-pyDEMATEL workflow for assessing Administrative Burned-Area Burden in the Vesuvian interface, southern Italy. Rather than modelling burn severity, hydrogeomorphic susceptibility, legal responsibility, or field-validated damage, the analysis reframes MODIS/EFFIS records as traceable administrative evidence for multi-criteria decision-chain screening. Four bounded objectives are addressed: (i) to construct a GIS-ready burned-area support for the Vesuvian interface while retaining Napoli and Campania layers as contextual references; (ii) to derive ten non-hydrogeomorphic Administrative Burned-Area descriptors describing burned-area share, recurrence, large-event dominance, administrative concentration, protected-area exposure, agricultural exposure, urban/interface exposure, forest–shrubland signature, event-duration burden, and reporting/update lag; (iii) to structure these descriptors through a scenario-based multi-pyDEMATEL ensemble comprising 121 scenario-specific DEMATEL computations, and to audit the resulting fingerprints through PCA; and (iv) to translate the resulting Administrative Burned-Area Burden Index into municipal ABBI classes suitable for QGIS visualization, documentation prioritization, and verification-oriented monitoring. The results indicate a marked concentration of Vesuvian burned-area burden across a limited number of event and municipal supports, while the DEMATEL/PCA outputs help distinguish stable and divergent descriptor configurations within the administrative evidence system. The resulting ABBI layer is therefore interpreted as a governance-sensitive, GIS-ready decision-support product, not as a hazard map, burn-severity product, legal-liability surface, municipal-responsibility boundary, or DEM-derived susceptibility model. The framework provides a reproducible audit chain for converting open burned-area archives into cautious and interpretable territorial-management evidence.

🔖

Cite This Article

Polverino, S., Yetkin, E. G., Nia, H. A. (2026). Traceable Burned-Area Evidence for Territorial Governance: Scenario-Based multi-pyDEMATEL and ABBI Mapping in the Vesuvian Interface. Turkish Journal of Engineering, Volume: 10 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1968172

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. Asiyanbi, A. P. (2026). Who does what? Shared responsibility for wildfire management and the imperative of public engagement: Evidence from Whistler, Western Canada. Fire, 9(3), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire9030114
  2. Prados, A. I., & Allen, M. (2025). Key governance practices that facilitate the use of remote sensing information for wildfire management: A case study in Spain. Remote Sensing, 17(4), 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17040649
  3. Papadopoulou, C.-I., Kalogiannidis, S., Kalfas, D., Konteos, G., & Kapageridis, I. (2025). Civil protection in Greece's cities and regions: Multi-hazard performance, systemic gaps, and a roadmap to integrated urban resilience. Urban Science, 9(9), 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9090362
  4. Palaiologou, P., Kalabokidis, K., Troumbis, A., Day, M. A., Nielsen-Pincus, M., & Ager, A. A. (2021). Socio-ecological perceptions of wildfire management and effects in Greece. Fire, 4(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire4020018
  5. Moustakas, A. (2025). Analytics and trends over time of wildfires in protected areas in Greece and other Mediterranean countries. Fire, 8(8), 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8080324
  6. Adaktylou, N., Stratoulias, D., & Landenberger, R. (2020). Wildfire risk assessment based on geospatial open data: Application on Chios, Greece. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(9), 516. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9090516
  7. Oikonomou, A., Avramidou, M., & Psomiadis, E. (2025). Earth observation and geospatial analysis for fire risk assessment in wildland-urban interfaces: The case of the highly dense urban area of Attica, Greece. Remote Sensing, 17(24), 4052. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17244052
  8. Prodromou, M., Gitas, I., Mettas, C., Tzouvaras, M., Themistocleous, K., Konstantinidis, A., Pamboris, A., & Hadjimitsis, D. (2025). Remote-sensing-based prioritization of post-fire restoration actions in Mediterranean ecosystems: A case study in Cyprus. Remote Sensing, 17(7), 1269. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17071269
  9. Gonçalves, A., Pinto, D. M., Oliveira, S., & Zêzere, J. L. (2026). A spatial multi-criteria framework to define priorities in wildfire management programs. Fire, 9(2), 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire9020090
  10. Oliveira, S., Gonçalves, A., Benali, A., Sá, A., Zêzere, J. L., & Pereira, J. M. (2020). Assessing risk and prioritizing safety interventions in human settlements affected by large wildfires. Forests, 11(8), 859. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080859
  11. Bugarić, M., Krstinić, D., Šerić, L., & Stipaničev, D. (2025). Current trends in wildfire detection, monitoring and surveillance. Fire, 8(9), 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8090356
  12. Arabatzis, G., Kolkos, G., Stergiadou, A., Kantartzis, A., & Tampekis, S. (2024). Optimal allocation of water reservoirs for sustainable wildfire prevention planning via AHP-TOPSIS and forest road network analysis. Sustainability, 16(2), 936. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020936
  13. Lourenço, M., Oliveira, L. B., Oliveira, J. P., Mora, A., Oliveira, H., Santos, R., Dias, A., & Martins, H. (2021). An integrated decision support system for improving wildfire suppression management. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(8), 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10080497
  14. Mileu, N., & Queirós, M. (2018). Integrating risk assessment into spatial planning: RiskOTe decision support system. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(5), 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7050184
  15. Nunes, A. N., Pinto, C. D., Figueiredo, A., & Lourenço, L. (2024). Planning wildfire evacuation in the wildland-urban interfaces of Central Portugal. Fire, 7(6), 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7060199
  16. Castro-Basurto, K., Jijon-Veliz, F., Medina, W., & Velasquez, W. (2021). Outside dynamic evacuation routes to escape a wildfire: A prototype app for forest firefighters. Sustainability, 13(13), 7295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137295
  17. Asfaw, H. W., Christianson, A. C., & Watson, D. O. T. (2022). Incentives and barriers to homeowners' uptake of FireSmart® Canada's recommended wildfire mitigation activities in the City of Fort McMurray, Alberta. Fire, 5(3), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5030080
  18. Santiago-Gómez, E., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. (2023). Building forest fires resilience, the incorporation of local knowledge into disaster mitigation strategies. Social Sciences, 12(7), 420. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12070420
  19. Polverino, S., Ahmad Nia, H., Rahbarianyazd, R., & Mobaraki, B. (2025). A proposed post-fire planning approach based on DEMATEL in Vesuvius National Park. Sustainability, 17(22), 10325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210325
  20. Santorufo, L., Gargiulo, M., Memoli, V., Maisto, G., Barile, R., & Ruello, G. (2025). Integration of in situ and Sentinel-2 data to assess soil quality in forest monitoring: The case study of the Vesuvius fires. Fire, 8(3), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8030099
  21. EFFIS Team. (2026). Fire events in the European Forest Fire Information System (version 2–3–1). European Commission, Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2905/JRC.AJKEPV8
  22. EFFIS Team. (2026). Fire database in the European Forest Fire Information System (version 2–3–1). European Commission, Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2905/JRC.KCNZPQ0
  23. Camia, A., Durrant, T., & San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. (2014). The European Fire Database: Technical specifications and data submission. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/2175
  24. San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Schulte, E., Schmuck, G., & Camia, A. (2013). The European Forest Fire Information System in the context of environmental policies of the European Union. Forest Policy and Economics, 29, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.012
  25. Chuvieco, E., Mouillot, F., van der Werf, G. R., San Miguel, J., Tanase, M., Koutsias, N., García, M., Yebra, M., Padilla, M., Gitas, I., Heil, A., Hawbaker, T. J., & Giglio, L. (2019). Historical background and current developments for mapping burned area from satellite Earth observation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 225, 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.02.013
  26. Giglio, L., Boschetti, L., Roy, D. P., Humber, M. L., & Justice, C. O. (2018). The Collection 6 MODIS burned area mapping algorithm and product. Remote Sensing of Environment, 217, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.08.005
  27. O'Mara, T., Sánchez Meador, A., Colavito, M., Waltz, A., & Barton, E. (2024). Navigating the evolving landscape of wildfire management: A systematic review of decision support tools. Trees, Forests and People, 16, 100575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100575
  28. Pebesma, E. (2018). Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. The R Journal, 10(1), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018–009
  29. Warmerdam, F. (2008). The Geospatial Data Abstraction Library. In G. B. Hall & M. G. Leahy (Eds.), Open Source Approaches in Spatial Data Handling (pp. 87–104). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–540–74831–1_5
  30. Steiniger, S., & Hunter, A. J. S. (2013). The 2012 free and open source GIS software map – A guide to facilitate research, development, and adoption. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 39, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.10.003
  31. Fotheringham, A. S., & Wong, D. W. S. (1991). The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A, 23(7), 1025–1044. https://doi.org/10.1068/a231025
  32. Gotway, C. A., & Young, L. J. (2002). Combining incompatible spatial data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97(458), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214502760047140
  33. Si, S.-L., You, X.-Y., Liu, H.-C., & Zhang, P. (2018). DEMATEL technique: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018, 3696457. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3696457
  34. Tzeng, G.-H., Chiang, C.-H., & Li, C.-W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.02.004
  35. Zhou, Q., Huang, W., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Identifying critical success factors in emergency management using a fuzzy DEMATEL method. Safety Science, 49(2), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.08.005
  36. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Centre.
  37. Chekry, A., Bakkas, J., Hanine, M., Caro Montero, E., Garat de Marin, M. S., & Ashraf, I. (2024). PyDEMATEL: A Python-based tool implementing DEMATEL and fuzzy DEMATEL methods for improved decision making. SoftwareX, 28, 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2024.101889
  38. Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374(2065), 20150202. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202
  39. Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101
  40. Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine, 2(11), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440109462720
  41. Laneve, G., Di Fonzo, M., Pampanoni, V., & Bueno Morles, R. (2024). Progress and limitations in the satellite-based estimate of burnt areas. Remote Sensing, 16(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16010042
  42. Long, T., Zhang, Z., He, G., Jiao, W., Tang, C., Wu, B., Zhang, X., Wang, G., & Yin, R. (2019). 30 m resolution global annual burned area mapping based on Landsat images and Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing, 11(5), 489. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11050489
  43. Gholamrezaie, H., Hasanlou, M., Amani, M., & Mirmazloumi, S. M. (2022). Automatic mapping of burned areas using Landsat 8 time-series images in Google Earth Engine: A case study from Iran. Remote Sensing, 14(24), 6376. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14246376
  44. Szpakowski, D. M., & Jensen, J. L. R. (2019). A review of the applications of remote sensing in fire ecology. Remote Sensing, 11(22), 2638. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11222638
  45. Carver, S. J. (1991). Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02693799108927858
  46. Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: A survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7), 703–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810600661508
  47. Malczewski, J., & Rinner, C. (2015). Multicriteria decision analysis in geographic information science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–540–74757–4
  48. Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(11), 1268–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007
  49. Store, R., & Kangas, J. (2001). Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169–2046(01)00120–7
  50. Jakeman, A. J., Letcher, R. A., & Norton, J. P. (2006). Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21(5), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.01.004
  51. Kirschner, J. A., Ascoli, D., Moore, P., Clark, J., Calvani, S., & Boustras, G. (2024). Governance drivers hinder and support a paradigm shift in wildfire risk management in Italy. Regional Environmental Change, 24, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113–023–02174–4
  52. Hamilton, M., Nielsen-Pincus, M., & Evers, C. R. (2023). Wildfire risk governance from the bottom up: Linking local planning processes in fragmented landscapes. Ecology and Society, 28(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13856–280303
  53. Davis, E. J., Huber-Stearns, H., Cheng, A. S., & Jacobson, M. (2021). Transcending parallel play: Boundary spanning for collective action in wildfire management. Fire, 4(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire4030041
  54. Miller, B. A., Yung, L., Wyborn, C., Essen, M., Gray, B., & Williams, D. R. (2022). Re-envisioning wildland fire governance: Addressing the transboundary, uncertain, and contested aspects of wildfire. Fire, 5(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5020049
  55. Cheng, A. S., & Dale, L. (2020). Achieving adaptive governance of forest wildfire risk using competitive grants: Insights from the Colorado Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program. Review of Policy Research, 37(5), 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12379
  56. Sandoval-Díaz, J., Navarrete-Valladares, C., Vega-Ortega, J., Suazo-Muñoz, C., Gallegos Riquelme, J. P., Sandoval-Obando, E., & Reyes Valenzuela, C. (2025). Community resilience to wildfires: A systematic review of impacts, coping strategies, indicators, and governance challenges. Progress in Disaster Science, 27, 100447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2025.100447
  57. Clement, S., Garmestani, A., Beckwith, J. A., & Cannon, P. J. (2024). To burn or not to burn: Governance of wildfires in Australia. Ecology and Society, 29(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14801–290108
  58. Salpina, D., Casartelli, V., Marengo, A., & Mysiak, J. (2026). Understanding cross-sectoral wildfire risk governance: Lessons from mixed-method analysis of wildfire risk governance in Italy, Greece, and Land Brandenburg. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 142, 106201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2026.106201
  59. Bovio, G. (2013). La pianificazione antincendi boschivi alla luce della Legge 353/2000. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 56(6), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.36253/ifm-672
  60. La Mela Veca, D. S., Piroli, E., Bacciu, V., Barbera, G., Brunori, A., Calvani, G., Delogu, G. M., Elia, M., La Mantia, T., Laschi, A., Lovreglio, R., Masiero, M., Salis, M., Tonarelli, L., Motta, R., & Ascoli, D. (2024). Managing wildfires in Italy: Overcoming the emergency, planning the prevention. Forest@ – Rivista di Selvicoltura ed Ecologia Forestale, 21(3), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.3832/efor4606-021
  61. Allegretti, U. (2018). Il Codice della Protezione Civile (d.lg. 2 gennaio 2018, n. 1). Aedon, 1. https://doi.org/10.7390/90742
  62. Bacciu, V., Salis, M., Arca, B., Pellizzaro, G., Ascoli, D., Delogu, G. M., Eftychidis, G., Chuvieco, E., Gitas, I., & Viegas, D. X. (2025). Shifting to a holistic approach in national wildfire management policies: The Italian case. iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry, 18(4), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor4786-018
  63. Mohammed Hassan, G., Valizadeh Kamran, K., Ghanbari, A., & Ajaj, Q. (2025). GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for solar energy cells site selection over Kirkuk City. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 10(1), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1800036
  64. Mohsen Elahei, W., Feizizadeh, B., Bayati Khatibi, M., & Khorrami, B. (2026). A multiple integrated spatial decision-making approach for soil degradation mapping under the impact of climate and intensive lake drought. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 10(3), 1103–1115. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1933687
  65. Rahman, M. M., Nuhash, M. M. R., Ray, S., & Reza, M. (2026). Evaluation of machine learning algorithms in land use/land cover change detection using remote sensing and GIS for Moulvibazar, Bangladesh. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 10(3), 964–976. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1823517
  66. Bhavsar, C., Gadhavi, M., & Shaikh, M. (2025). Impact assessment of land use change detection on the environment of Ahmedabad District, Gujarat, India using supervised classification in GIS. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 9(4), 823–830. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1605134
  67. Horoz, M., & Algancı, U. (2025). Determining the relationship between zoning plans and urban development using remote sensing methods: A case study of Ankara. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 9(3), 591–598. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1694446