Impacts of Environmental Factors and Human Activities on Natural Resources

around the world. In: FACT 99-05. Arkansas, USA: Forest, Farm and Community Tree Network; 1999

ROM

**56**

[32] Dvorak WS. World View of *Gmelina arborea*: Opporunities and Challenges. Recent Advances with *Gmelina arborea*. Raleigh, USA: CAMCORE, North Carolina State University; 2003. CD-

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

[33] Dhanda RS, Verma RK. Timber volume and weight tables of farm grown poplar (*Populus deltoides* Bartr. Ex Marsh.) in Punjab (India). Indian Journal of Foresry. 2001;**127**:115-130

**59**

**Chapter 3**

**Abstract**

Debris Flows

Physical Vulnerabilities from

*Daniel G. Neary and Jackson M. Leonard*

improved planning to reduce fire impacts.

**1. Introduction**

**Keywords:** wildfires, floods, debris flows, hydrologic impacts

Fire is a dynamic process, predictable but uncertain, that varies over time and landscape space. It has shaped plant communities for as long as vegetation and lightning have existed on earth [1, 2]. Wildland fire covers a spectrum from lowseverity, localized prescribed fires, to landscape-level high-severity wildfires. Earth is a fire planet whose terrestrial ecosystems have been modified and impacted by fire since the Carboniferous Period, some 300–350 million years before the present time. In the Holocene Epoch of the past 10,000 years, humans have played a major role in fire spread across the planet. In the present Anthropocene Epoch (11,700 years before the present to the current date) of the twenty-first century, climate change, as well as the burgeoning human population, is now poised to increase

the ecosystem hazards of wildland, rangeland, and cropland fire [3, 4]. Fire plays an important function in ecosystem processes [5]. Recycling of carbon (C) and nutrients depends on biological decomposition and fire.

Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and

Humans live in or adjacent to wildland ecosystems that burn periodically and are part of nearly all ecosystems that are in the pyrosphere. There are many hazards posed by wildfire and certain consequences of living in these ecosystems. Most are associated with wildfire, but the increased use of prescribed fire is an issue because of associated risks with human attempts to manage ecological goals. The hazards posed by wildfire involve cultural and economic loss, social disruption, infrastructure damage, human injury and mortality, damage to natural resources, and deterioration in air quality. The economic and human health and safety costs are on the rise due to increasing wildland-urban interface problems and extreme wildfire behavior brought on by climate change. In the past, urban fires have been the greatest threat to human health and safety killing over 100,000 people. World ecosystems have been modified extensively by fire. We live on a "fire planet." With larger human populations and a changing, drying climate, the impact of fire on humans and the hazards faced by our natural and developed world will continue to increase. The increase in wildfire hazards in the twenty-first century will require higher levels of training, increased investments in wildfire personnel and infrastructure, greater wildfire awareness, and

#### **Chapter 3**

## Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows

*Daniel G. Neary and Jackson M. Leonard*

#### **Abstract**

Humans live in or adjacent to wildland ecosystems that burn periodically and are part of nearly all ecosystems that are in the pyrosphere. There are many hazards posed by wildfire and certain consequences of living in these ecosystems. Most are associated with wildfire, but the increased use of prescribed fire is an issue because of associated risks with human attempts to manage ecological goals. The hazards posed by wildfire involve cultural and economic loss, social disruption, infrastructure damage, human injury and mortality, damage to natural resources, and deterioration in air quality. The economic and human health and safety costs are on the rise due to increasing wildland-urban interface problems and extreme wildfire behavior brought on by climate change. In the past, urban fires have been the greatest threat to human health and safety killing over 100,000 people. World ecosystems have been modified extensively by fire. We live on a "fire planet." With larger human populations and a changing, drying climate, the impact of fire on humans and the hazards faced by our natural and developed world will continue to increase. The increase in wildfire hazards in the twenty-first century will require higher levels of training, increased investments in wildfire personnel and infrastructure, greater wildfire awareness, and improved planning to reduce fire impacts.

**Keywords:** wildfires, floods, debris flows, hydrologic impacts

#### **1. Introduction**

Fire is a dynamic process, predictable but uncertain, that varies over time and landscape space. It has shaped plant communities for as long as vegetation and lightning have existed on earth [1, 2]. Wildland fire covers a spectrum from lowseverity, localized prescribed fires, to landscape-level high-severity wildfires. Earth is a fire planet whose terrestrial ecosystems have been modified and impacted by fire since the Carboniferous Period, some 300–350 million years before the present time. In the Holocene Epoch of the past 10,000 years, humans have played a major role in fire spread across the planet. In the present Anthropocene Epoch (11,700 years before the present to the current date) of the twenty-first century, climate change, as well as the burgeoning human population, is now poised to increase the ecosystem hazards of wildland, rangeland, and cropland fire [3, 4].

Fire plays an important function in ecosystem processes [5]. Recycling of carbon (C) and nutrients depends on biological decomposition and fire.

**Figure 1.**

*High-severity wildfire, Mt. Carmel Fire, Haifa, Israel, 2017 (photo courtesy of Naama Tessler, University of Haifa).*

In regions where decay is constrained either by dry or cold climates or by saturated soil conditions, fire has a dominant role in recycling organic matter and maintaining some vegetation types [3]. In warmer, moist climates, decay plays the dominant role in organic matter recycling [6], except in soils that are predominantly water saturated such as hydric soils. Periodic wildfire has an important function in wildland ecosystems. However, the wildfire trend in the past several decades has raised the risk of short- and long-term damage to natural resources, infrastructure, and human health and safety.

The worldwide threat to humans and natural resources from catastrophic wildfire is greater now than at any other time in human history (**Figure 1**). Changes brought on by global warming, land management, and population expansion have resulted in much larger, more destructive wildfire events [7]. This has given rise to greater loss of life and property as well as the occurrence of postfire hazards including flooding, erosion, desertification, and environmental degradation [5, 8]. This chapter will look at the physical hazards and effects of wildfire both during and after conflagrations in wildland ecosystems.

#### **2. Wildfire hazards**

The hazards produced by wildfires affect both the biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems. They occur during active fire as well as afterwards. While the destruction produced by combustion is spectacular, the effects after burning has ceased can be subtle or dramatic and often long lasting [3, 5]. Hazards and deleterious effects produced by wildfires during the active combustion phase include vegetation combustion, loss of human and animal life, air quality deterioration, human health deterioration, destruction of personal property, loss of commercial property, and infrastructure damage and destruction. After a wildfire is extinguished, hazards and risks arise from potential flooding, erosion, debris flows, and infrastructure damage. Water supplies and infrastructure, if not damaged during the active fire period, can be at risk during subsequent postfire flood events. Economic losses accrue from declines in tourism, loss of timber and wood fiber resources, and declines in property values. Ecological impacts not assessed by traditional economic valuations include vegetation type conversion, aquatic species loss, decreased water quality, increased stream temperatures, and reduced soil quality. All of these changes are hazards in that they reduce the values and services of ecosystems or threaten human health and safety.

**61**

hazard indices.

*3.2.1 Hazard*

**3.2 Vegetation impacts**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

The trend of a growing occurrence of fire around the world brings with it many of the consequences both direct and indirect [9]. This analysis indicated that the future for potential wildfire increases significantly in fire-prone regions of North America, South America, central Asia, southern Europe, southern Africa, and Australia [9]. Fire potential is projected to increase in these regions, from currently low to future moderate potential or from moderate to high potential. The increased fire risk is driven by climate warming in North and South America and Australia, and by the combination of temperature increases and desertification in the other regions. The analysis in Ref. [9] indicates that future increases in wildfire trends will require substantial investment of financial resources and management actions for

In a discussion to the contrary [10], the argument is made that there is evidence of reduced fire worldwide today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. They indicate evidence of little change in the western USA and declines in the area of high-severity fire compared to eighteenth and nineteenth century conditions. The authors argue that direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past 30 years [10]. Trends in indirect impacts are insufficiently quantified to be examined in any significant degree. On the other hand, an analysis of large wildfire trends in the western USA reported a significant increase in fire numbers and area burned [11]. This was particularly true in southern mountain regions with drought. The reported increase of

in Russia demonstrated an acceleration of wildfire in the twenty-first century as a result of climate change [12]. Trends in wildfire on US Forest Service lands from 1970 to 2002 were examined in a 2005 paper in the Journal of Forestry [13]. Authors reported that the number of large fires has more than doubled over this period and the area burned has increased fourfold. The number of fires and area burned by wildfires in eastern Spain from 1941 to 1994 documented increasing fire activity in southern Europe [14]. They reported that even during this time period the areas and numbers of fires were increasing significantly and were associated with high fire

Wildfire appears to be on the increase globally but not uniformly. Drought and elevated temperatures are major factors contributing to wildfires and the hazards they pose to natural ecosystems and humans. Wildfire sizes and severity thus have the potential to present significant hazards to human health and safety and infra-

The immediate and most obvious hazard of wildfire is the effect on vegetation.

Impacts of wildfire on vegetation vary greatly, not only by vegetation type but also by the severity of the fire. Grassland vegetation in general is thought to be fire resilient, burning often and regrowing quickly after a fire event [15]. Some mixed conifer stands on the other hand have historically burned very infrequently and can take centuries to return to a climax state after a severe wildfire event [3]. The overall trend however is that areas that have been prone to burn in the past are now

yr.<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

. An analysis of wildfire

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

wildfire disaster prevention and recovery.

wildland fires in these areas has amounted to 355 km<sup>2</sup>

structure in the twenty-first century [5].

**3. Hazards during active fire**

**3.1 Fire trends**

#### **3. Hazards during active fire**

#### **3.1 Fire trends**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

and human health and safety.

**Figure 1.**

*Haifa).*

**2. Wildfire hazards**

threaten human health and safety.

after conflagrations in wildland ecosystems.

In regions where decay is constrained either by dry or cold climates or by saturated soil conditions, fire has a dominant role in recycling organic matter and maintaining some vegetation types [3]. In warmer, moist climates, decay plays the dominant role in organic matter recycling [6], except in soils that are predominantly water saturated such as hydric soils. Periodic wildfire has an important function in wildland ecosystems. However, the wildfire trend in the past several decades has raised the risk of short- and long-term damage to natural resources, infrastructure,

*High-severity wildfire, Mt. Carmel Fire, Haifa, Israel, 2017 (photo courtesy of Naama Tessler, University of* 

The worldwide threat to humans and natural resources from catastrophic wildfire is greater now than at any other time in human history (**Figure 1**). Changes brought on by global warming, land management, and population expansion have resulted in much larger, more destructive wildfire events [7]. This has given rise to greater loss of life and property as well as the occurrence of postfire hazards including flooding, erosion, desertification, and environmental degradation [5, 8]. This chapter will look at the physical hazards and effects of wildfire both during and

The hazards produced by wildfires affect both the biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems. They occur during active fire as well as afterwards. While the destruction produced by combustion is spectacular, the effects after burning has ceased can be subtle or dramatic and often long lasting [3, 5]. Hazards and deleterious effects produced by wildfires during the active combustion phase include vegetation combustion, loss of human and animal life, air quality deterioration, human health deterioration, destruction of personal property, loss of commercial property,

and infrastructure damage and destruction. After a wildfire is extinguished, hazards and risks arise from potential flooding, erosion, debris flows, and infrastructure damage. Water supplies and infrastructure, if not damaged during the active fire period, can be at risk during subsequent postfire flood events. Economic losses accrue from declines in tourism, loss of timber and wood fiber resources, and declines in property values. Ecological impacts not assessed by traditional economic valuations include vegetation type conversion, aquatic species loss, decreased water quality, increased stream temperatures, and reduced soil quality. All of these changes are hazards in that they reduce the values and services of ecosystems or

**60**

The trend of a growing occurrence of fire around the world brings with it many of the consequences both direct and indirect [9]. This analysis indicated that the future for potential wildfire increases significantly in fire-prone regions of North America, South America, central Asia, southern Europe, southern Africa, and Australia [9]. Fire potential is projected to increase in these regions, from currently low to future moderate potential or from moderate to high potential. The increased fire risk is driven by climate warming in North and South America and Australia, and by the combination of temperature increases and desertification in the other regions. The analysis in Ref. [9] indicates that future increases in wildfire trends will require substantial investment of financial resources and management actions for wildfire disaster prevention and recovery.

In a discussion to the contrary [10], the argument is made that there is evidence of reduced fire worldwide today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. They indicate evidence of little change in the western USA and declines in the area of high-severity fire compared to eighteenth and nineteenth century conditions. The authors argue that direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past 30 years [10]. Trends in indirect impacts are insufficiently quantified to be examined in any significant degree.

On the other hand, an analysis of large wildfire trends in the western USA reported a significant increase in fire numbers and area burned [11]. This was particularly true in southern mountain regions with drought. The reported increase of wildland fires in these areas has amounted to 355 km<sup>2</sup> yr.<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . An analysis of wildfire in Russia demonstrated an acceleration of wildfire in the twenty-first century as a result of climate change [12]. Trends in wildfire on US Forest Service lands from 1970 to 2002 were examined in a 2005 paper in the Journal of Forestry [13]. Authors reported that the number of large fires has more than doubled over this period and the area burned has increased fourfold. The number of fires and area burned by wildfires in eastern Spain from 1941 to 1994 documented increasing fire activity in southern Europe [14]. They reported that even during this time period the areas and numbers of fires were increasing significantly and were associated with high fire hazard indices.

Wildfire appears to be on the increase globally but not uniformly. Drought and elevated temperatures are major factors contributing to wildfires and the hazards they pose to natural ecosystems and humans. Wildfire sizes and severity thus have the potential to present significant hazards to human health and safety and infrastructure in the twenty-first century [5].

#### **3.2 Vegetation impacts**

#### *3.2.1 Hazard*

The immediate and most obvious hazard of wildfire is the effect on vegetation. Impacts of wildfire on vegetation vary greatly, not only by vegetation type but also by the severity of the fire. Grassland vegetation in general is thought to be fire resilient, burning often and regrowing quickly after a fire event [15]. Some mixed conifer stands on the other hand have historically burned very infrequently and can take centuries to return to a climax state after a severe wildfire event [3]. The overall trend however is that areas that have been prone to burn in the past are now burning more frequently and at higher severity due to climate change [16]. Areas thought to rarely burn such as tropical systems or be incapable of burning such as permafrost are now undergoing changes that result in more frequent occurrences of fire [17, 18].

#### *3.2.2 Fire regime*

The general character of fire that occurs within a particular vegetation type or ecosystem across long successional time frames, typically centuries, is defined as the characteristic fire regime [3]. The fire regime describes the typical fire severity that occurs and the hazard it presents to humans and wildlife. But it is recognized that, on occasion, fires of greater or lesser severity also occur within a vegetation type. For example, a stand-replacing crown fire is usually seen in long fire-returninterval forests (**Figure 2**). The fire regime concept is useful for comparing the relative role of fire between ecosystems, describing the degree of departure from historical conditions, and assessing the relative hazards of wildfires [19]. The development of fire regime classifications has been based on fire characteristics, effects, and combinations of factors including fire frequency, periodicity, intensity, size, pattern, season, depth of burn, and severity [15, 20]. There are four main fire regimes: understory, stand replacement, mixed, and nonfire. The understory and nonfire regimes are normally not important for understanding fire hazard.

The stand replacement regime fires are lethal to most of the dominant aboveground vegetation. Approximately 80% or more of the aboveground dominant vegetation is either consumed or dies as a result of fire, substantially changing the aboveground vegetative structure and creating substantial hazards. This regime applies to fire-susceptible forests and woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands.

The mixed regime severity of fires varies between nonlethal understory and lethal stand replacement fires with the variation occurring in space or time. First, spatial variability occurs when fire severity varies, producing a spectrum from understory burning to stand replacement within an individual fire. This results from small-scale changes in the fire environment (fuels, terrain, or weather) and random changes in plume dynamics. Within a single fire, stand replacement can occur with the peak intensity at the head of the fire, while a nonlethal fire occurs on the flanks. These changes create gaps in the canopy and small- to medium-sized

**63**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

openings. The result is a fine pattern of young, older, and multiple-aged vegetation patches. This type of fire regime commonly occurs in some ecosystems because of fluctuations in the fire environment [3, 21]. For example, complex terrain favors mixed-severity fires because fuel moisture and wind vary on small spatial scales. Secondly, temporal variation in fire severity occurs when individual fires alternate over time between low-intensity surface fires and high-severity stand replacement fires, resulting in a variable fire regime [15, 21]. Temporal variability also occurs when periodic cool-moist climate cycles are followed by warm-dry periods leading to cyclic (in other words, multiple decade-level) changes in the role of fire in ecosystem dynamics and human hazards. For example, in an upland forest, reduced fire occurrence during the cool-moist cycle leads to increased stand density and fuel buildup. Fires that occur during the transition between cool-moist and warm-dry periods can be expected to be more severe and have long-lasting effects on vegeta-

The commonly accepted term for describing the ecological, hydrological, and geological effects of a specific fire is fire severity. This term describes the magnitude of the disturbance and, therefore, reflects the degree of change in ecosystem components. Fire affects both the aboveground and belowground components of ecosystems due to energy pulses aboveground and heat pulse transferred downward into the soil. It reflects the amount of energy (heat) that is released by a fire that ultimately affects natural resources and their functions, and human infrastructure. It reflects the amount of energy (heat) that is released by a fire that ultimately affects resource responses. Fire severity is largely dependent upon the nature of the fuels available for burning, and the characteristics of combustion that occur when

Although the literature historically contains confusion between the terms fire intensity and fire severity, a fairly consistent distinction between the two terms has been emerging in recent years. Fire managers trained in fire behavior prediction systems use the term fire intensity in a strict thermodynamic sense to describe the rate of energy released [23]. Fire intensity is concerned mainly with the rate of aboveground fuel consumption and, therefore, the energy release rate [24]. The faster a given quantity of fuel burns, the greater the intensity, the higher the severity, the greater the energy release, and the shorter the duration [25]. Fire intensity is not necessarily related to the total amount of energy produced during the burning process. Most energy released by flaming combustion of aboveground fuels is not transmitted downward. For example, Ref. [26] found that only about 5% of the heat released by a surface fire was transmitted into the ground during Australian bushfires. Therefore, fire intensity is not necessarily a good measure of the amount of energy transmitted downward into the soil, or the associated changes that occur in physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. For example, it is possible that a high-intensity and fast-moving crown fire will consume little of the surface litter because only a small amount of the energy released during the combustion of fuels is transferred downward to the litter surface [27]. In this case, the surface litter is blackened (charred) but not consumed. In the extreme, examples have been reported in Australia, Alaska, and North Carolina where fastspreading crown fires did not even scorch all of the surface fuels [7]. However, if the fire also consumes substantial surface and ground fuels, the residence time on

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

tion dynamics [22].

these fuels are burned [3, 7].

*3.2.4 Fire intensity versus fire severity*

*3.2.3 Fire severity*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Stand replacement wildfire, 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, USA (photo courtesy of Dr. Peter Ffolliott, University of Arizona).*

#### *Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

openings. The result is a fine pattern of young, older, and multiple-aged vegetation patches. This type of fire regime commonly occurs in some ecosystems because of fluctuations in the fire environment [3, 21]. For example, complex terrain favors mixed-severity fires because fuel moisture and wind vary on small spatial scales. Secondly, temporal variation in fire severity occurs when individual fires alternate over time between low-intensity surface fires and high-severity stand replacement fires, resulting in a variable fire regime [15, 21]. Temporal variability also occurs when periodic cool-moist climate cycles are followed by warm-dry periods leading to cyclic (in other words, multiple decade-level) changes in the role of fire in ecosystem dynamics and human hazards. For example, in an upland forest, reduced fire occurrence during the cool-moist cycle leads to increased stand density and fuel buildup. Fires that occur during the transition between cool-moist and warm-dry periods can be expected to be more severe and have long-lasting effects on vegetation dynamics [22].

#### *3.2.3 Fire severity*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

of fire [17, 18].

*3.2.2 Fire regime*

burning more frequently and at higher severity due to climate change [16]. Areas thought to rarely burn such as tropical systems or be incapable of burning such as permafrost are now undergoing changes that result in more frequent occurrences

The general character of fire that occurs within a particular vegetation type or ecosystem across long successional time frames, typically centuries, is defined as the characteristic fire regime [3]. The fire regime describes the typical fire severity that occurs and the hazard it presents to humans and wildlife. But it is recognized that, on occasion, fires of greater or lesser severity also occur within a vegetation type. For example, a stand-replacing crown fire is usually seen in long fire-returninterval forests (**Figure 2**). The fire regime concept is useful for comparing the relative role of fire between ecosystems, describing the degree of departure from historical conditions, and assessing the relative hazards of wildfires [19]. The development of fire regime classifications has been based on fire characteristics, effects, and combinations of factors including fire frequency, periodicity, intensity, size, pattern, season, depth of burn, and severity [15, 20]. There are four main fire regimes: understory, stand replacement, mixed, and nonfire. The understory and nonfire regimes are normally not important for understanding fire hazard.

The stand replacement regime fires are lethal to most of the dominant aboveground vegetation. Approximately 80% or more of the aboveground dominant vegetation is either consumed or dies as a result of fire, substantially changing the aboveground vegetative structure and creating substantial hazards. This regime applies to fire-susceptible forests and woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. The mixed regime severity of fires varies between nonlethal understory and lethal stand replacement fires with the variation occurring in space or time. First, spatial variability occurs when fire severity varies, producing a spectrum from understory burning to stand replacement within an individual fire. This results from small-scale changes in the fire environment (fuels, terrain, or weather) and random changes in plume dynamics. Within a single fire, stand replacement can occur with the peak intensity at the head of the fire, while a nonlethal fire occurs on the flanks. These changes create gaps in the canopy and small- to medium-sized

*Stand replacement wildfire, 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, USA* 

*(photo courtesy of Dr. Peter Ffolliott, University of Arizona).*

**62**

**Figure 2.**

The commonly accepted term for describing the ecological, hydrological, and geological effects of a specific fire is fire severity. This term describes the magnitude of the disturbance and, therefore, reflects the degree of change in ecosystem components. Fire affects both the aboveground and belowground components of ecosystems due to energy pulses aboveground and heat pulse transferred downward into the soil. It reflects the amount of energy (heat) that is released by a fire that ultimately affects natural resources and their functions, and human infrastructure. It reflects the amount of energy (heat) that is released by a fire that ultimately affects resource responses. Fire severity is largely dependent upon the nature of the fuels available for burning, and the characteristics of combustion that occur when these fuels are burned [3, 7].

#### *3.2.4 Fire intensity versus fire severity*

Although the literature historically contains confusion between the terms fire intensity and fire severity, a fairly consistent distinction between the two terms has been emerging in recent years. Fire managers trained in fire behavior prediction systems use the term fire intensity in a strict thermodynamic sense to describe the rate of energy released [23]. Fire intensity is concerned mainly with the rate of aboveground fuel consumption and, therefore, the energy release rate [24]. The faster a given quantity of fuel burns, the greater the intensity, the higher the severity, the greater the energy release, and the shorter the duration [25]. Fire intensity is not necessarily related to the total amount of energy produced during the burning process. Most energy released by flaming combustion of aboveground fuels is not transmitted downward. For example, Ref. [26] found that only about 5% of the heat released by a surface fire was transmitted into the ground during Australian bushfires. Therefore, fire intensity is not necessarily a good measure of the amount of energy transmitted downward into the soil, or the associated changes that occur in physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. For example, it is possible that a high-intensity and fast-moving crown fire will consume little of the surface litter because only a small amount of the energy released during the combustion of fuels is transferred downward to the litter surface [27]. In this case, the surface litter is blackened (charred) but not consumed. In the extreme, examples have been reported in Australia, Alaska, and North Carolina where fastspreading crown fires did not even scorch all of the surface fuels [7]. However, if the fire also consumes substantial surface and ground fuels, the residence time on

a site is greater, and more energy is transmitted into the soil. In such cases, a "white ash" or "red ash" layer is often the only postfire material left on the soil surface [27] (**Figure 3**). Because one can rarely measure the actual energy release of a fire, the term fire intensity can have limited practical application when evaluating ecosystem responses to fire. Increasingly, the term fire severity is used to describe the effects of fire on the different ecosystem components and human resources [3].

#### **3.3 Loss of life**

Fires have been major hazards for humans for many centuries. With the development of large cities, fire became a significant risk to infrastructure and human life. The lack of organized and trained fire-fighting resources was a big factor in some of the more notorious urban fires. Rome burned in A.D. 64 during windy conditions from a fire that escaped from the Circus Maximus [28]. Of the city's 14 districts, only 4 escaped fire damage. Deaths numbered in the thousands. An urban fire in Tokyo in 1657 destroyed 70% of the city and killed 100,000 inhabitants. Moscow burned during the French invasion in 1812 killing 55,000.

Wildfire in forests became a hazard factor in urban fires in the nineteenth century. The Miramichi Fire in Canada in 1825 burned 2 million ha of land and resulted in the death of 160–300 people. It was fueled by drought and spread at a rate of 1.6 km min<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . The real toll was unknown and could be much higher (3000) due to inaccurate accounts of persons in the rural area [29]. Seven towns were severely damaged or destroyed. The Peshtigo Fire of 1871 burned over 250,000 ha of Wisconsin and Michigan [28]. Sixteen communities were destroyed with a loss of 1150 lives.

Although human mortality rates associated with wildfires have declined in the twentieth century, wildfires continue to exact a toll on human lives because of the increase in area burned and the numbers of large fires [13]. Wildfire fatalities from 1910 to 2017 resulted in a cumulative toll of 1128 deaths for the USA [30]. Most fire years had human losses of less than 10 per year (**Table 1**). Of the yearly fatalities over 20 per year, 67% have occurred since 1990. Most wildfire-related deaths are caused by vehicle accidents, airplane crashes, and medical incidents. The exceptions involved fatalities in fire crews (1910, 1933, 1994, 2003, and 2013). Risks and incidents from wildfires that have spread into urban areas have been on the increase in

#### **Figure 3.**

*Red and white ash deposits on high-severity burn areas after the 2006 Brins Fire, Coconino National Forest, Arizona (photo by Daniel G. Neary, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service).*

**65**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

the twenty-first century due to population expansion into wildland-urban interface areas, increased wildfire area coverage, greater numbers and size of wildfires, and higher fire severity [5]. Consequently, urban fatalities from wildfire incursions into

*USA wildfire-related fatalities per year 1929–2017 by grouping (National Interagency Fire Center 2019).*

**Fatality grouping Number per grouping Percentage** 0 3 1.3 1–4 13 16.7 5–9 18 23.1 10–14 20 25.7 15–19 11 14.1 20–24 7 11.5 >25 6 7.6

Australia suffered high human fatalities from the Black Saturday Kilmore East Fire in Victoria in 2009 [31]. Over 450,000 ha of forest and native bush burned in February of 2009 due to drought conditions and gale force winds. Speeds of

5–33 km ahead of the main fire front. The 173 human fatalities occurred mainly among the local rural population due to the rapid fire spread and insufficient time to evacuate the wildfire-threatened areas. At one point, the fires consumed 100,000 ha in <12 hours. Wildfires of this size and severity are extremely hazardous

In 2017, Portugal experienced its most deadly fire season on record losing at least 66 people to catastrophic summer wildfires. The following year, wildfires in Greece damaged over 2000 homes and killed at least 100 people. Although nationally deaths due to wildfires are on the decline, record-breaking wildfires in northern California in 2017–2018 produced substantial increases in deaths, mostly civilians [32]. A total of 8527 fires burned an area of 766,439 ha and resulted in 102 fire-

In the summer of 2018, the Camp Fire in Northern California burned 62,053 ha and destroyed 18,804 structures including the entire town of Paradise, California. In total, the fire caused \$16.5 billion in damages with over a quarter of those damages uninsured [33]. It was the costliest single natural disaster in the world to that point and caused the bankruptcy of a major utility provider, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which was held responsible for starting the fire due to faulty

Unfortunately, it is part of a trend in California, driven mostly by climate change, of increasing destruction and cost of seasonal wildfires. Just the previous year (2017), in December, the Thomas Fire destroyed at least 1063 structures at a cost of \$2.2 billion in damages [34] and was preceded by only a couple of months by a complex of fires in the northern part of the state, which destroyed at least 8900

Similar trends are being seen around the world. In 2017, Portugal experienced its most deadly and expensive fire season on record due to catastrophic summer

structures and cost in excess of \$14.5 billion in damages [35].

from hot air originating in the deserts

. Spot fires developed

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

urban areas have increased since 2017.

and almost impossible to comprehend.

fighter and civilian deaths.

**3.4 Economic losses**

equipment.

with gusts to 91 km hr.<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

of central Australia drove fire spreads of 68–153 m min<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

46–68 km hr.<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

**Table 1.**


*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

**Table 1.**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

**3.3 Loss of life**

rate of 1.6 km min<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

1150 lives.

a site is greater, and more energy is transmitted into the soil. In such cases, a "white ash" or "red ash" layer is often the only postfire material left on the soil surface [27] (**Figure 3**). Because one can rarely measure the actual energy release of a fire, the term fire intensity can have limited practical application when evaluating ecosystem responses to fire. Increasingly, the term fire severity is used to describe the effects of

Fires have been major hazards for humans for many centuries. With the development of large cities, fire became a significant risk to infrastructure and human life. The lack of organized and trained fire-fighting resources was a big factor in some of the more notorious urban fires. Rome burned in A.D. 64 during windy conditions from a fire that escaped from the Circus Maximus [28]. Of the city's 14 districts, only 4 escaped fire damage. Deaths numbered in the thousands. An urban fire in Tokyo in 1657 destroyed 70% of the city and killed 100,000 inhabitants. Moscow

Wildfire in forests became a hazard factor in urban fires in the nineteenth century. The Miramichi Fire in Canada in 1825 burned 2 million ha of land and resulted in the death of 160–300 people. It was fueled by drought and spread at a

due to inaccurate accounts of persons in the rural area [29]. Seven towns were severely damaged or destroyed. The Peshtigo Fire of 1871 burned over 250,000 ha of Wisconsin and Michigan [28]. Sixteen communities were destroyed with a loss of

Although human mortality rates associated with wildfires have declined in the twentieth century, wildfires continue to exact a toll on human lives because of the increase in area burned and the numbers of large fires [13]. Wildfire fatalities from 1910 to 2017 resulted in a cumulative toll of 1128 deaths for the USA [30]. Most fire years had human losses of less than 10 per year (**Table 1**). Of the yearly fatalities over 20 per year, 67% have occurred since 1990. Most wildfire-related deaths are caused by vehicle accidents, airplane crashes, and medical incidents. The exceptions involved fatalities in fire crews (1910, 1933, 1994, 2003, and 2013). Risks and incidents from wildfires that have spread into urban areas have been on the increase in

*Red and white ash deposits on high-severity burn areas after the 2006 Brins Fire, Coconino National Forest,* 

*Arizona (photo by Daniel G. Neary, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service).*

. The real toll was unknown and could be much higher (3000)

fire on the different ecosystem components and human resources [3].

burned during the French invasion in 1812 killing 55,000.

**64**

**Figure 3.**

*USA wildfire-related fatalities per year 1929–2017 by grouping (National Interagency Fire Center 2019).*

the twenty-first century due to population expansion into wildland-urban interface areas, increased wildfire area coverage, greater numbers and size of wildfires, and higher fire severity [5]. Consequently, urban fatalities from wildfire incursions into urban areas have increased since 2017.

Australia suffered high human fatalities from the Black Saturday Kilmore East Fire in Victoria in 2009 [31]. Over 450,000 ha of forest and native bush burned in February of 2009 due to drought conditions and gale force winds. Speeds of 46–68 km hr.<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> with gusts to 91 km hr.<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> from hot air originating in the deserts of central Australia drove fire spreads of 68–153 m min<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . Spot fires developed 5–33 km ahead of the main fire front. The 173 human fatalities occurred mainly among the local rural population due to the rapid fire spread and insufficient time to evacuate the wildfire-threatened areas. At one point, the fires consumed 100,000 ha in <12 hours. Wildfires of this size and severity are extremely hazardous and almost impossible to comprehend.

In 2017, Portugal experienced its most deadly fire season on record losing at least 66 people to catastrophic summer wildfires. The following year, wildfires in Greece damaged over 2000 homes and killed at least 100 people. Although nationally deaths due to wildfires are on the decline, record-breaking wildfires in northern California in 2017–2018 produced substantial increases in deaths, mostly civilians [32]. A total of 8527 fires burned an area of 766,439 ha and resulted in 102 firefighter and civilian deaths.

#### **3.4 Economic losses**

In the summer of 2018, the Camp Fire in Northern California burned 62,053 ha and destroyed 18,804 structures including the entire town of Paradise, California. In total, the fire caused \$16.5 billion in damages with over a quarter of those damages uninsured [33]. It was the costliest single natural disaster in the world to that point and caused the bankruptcy of a major utility provider, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which was held responsible for starting the fire due to faulty equipment.

Unfortunately, it is part of a trend in California, driven mostly by climate change, of increasing destruction and cost of seasonal wildfires. Just the previous year (2017), in December, the Thomas Fire destroyed at least 1063 structures at a cost of \$2.2 billion in damages [34] and was preceded by only a couple of months by a complex of fires in the northern part of the state, which destroyed at least 8900 structures and cost in excess of \$14.5 billion in damages [35].

Similar trends are being seen around the world. In 2017, Portugal experienced its most deadly and expensive fire season on record due to catastrophic summer

wildfires. The 2018 wildfires in Greece suffered through what was considered to be one of the worst fire events in Europe in over a century. Canada set successive records in area burned with 1,216,053 ha 2017 and 1,298,450 ha 2018, losing at least 305 and 50 structures in those respective years [36].

Common factors in these events include months of below-average precipitation followed by untimely ignitions, both natural and anthropogenic and wind events that caused fires to spread in a dramatic fashion. The speed and ferocity with which these fires burned were commonly described as "unheard of" in the past and in many cases completely uncontrollable. The only choice of fire managers at the time was to stand-down and wait for conditions to improve. Unfortunately, this predicament appears to be a hazard becoming more common worldwide.

Fire events, particularly in California, USA, where dense population areas border highly fire-prone wildland areas have seen staggering losses as described above. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2016 estimated that total "costs," which includes preparedness, mitigation, and suppression, as well as "losses," which includes both direct (e.g., deaths, structure loss, timber loss, etc.) and indirect (e.g., property devaluation, supply chain disruption, evacuation costs, etc.) of wildfire within the USA range from \$71.1 to \$347.8 billion annually [32]. Estimates like these continue the long debate of who should pay for natural disaster losses in an era of global warming as they become more expensive and what should the future costs be to insure assets in fire-prone areas? These are difficult and complex questions to answer and are made even more urgent in an era where losses seem to be compounded every year.

#### **3.5 Air quality**

Another immediate effect of fire is the release of gases and particulate pollutants by the combustion of biomass and soil organic matter. Air quality in large-scale airsheds can be degraded during and following fires [37]. Among the pollutants emitted, the release of fine particulate matter and ozone (O3) can have particularly deleterious effects on human health, which can be exacerbated when smoke from wildfires affect large population centers. Unfortunately, our understanding of the hazard that large-scale wildfires have on air quality is lacking and current estimates of emissions and impacts may be significantly underestimated [38].

Wildfires can cause both short- and long-term air quality impacts that are usually viewed as negative effects on environmental quality (**Figure 4**). Scientific information about air pollution from wildfires is motivated by government policies to restore the role of fire in ecosystems, to improve air quality, to protect human health, and to minimize emissions of greenhouse gases that are driving climate change [37]. Managing both fire and air quality to the standards set by national and regional governments requires sophisticated scientific knowledge of fire-related air pollution, a delicate management balancing act, and comprehensive educational outreach to both the public and government officials. The three main components of wildland fire and air quality are air resource, scale of impact, and fire management. Air resource includes such factors as smoke source, ambient air quality, and effects on receptors. Scales at which air quality is affected by wildland fires range from site and event to regional and global. Since wildland fire is a pervasive global, regional, and local phenomenon (**Figure 5**), air quality issues and interactions are inter-regional, transnational, and global. Fire management factors that are involved in air quality include planning, operations, and monitoring [39].

National and international air quality standards are set by legislative acts or agency regulations to protect the human population of negative health effects of fire-derived air pollutants [40, 41]. For most of the twentieth century, smoke emissions from prescribed fires were treated as human-caused, while wildfires

**67**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

were considered to be natural [37]. Policy debates have blurred the distinct separation between the two types of fires since some lightening starts are managed as prescribed natural fires for ecosystem restoration and fuel reduction purposes, and some wildfires have human ignition sources and burn in fuel loads made unnatu-

*Regional air quality impacts from smoke generated by the Wallow Fire, 2011, Arizona, USA (image courtesy of* 

*Smoke plume from the Schultz fire, June 2002, Coconino National Forest, Arizona (photo courtesy of USDA* 

Some of the key pollutants targeted in air quality regulations include PM10 (particulate matter <10 μm in diameter), PM2.5 (particulate matter <2.5 μm in diameter) total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead and other heavy metals. The amounts and types of pollutants released by fires are affected by area burned, fuel characteristics prior to combustions, fire behavior, combustion stages, level of fuel consumption, and source strength [37]. Wildfires occur as episodic events that can threaten public health, cause smoke damage to buildings, and disrupt public activities [42]. Particulate concentrations rarely affect large city's air quality, but they can

regions. In some regions, wildfire smoke is the main cause of visibility reductions. Although the public can be exposed to and become affected by wildland smoke and its constituents, the main concern is for firefighters and fire managers. Anyone who has been involved in wildfire suppression or prescribed fire management

) in smaller communities located in forested

rally high by human activity or the lack of management.

*MODIS web, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration).*

rise to harmful levels (e.g., 600 μg m<sup>−</sup><sup>3</sup>

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

*Forest Service, Peaks Ranger District, Coconino National Forest).*

**Figure 4.**

**Figure 5.**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

305 and 50 structures in those respective years [36].

ment appears to be a hazard becoming more common worldwide.

even more urgent in an era where losses seem to be compounded every year.

of emissions and impacts may be significantly underestimated [38].

in air quality include planning, operations, and monitoring [39].

National and international air quality standards are set by legislative acts or agency regulations to protect the human population of negative health effects of fire-derived air pollutants [40, 41]. For most of the twentieth century, smoke emissions from prescribed fires were treated as human-caused, while wildfires

wildfires. The 2018 wildfires in Greece suffered through what was considered to be one of the worst fire events in Europe in over a century. Canada set successive records in area burned with 1,216,053 ha 2017 and 1,298,450 ha 2018, losing at least

Common factors in these events include months of below-average precipitation followed by untimely ignitions, both natural and anthropogenic and wind events that caused fires to spread in a dramatic fashion. The speed and ferocity with which these fires burned were commonly described as "unheard of" in the past and in many cases completely uncontrollable. The only choice of fire managers at the time was to stand-down and wait for conditions to improve. Unfortunately, this predica-

Fire events, particularly in California, USA, where dense population areas border highly fire-prone wildland areas have seen staggering losses as described above. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2016 estimated that total "costs," which includes preparedness, mitigation, and suppression, as well as "losses," which includes both direct (e.g., deaths, structure loss, timber loss, etc.) and indirect (e.g., property devaluation, supply chain disruption, evacuation costs, etc.) of wildfire within the USA range from \$71.1 to \$347.8 billion annually [32]. Estimates like these continue the long debate of who should pay for natural disaster losses in an era of global warming as they become more expensive and what should the future costs be to insure assets in fire-prone areas? These are difficult and complex questions to answer and are made

Another immediate effect of fire is the release of gases and particulate pollutants

by the combustion of biomass and soil organic matter. Air quality in large-scale airsheds can be degraded during and following fires [37]. Among the pollutants emitted, the release of fine particulate matter and ozone (O3) can have particularly deleterious effects on human health, which can be exacerbated when smoke from wildfires affect large population centers. Unfortunately, our understanding of the hazard that large-scale wildfires have on air quality is lacking and current estimates

Wildfires can cause both short- and long-term air quality impacts that are usually viewed as negative effects on environmental quality (**Figure 4**). Scientific information about air pollution from wildfires is motivated by government policies to restore the role of fire in ecosystems, to improve air quality, to protect human health, and to minimize emissions of greenhouse gases that are driving climate change [37]. Managing both fire and air quality to the standards set by national and regional governments requires sophisticated scientific knowledge of fire-related air pollution, a delicate management balancing act, and comprehensive educational outreach to both the public and government officials. The three main components of wildland fire and air quality are air resource, scale of impact, and fire management. Air resource includes such factors as smoke source, ambient air quality, and effects on receptors. Scales at which air quality is affected by wildland fires range from site and event to regional and global. Since wildland fire is a pervasive global, regional, and local phenomenon (**Figure 5**), air quality issues and interactions are inter-regional, transnational, and global. Fire management factors that are involved

**66**

**3.5 Air quality**

*Smoke plume from the Schultz fire, June 2002, Coconino National Forest, Arizona (photo courtesy of USDA Forest Service, Peaks Ranger District, Coconino National Forest).*

#### **Figure 5.**

*Regional air quality impacts from smoke generated by the Wallow Fire, 2011, Arizona, USA (image courtesy of MODIS web, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration).*

were considered to be natural [37]. Policy debates have blurred the distinct separation between the two types of fires since some lightening starts are managed as prescribed natural fires for ecosystem restoration and fuel reduction purposes, and some wildfires have human ignition sources and burn in fuel loads made unnaturally high by human activity or the lack of management.

Some of the key pollutants targeted in air quality regulations include PM10 (particulate matter <10 μm in diameter), PM2.5 (particulate matter <2.5 μm in diameter) total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead and other heavy metals. The amounts and types of pollutants released by fires are affected by area burned, fuel characteristics prior to combustions, fire behavior, combustion stages, level of fuel consumption, and source strength [37]. Wildfires occur as episodic events that can threaten public health, cause smoke damage to buildings, and disrupt public activities [42]. Particulate concentrations rarely affect large city's air quality, but they can rise to harmful levels (e.g., 600 μg m<sup>−</sup><sup>3</sup> ) in smaller communities located in forested regions. In some regions, wildfire smoke is the main cause of visibility reductions.

Although the public can be exposed to and become affected by wildland smoke and its constituents, the main concern is for firefighters and fire managers. Anyone who has been involved in wildfire suppression or prescribed fire management

understands this. Unlike structural firefighters who utilize PBAs (personal breathing apparatus), wildland fire fighters at best have dust masks that reduce exposure to dust and large particulates but not small particulates and gases. Many data gaps exist in the understanding of human health hazards of wildland fire suppression and management [43].

The individuals whose health is most at risk include those with cardiopulmonary diseases and the elderly. However, normally healthy individuals, such as firefighters, are at increased risk of developing cardiopulmonary disease over the long term. Effects of PM10 and PM2.5 particulates, dust-borne silica, aldehydes, carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, ozone, and heavy metals are poorly understood. The temporary nature of wildland fire personnel assignments make compilation of long-term health data difficult or impossible to achieve. Permanent fire personnel can be adequately assessed and monitored, but the bulk of wildland fire personnel cannot be properly evaluated.

#### **4. Postfire hazards**

#### **4.1 Flooding and debris flows**

In many cases, the greatest hazard posed by wildfires occurs in the postfire period when flooding events, made worse by the loss of vegetation, create debris flows (**Figure 6**). These catastrophic events often result in property and infrastructure destruction and in some cases loss of life [3, 7]. Debris flows typically occur in areas with steep topography after being subjected to wetting rains, which mobilize soil, rock, and other debris into a concrete-like torrent that moves downslope toward low-lying areas. These flows tend to have immense force due to the speed in which they move and can cause total destruction of objects in their path and contribute to human mortality. For example, it has been estimated based on insurance claims following the Thomas Fire southern California in 2017 that postfire damage assessments were mostly related to massive debris flows that originated in the burned area. The economic cost of these debris flows exceeded \$1.8 billion [34].

While these events can be highly destructive and very costly, they can also be somewhat mitigated through prefire planning and zoning regulations as well as adequate infrastructure. The problem is that often the size of flooding events

#### **Figure 6.**

*Flood flows in an urbanized area below the 2010 Schultz Fire in Arizona, USA (photo by Daniel G. Neary, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service).*

**69**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

the argument for increased preparation must be considered.

following wildfire can fall into a once in a century or even a millennia event making the cost justification for accommodating such an event beforehand challenging. However, as these events begin to become more common and costs begin to escalate,

Take for example the Schultz Fire, which occurred just outside of Flagstaff, Arizona, USA, in 2010. The fire burned on steep slopes within the Coconino National Forest immediately adjacent to subdivisions located in the valley below. Summer rainfall events following the fire initiated massive flooding and debris flows into the area. Fortunately, there was only one flood-related mortality. While estimates of the costs related directly to the fire suppression were around \$9,460,909, the cost of the response to the flood was nearly twice that at \$16,470,682. However, both these costs were outdone by the nearly \$33,172,803 that was invested in infrastructure over the following 4 years needed to mitigate future flood risk. The financial analysis published on this event [44] in 2013 also pointed out that the cost estimates were only for official expenditures by government agencies and local utilities. The loss in property devaluation, infrastructure damage, increased insurance premiums, and other associated costs totaled more than \$60 million in additional losses, making the argument for increased spending on hazard mitigation valid. The economic hazards of the fire were 10 times the funds expended to suppress the Schultz Fire. And this accounting did not include the

Landscape scale fire events can have profound influence on elements of water quality including increasing turbidity, temperature, and contaminants sometimes for many years following the fire [45–49]. One study near Denver, Colorado, found that average spring and summer water temperatures increased by 5–6°C and that nitrate concentrations increased over 100 times greater than typical stream concentrations following the Hayman Fire in 2002. In addition, summer storms continued to mobilize sediment and create surface runoff corresponding to spikes in nutrient

Ecologically, flooding events following a wildfire can be catastrophic on aquatic communities. This is due primarily to the depletion of oxygen and the increase in turbidity in ash-laden debris flows (**Figure 7**). The two biggest factors affecting long-term recovery and health of aquatic habitats impacted by fire are physical channel stability and water temperature [51]. Loss of streamside vegetation due to fire and instability or changes in physical habitat due to flooding can diminish aquatic habitats for decades. The timing and severity of flooding events are directly related to preceding fire incident. Typically, low order or headwater streams are more susceptible to vegetation changes and flooding than higher order streams; however, depending on the magnitude of input, even larger rivers and reservoirs can be subjected to diminished water quality and loss of aquatic species due to ash-

The increase in scope and scale of wildfire worldwide tends to have a more intrinsic effect on ecosystem function, affecting qualities that are not always measureable in economic terms. Degradation of soil [8] and water resources [3, 5] along with landscape scale changes in vegetation [51] has the ability to shape ecosystems for decades if not centuries [52]. These cascading effects are becoming selective for plant and animal species, which are pioneer species at first and later are disturbance oriented as these

concentration and turbidity for years following the fire event [50].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

value of lost or damaged natural resources.

**4.2 Water quality**

laden flow inputs.

**4.3 Ecological changes**

#### *Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

following wildfire can fall into a once in a century or even a millennia event making the cost justification for accommodating such an event beforehand challenging. However, as these events begin to become more common and costs begin to escalate, the argument for increased preparation must be considered.

Take for example the Schultz Fire, which occurred just outside of Flagstaff, Arizona, USA, in 2010. The fire burned on steep slopes within the Coconino National Forest immediately adjacent to subdivisions located in the valley below. Summer rainfall events following the fire initiated massive flooding and debris flows into the area. Fortunately, there was only one flood-related mortality. While estimates of the costs related directly to the fire suppression were around \$9,460,909, the cost of the response to the flood was nearly twice that at \$16,470,682. However, both these costs were outdone by the nearly \$33,172,803 that was invested in infrastructure over the following 4 years needed to mitigate future flood risk. The financial analysis published on this event [44] in 2013 also pointed out that the cost estimates were only for official expenditures by government agencies and local utilities. The loss in property devaluation, infrastructure damage, increased insurance premiums, and other associated costs totaled more than \$60 million in additional losses, making the argument for increased spending on hazard mitigation valid. The economic hazards of the fire were 10 times the funds expended to suppress the Schultz Fire. And this accounting did not include the value of lost or damaged natural resources.

#### **4.2 Water quality**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

and management [43].

cannot be properly evaluated.

**4.1 Flooding and debris flows**

**4. Postfire hazards**

understands this. Unlike structural firefighters who utilize PBAs (personal breathing apparatus), wildland fire fighters at best have dust masks that reduce exposure to dust and large particulates but not small particulates and gases. Many data gaps exist in the understanding of human health hazards of wildland fire suppression

The individuals whose health is most at risk include those with cardiopulmonary diseases and the elderly. However, normally healthy individuals, such as firefighters, are at increased risk of developing cardiopulmonary disease over the long term. Effects of PM10 and PM2.5 particulates, dust-borne silica, aldehydes, carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, ozone, and heavy metals are poorly understood. The temporary nature of wildland fire personnel assignments make compilation of long-term health data difficult or impossible to achieve. Permanent fire personnel can be adequately assessed and monitored, but the bulk of wildland fire personnel

In many cases, the greatest hazard posed by wildfires occurs in the postfire period when flooding events, made worse by the loss of vegetation, create debris flows (**Figure 6**). These catastrophic events often result in property and infrastructure destruction and in some cases loss of life [3, 7]. Debris flows typically occur in areas with steep topography after being subjected to wetting rains, which mobilize soil, rock, and other debris into a concrete-like torrent that moves downslope toward low-lying areas. These flows tend to have immense force due to the speed in which they move and can cause total destruction of objects in their path and contribute to human mortality. For example, it has been estimated based on insurance claims following the Thomas Fire southern California in 2017 that postfire damage assessments were mostly related to massive debris flows that originated in the burned area. The economic cost of these debris flows exceeded \$1.8 billion [34]. While these events can be highly destructive and very costly, they can also be somewhat mitigated through prefire planning and zoning regulations as well as adequate infrastructure. The problem is that often the size of flooding events

*Flood flows in an urbanized area below the 2010 Schultz Fire in Arizona, USA (photo by Daniel G. Neary,* 

**68**

**Figure 6.**

*Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service).*

Landscape scale fire events can have profound influence on elements of water quality including increasing turbidity, temperature, and contaminants sometimes for many years following the fire [45–49]. One study near Denver, Colorado, found that average spring and summer water temperatures increased by 5–6°C and that nitrate concentrations increased over 100 times greater than typical stream concentrations following the Hayman Fire in 2002. In addition, summer storms continued to mobilize sediment and create surface runoff corresponding to spikes in nutrient concentration and turbidity for years following the fire event [50].

Ecologically, flooding events following a wildfire can be catastrophic on aquatic communities. This is due primarily to the depletion of oxygen and the increase in turbidity in ash-laden debris flows (**Figure 7**). The two biggest factors affecting long-term recovery and health of aquatic habitats impacted by fire are physical channel stability and water temperature [51]. Loss of streamside vegetation due to fire and instability or changes in physical habitat due to flooding can diminish aquatic habitats for decades. The timing and severity of flooding events are directly related to preceding fire incident. Typically, low order or headwater streams are more susceptible to vegetation changes and flooding than higher order streams; however, depending on the magnitude of input, even larger rivers and reservoirs can be subjected to diminished water quality and loss of aquatic species due to ashladen flow inputs.

#### **4.3 Ecological changes**

The increase in scope and scale of wildfire worldwide tends to have a more intrinsic effect on ecosystem function, affecting qualities that are not always measureable in economic terms. Degradation of soil [8] and water resources [3, 5] along with landscape scale changes in vegetation [51] has the ability to shape ecosystems for decades if not centuries [52]. These cascading effects are becoming selective for plant and animal species, which are pioneer species at first and later are disturbance oriented as these

#### **Figure 7.**

*Post-fire runoff with high concentrations of sediment, ash, and charcoal, Rodeo-Chediski Fire, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona, 2002 (photo by Daniel G. Neary, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service).*

systems begin the slow process of recovery, often punctuated by reoccurring disturbance events such as flooding or even subsequent fire events. At relatively small scales, the input of fire, even high-severity fire, can introduce heterogeneity into a landscape that can be beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole, creating niches and freeing up resources for new species to establish in an area. However, there is a size threshold that once crossed starts to become an impediment to recovery and results in long-term loss of habitat suitability for specific species. For example, the loss of seed sources both in the soil bank and from mature plants for obligate seed species can have a limiting effect on the recolonization and distribution of many long-lived conifer species [53]. Similarly, the impact from flooding events on fragmented streams due to anthropogenic or natural barriers may make the recolonization of some aquatic species impossible and result in permanent extirpation [54]. In these cases, wildfire begins to act on a genetic level to influence the long-term stability and ecosystem function of an area. This poses a serious environmental hazard due to the permanent loss of important species in an ecosystem and increasing the risk of desertification [8].

#### **5. Summary and conclusions**

Humans live in or adjacent to wildland ecosystems that burn periodically and are part of nearly all ecosystems that are in the pyrosphere. There are many hazards posed by wildfire and certain consequences of living in these ecosystems. Most are associated with wildfire but the increased use of prescribed fire is an issue because of associated risks with human attempts to manage ecological goals. The economic and social consequences of wildfire have been discussed by a number of authors [3, 5, 7, 42]. These consequences involve cultural and economic loss, social disruption, infrastructure damage, human injury and mortality, damage to natural resources, and deterioration in air quality. The economic and human health and safety costs are on the rise due to increasing wildland-urban interface problems and extreme wildfire behavior brought on by climate change. In the past, urban fires have been the greatest threat to human health and safety killing over 100,000 people.

With modern fire control organizations in cities, the greatest hazard has shifted to wildlands. The Miramichi Fire in Canada's eastern woodlands in 1825 may have killed 3000. In the USA, the most devastating wildland wildfire known was the

**71**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

Peshtigo Fire of 1871 that killed over 1150 people. Recent wildfires in Australia in 2009 and California in 2017 and 2018 claimed up to 270 lives in a single fire event in each country. The increasing development of the wildland-urban interface in the USA and other countries is raising the risks that a similar fatal event could occur in the future. Large fatalities due to wildfire hazards may be a thing of the past, but frequent deaths such as those in Australia in 2009 may tally up to greater numbers. In addition, the economic hazards of wildfires are growing. The large amounts of funds needed to suppress large wildfires are a small fraction of the total economic damage. Nationally, in the USA, fire suppression, collateral infrastructure damage, urban destruction, and other wildfire mitigation efforts exceed the total manage-

World ecosystems have been modified extensively by fire. We live on a "fire planet" [1, 2, 42]. With larger human populations and a changing, drying climate, the impact of fire on humans and the hazards faced by our natural and developed world will continue to increase. The increase in wildfire hazards in the twenty-first century will require higher levels of training, increased investments in wildfire personnel and infrastructure, greater wildfire awareness, and improved planning to

The authors would like to thank the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air-Water-Aquatic Environments Research Program, and the Program Manager, Frank

There are no "Conflicts of Interest" associated with this paper. It was produced by US Forest Service employees during normal work hours and on appropriated

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

ment budgets of the state and federal agencies.

reduce fire impacts.

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

funding.

**Author details**

McCormick, for support of this effort.

Daniel G. Neary\* and Jackson M. Leonard

provided the original work is properly cited.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water,

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Aquatic Environments Program, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: dan.neary@usda.gov

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

Peshtigo Fire of 1871 that killed over 1150 people. Recent wildfires in Australia in 2009 and California in 2017 and 2018 claimed up to 270 lives in a single fire event in each country. The increasing development of the wildland-urban interface in the USA and other countries is raising the risks that a similar fatal event could occur in the future. Large fatalities due to wildfire hazards may be a thing of the past, but frequent deaths such as those in Australia in 2009 may tally up to greater numbers. In addition, the economic hazards of wildfires are growing. The large amounts of funds needed to suppress large wildfires are a small fraction of the total economic damage. Nationally, in the USA, fire suppression, collateral infrastructure damage, urban destruction, and other wildfire mitigation efforts exceed the total management budgets of the state and federal agencies.

World ecosystems have been modified extensively by fire. We live on a "fire planet" [1, 2, 42]. With larger human populations and a changing, drying climate, the impact of fire on humans and the hazards faced by our natural and developed world will continue to increase. The increase in wildfire hazards in the twenty-first century will require higher levels of training, increased investments in wildfire personnel and infrastructure, greater wildfire awareness, and improved planning to reduce fire impacts.

#### **Acknowledgements**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

systems begin the slow process of recovery, often punctuated by reoccurring disturbance events such as flooding or even subsequent fire events. At relatively small scales, the input of fire, even high-severity fire, can introduce heterogeneity into a landscape that can be beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole, creating niches and freeing up resources for new species to establish in an area. However, there is a size threshold that once crossed starts to become an impediment to recovery and results in long-term loss of habitat suitability for specific species. For example, the loss of seed sources both in the soil bank and from mature plants for obligate seed species can have a limiting effect on the recolonization and distribution of many long-lived conifer species [53]. Similarly, the impact from flooding events on fragmented streams due to anthropogenic or natural barriers may make the recolonization of some aquatic species impossible and result in permanent extirpation [54]. In these cases, wildfire begins to act on a genetic level to influence the long-term stability and ecosystem function of an area. This poses a serious environmental hazard due to the permanent loss of important

*Post-fire runoff with high concentrations of sediment, ash, and charcoal, Rodeo-Chediski Fire, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona, 2002 (photo by Daniel G. Neary, Rocky Mountain Research* 

species in an ecosystem and increasing the risk of desertification [8].

Humans live in or adjacent to wildland ecosystems that burn periodically and are part of nearly all ecosystems that are in the pyrosphere. There are many hazards posed by wildfire and certain consequences of living in these ecosystems. Most are associated with wildfire but the increased use of prescribed fire is an issue because of associated risks with human attempts to manage ecological goals. The economic and social consequences of wildfire have been discussed by a number of authors [3, 5, 7, 42]. These consequences involve cultural and economic loss, social disruption, infrastructure damage, human injury and mortality, damage to natural resources, and deterioration in air quality. The economic and human health and safety costs are on the rise due to increasing wildland-urban interface problems and extreme wildfire behavior brought on by climate change. In the past, urban fires have been the greatest threat to human

With modern fire control organizations in cities, the greatest hazard has shifted to wildlands. The Miramichi Fire in Canada's eastern woodlands in 1825 may have killed 3000. In the USA, the most devastating wildland wildfire known was the

**5. Summary and conclusions**

health and safety killing over 100,000 people.

**70**

**Figure 7.**

*Station, USDA Forest Service).*

The authors would like to thank the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air-Water-Aquatic Environments Research Program, and the Program Manager, Frank McCormick, for support of this effort.

#### **Conflict of interest**

There are no "Conflicts of Interest" associated with this paper. It was produced by US Forest Service employees during normal work hours and on appropriated funding.

#### **Author details**

Daniel G. Neary\* and Jackson M. Leonard USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water, Aquatic Environments Program, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: dan.neary@usda.gov

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Pyne SJ, Andrews PL, Laven RD. Introduction to Wildland Fire. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996. 769 p

[2] Scott AC. The pre-quaternary history of fire. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 2000;**164**:281-329

[3] DeBano LF, Neary DG, Ffolliott PF. Fire's Effects on Ecosystems. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998. 333 p

[4] Monastersky R. The human age. Nature. 2015;**519**:144-147

[5] Neary DG, Leonard JM. In: Bento A, Vieira A, editors. Multiple Ecosystem Impacts of Wildfire, Wildland Fires—A Worldwide Reality. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2015. pp. 1-79

[6] Harvey AE. Integrated roles for insects, diseases and decomposers in fire dominated forests of the inland Western United States: Past, present and future forest health. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 1994;**2**:211-220

[7] Neary DG, Ryan KC, DeBano LF, editors. Fire effects on soil and water. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. Vol. 4. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2005. 250 p

[8] Neary DG. Wildfire contribution to desertification at local, regional, and global scales. In: Squires VR, Ariapour A, editors. Desertification. Hauppage, New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2018. pp. 199-222. ISBN-978-1-53614-212-9

[9] Liu Y, Stanturf J, Goodrick S. Trends in global wildfire potential in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management. 2018;**259**:685-697

[10] Doerr SH, Santin C. Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: Perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2016;**371**:1471-2970

[11] Dennison PE, Brower SC, Arnold JD, Moritz MA. Large wildfire trends in the western USA 1984- 2011. Geophysical Research Letters. 2014;**41**:2928-2933

[12] Shvidenko AZ, Shchepashchenko DG. Impact of wildfire in Russia between 1998-2010 on ecosystems and the global carbon budget. Doklady Earth Sciences. 2011;**441**:1678-1682

[13] Calkin DE, Gebort KM, Jones JG, Neilson RP. Forest service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends 1970-2002. Journal of Forestry. 2005;**103**:179-2002

[14] Piñol J, Terradas J, Lloret F. Climate warming, wildfire hazard, and wildfire occurrence in coastal eastern Spain. Climatic Change. 1998;**38**:345-357

[15] Brown JK, Smith JK. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Floral. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. Vol. 2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 1998. 257 p

[16] Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, de Groot WJ, Wotton BM, Gowman LM. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2009;**18**:483-507

[17] Sanford RL, Saldarriga J, Clark K, Uhl C, Herra R. Amazon rain forest fires. Science. 1985;**227**:53-55

[18] Uhl C. Perspectives on wildfire in the humid tropics. Conservation Biology. 2008;**12**:942-943

[19] Hardy CC, Schmidt KM, Menakis JP, Sampson RN. Spatial data for national

**73**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

Ecosystems. Scope 18. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1983. pp. 65-80

[28] Withington J. A Disastrous History of the World. London: Piatkus Books;

[29] Wein RW, Moore JM. Fire history and rotations in the New Brunswick Acadian forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1977;**7**:285-294

[30] National Interagency Fire Center. 2019. Available from: https://www.nifc. gov/safety/safety\_documents/Fatalities-

[31] Cruz MG, Sullivan AL, Gould JS, Sims NC, Bannister AJ, Hollis JJ, et al. Anatomy of a catastrophic wildfire: The black Saturday Kilmore East fire in Victoria, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management. 2012;**284**:269-285

[32] Evarts B. Fire Loss in the United States During 2017. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association;

[33] Reyes-Velarde A. California's camp fire was the costliest global disaster last year, insurance report show. Los Angeles Times. 2019;**11**. Available from: www. latimes.com [Accessed: February 22,

[34] Ding A. Charting the Financial Damage of the Thomas Fire. 2018. The Bottom Line. Accessed: [February 22,

[35] Benfield A. California Wildfire Industry Losses Put at \$13.2bn. Artemis. 2018. Available from: www.artemis.bm

[36] British Columbia Fire Information. Available from: http://bcfireinfo.for.gov. bc.ca/hprScripts/WildfireNews/Statistics. asp. [Accessed: February 22, 2019]

[37] Sandberg DV, Ottmar RD, Peterson JL, Core J. Wildland Fire on Ecosystems:

[Accessed: February 22, 2019]

2008. 391 p

by-Year.pdf

2018. 18 p

2019]

2019]

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire.

[20] Frost CC. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: A first approximation. In: Pruden TL, Brennan L, editors. Fire in Ecosystem Management: Shifting Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription. Proceedings; Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference; 1996 May 7-10. Vol. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research

Station; 1998. pp. 70-81

Fennica. 2002;**36**:13-39

Management. 2003;**176**:1-12

Press; 1991. pp. 197-202

Wildland Fire. 1995;**5**:81-91

Research. 1966;**2**:36-45

Forest Research. 1971;**5**:1-8

[23] Stocks BJ. The extent and impact of forest fires in northern circumpolar countries. In: Levine JS, editor. Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric Climate and Biosphere Implications. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[24] Albini FA, Reinhardt ED. Modeling ignition and burning rate of large woody natural fuels. International Journal of

[25] McArthur AG, Cheney NP. The characterization of fires in relation to ecological studies. Australian Forest

[26] Packham D, Pompe A. The radiation temperatures of forest fires. Australian

[27] van Wagner CE. Fire behavior in northern conifer forests and shrublands. In: Wein RW, MacLean DA, editors. The Role of Fire in Northern Circumpolar

[21] Ryan KC. Dynamic interactions between forest structure and fire behavior in boreal ecosystems. Silva

[22] Kauffman JB, Steele MD, Cummings D, Jaramillo VJ. Biomass dynamics associated with deforestation, fire, and conversion to cattle pasture in a Mexican tropical dry forest. Forest Ecology and

2001;**10**:353-372

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2001;**10**:353-372

[20] Frost CC. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: A first approximation. In: Pruden TL, Brennan L, editors. Fire in Ecosystem Management: Shifting Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription. Proceedings; Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference; 1996 May 7-10. Vol. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station; 1998. pp. 70-81

[21] Ryan KC. Dynamic interactions between forest structure and fire behavior in boreal ecosystems. Silva Fennica. 2002;**36**:13-39

[22] Kauffman JB, Steele MD, Cummings D, Jaramillo VJ. Biomass dynamics associated with deforestation, fire, and conversion to cattle pasture in a Mexican tropical dry forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2003;**176**:1-12

[23] Stocks BJ. The extent and impact of forest fires in northern circumpolar countries. In: Levine JS, editor. Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric Climate and Biosphere Implications. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press; 1991. pp. 197-202

[24] Albini FA, Reinhardt ED. Modeling ignition and burning rate of large woody natural fuels. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 1995;**5**:81-91

[25] McArthur AG, Cheney NP. The characterization of fires in relation to ecological studies. Australian Forest Research. 1966;**2**:36-45

[26] Packham D, Pompe A. The radiation temperatures of forest fires. Australian Forest Research. 1971;**5**:1-8

[27] van Wagner CE. Fire behavior in northern conifer forests and shrublands. In: Wein RW, MacLean DA, editors. The Role of Fire in Northern Circumpolar

Ecosystems. Scope 18. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1983. pp. 65-80

[28] Withington J. A Disastrous History of the World. London: Piatkus Books; 2008. 391 p

[29] Wein RW, Moore JM. Fire history and rotations in the New Brunswick Acadian forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1977;**7**:285-294

[30] National Interagency Fire Center. 2019. Available from: https://www.nifc. gov/safety/safety\_documents/Fatalitiesby-Year.pdf

[31] Cruz MG, Sullivan AL, Gould JS, Sims NC, Bannister AJ, Hollis JJ, et al. Anatomy of a catastrophic wildfire: The black Saturday Kilmore East fire in Victoria, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management. 2012;**284**:269-285

[32] Evarts B. Fire Loss in the United States During 2017. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2018. 18 p

[33] Reyes-Velarde A. California's camp fire was the costliest global disaster last year, insurance report show. Los Angeles Times. 2019;**11**. Available from: www. latimes.com [Accessed: February 22, 2019]

[34] Ding A. Charting the Financial Damage of the Thomas Fire. 2018. The Bottom Line. Accessed: [February 22, 2019]

[35] Benfield A. California Wildfire Industry Losses Put at \$13.2bn. Artemis. 2018. Available from: www.artemis.bm [Accessed: February 22, 2019]

[36] British Columbia Fire Information. Available from: http://bcfireinfo.for.gov. bc.ca/hprScripts/WildfireNews/Statistics. asp. [Accessed: February 22, 2019]

[37] Sandberg DV, Ottmar RD, Peterson JL, Core J. Wildland Fire on Ecosystems:

**72**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

versus realities in a changing world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

[11] Dennison PE, Brower SC, Arnold JD, Moritz MA. Large wildfire trends in the western USA 1984- 2011. Geophysical Research Letters.

[12] Shvidenko AZ, Shchepashchenko DG. Impact of wildfire in Russia between 1998-2010 on ecosystems and the global carbon budget. Doklady Earth

[13] Calkin DE, Gebort KM, Jones JG, Neilson RP. Forest service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends 1970-2002. Journal of Forestry.

[14] Piñol J, Terradas J, Lloret F. Climate warming, wildfire hazard, and wildfire occurrence in coastal eastern Spain. Climatic Change. 1998;**38**:345-357

[15] Brown JK, Smith JK. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Floral. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. Vol. 2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

[16] Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, de Groot WJ, Wotton BM, Gowman LM. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire.

[17] Sanford RL, Saldarriga J, Clark K, Uhl C, Herra R. Amazon rain forest fires. Science. 1985;**227**:53-55

[18] Uhl C. Perspectives on wildfire in the humid tropics. Conservation

[19] Hardy CC, Schmidt KM, Menakis JP, Sampson RN. Spatial data for national

Biology. 2008;**12**:942-943

Sciences. 2011;**441**:1678-1682

Society B. 2016;**371**:1471-2970

2014;**41**:2928-2933

2005;**103**:179-2002

Station; 1998. 257 p

2009;**18**:483-507

[1] Pyne SJ, Andrews PL, Laven RD. Introduction to Wildland Fire. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996. 769 p

[2] Scott AC. The pre-quaternary history of fire. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.

[3] DeBano LF, Neary DG, Ffolliott PF. Fire's Effects on Ecosystems. New York:

[4] Monastersky R. The human age.

Worldwide Reality. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers;

[6] Harvey AE. Integrated roles for insects, diseases and decomposers in fire dominated forests of the inland Western United States: Past, present and future forest health. Journal of Sustainable

[7] Neary DG, Ryan KC, DeBano LF, editors. Fire effects on soil and water. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. Vol. 4. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research

[8] Neary DG. Wildfire contribution to desertification at local, regional, and global scales. In: Squires VR, Ariapour A, editors. Desertification. Hauppage, New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2018. pp. 199-222. ISBN-978-1-53614-212-9

[9] Liu Y, Stanturf J, Goodrick S. Trends

[10] Doerr SH, Santin C. Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: Perceptions

in global wildfire potential in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management. 2018;**259**:685-697

Forestry. 1994;**2**:211-220

Station; 2005. 250 p

[5] Neary DG, Leonard JM. In: Bento A, Vieira A, editors. Multiple Ecosystem Impacts of Wildfire, Wildland Fires—A

John Wiley & Sons; 1998. 333 p

Nature. 2015;**519**:144-147

2015. pp. 1-79

2000;**164**:281-329

**References**

Effects of Fire on Air. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. Vol. 5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2002. 79 p

[38] Liu X, Huey LG, Yokelson RJ, Selimovic V, Simpson IJ, Müller M, et al. Airborne measurements of western US wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres. 2017;**122**:6108-6129

[39] Sandberg DV, Hardy CC, Ottmar RD, Snell JA, Kendall JA, Acheson A, et al. National Strategic Plan: Modeling and Data Systems for Wildland Fire and Air Quality. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station; 1999. 60 p

[40] World Health Organization. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91; 2000. 251 p

[41] Ministry for the Environment. Revised National Environmental Standards for Air Quality—Evaluation under Section 32 of the Resource Management Act. Publication No. ME-1041, Ministry of the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. 2011; 39 p

[42] Pyne SJ. Fire: Nature and Culture. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press; 2012. 207 p

[43] Booze TF, Reinhardt TE. A screening-level assessment of the health risks of chronic smoke exposure for wildland firefighters. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2004;**1**:296-305

[44] Combrink T, Cothran C, Fox W. Issues in Forest Restoration: Full Cost Accounting of the 2010 Schultz Fire. Ecological Restoration Institute White Paper, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona; 2013

[45] Brass JA, Ambrosia VG, Riggan PJ, Sebesta PD. Consequences of fire on aquatic nitrate and phosphate dynamics in Yellowstone National Park. In: Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 1996. pp. 53-57

[46] Gerla P, Galloway J. Water quality of two streams near Yellowstone Park, Wyoming following the 1988 clovermist wildfire. Environmental Geology. 1998;**36**(1):127-136

[47] Hauer F, Spencer C. Phosphorus and nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with wildfire: A study of immediate and longterm effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 1998;**8**(4):183-198

[48] Bladon KD, Silins U, Wagner MJ, Stone M, Emelko MB, Mendoza CA, et al. Wildfire impacts on nitrogen concentration and production from headwater streams in southern Alberta's Rocky mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2008;**38**:2359-2371

[49] Mahlum SK, Eby LA, Young MK, Clancy CG, Jakober M. Effects of wildfire on stream temperatures in the Bitterroot River basin, Montana. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2011;**20**:240-247

[50] Rhoades CC, Entwistle D, Butler D. The influence of wildfire extent and severity on streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman fire, Colorado. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2011;**20**:430-442

[51] Leonard JM, Magana HA, Bangert RK, Neary DG, Montgomery WL. Fire and floods: The recovery of headwater stream systems following high-severity wildfire. Fire Ecology. 2017;**13**:62-84

**75**

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

[52] Rugenski AT, Minshall GW. Climate-moderated responses to wildfire by macroinvertebrates and basal food resources in montane wilderness streams. Ecosphere.

[53] Gray AG, Jenkins MJ. Climate warming alters fuels across elevational gradients in Great Basin bristlecone pine-dominated sky island forest. Forest Ecology and Management.

[54] Rinne J. Short-term effects of wildfire on fishes and aquatic

United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

macroinvertebrates in the southwestern

2014;**5**(3):25

2017;**392**:125-136

1996;**16**:653-658

*Physical Vulnerabilities from Wildfires: Flames, Floods, and Debris Flows DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87203*

[52] Rugenski AT, Minshall GW. Climate-moderated responses to wildfire by macroinvertebrates and basal food resources in montane wilderness streams. Ecosphere. 2014;**5**(3):25

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

Paper, Northern Arizona University,

[45] Brass JA, Ambrosia VG, Riggan PJ, Sebesta PD. Consequences of fire on aquatic nitrate and phosphate dynamics in Yellowstone National Park. In: Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference on the Greater Yellowstone

[46] Gerla P, Galloway J. Water quality of two streams near Yellowstone Park, Wyoming following the 1988 clovermist wildfire. Environmental Geology.

[47] Hauer F, Spencer C. Phosphorus and nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with wildfire: A study of immediate and longterm effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire.

[48] Bladon KD, Silins U, Wagner MJ, Stone M, Emelko MB, Mendoza CA, et al. Wildfire impacts on nitrogen concentration and production from headwater streams in southern Alberta's Rocky mountains.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

[49] Mahlum SK, Eby LA, Young MK, Clancy CG, Jakober M. Effects of wildfire on stream temperatures in the Bitterroot River basin, Montana. International Journal of Wildland Fire.

[50] Rhoades CC, Entwistle D, Butler D. The influence of wildfire extent and severity on streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman fire, Colorado. International Journal of Wildland Fire.

[51] Leonard JM, Magana HA, Bangert RK, Neary DG, Montgomery WL. Fire and floods: The recovery of headwater stream systems following high-severity wildfire. Fire Ecology. 2017;**13**:62-84

Flagstaff, Arizona; 2013

Ecosystem. 1996. pp. 53-57

1998;**36**(1):127-136

1998;**8**(4):183-198

2008;**38**:2359-2371

2011;**20**:240-247

2011;**20**:430-442

Effects of Fire on Air. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. Vol. 5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2002. 79 p

[38] Liu X, Huey LG, Yokelson RJ, Selimovic V, Simpson IJ, Müller M, et al. Airborne measurements of western US wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

[39] Sandberg DV, Hardy CC, Ottmar RD, Snell JA, Kendall JA, Acheson A,

[40] World Health Organization. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications, European Series,

[41] Ministry for the Environment. Revised National Environmental Standards for Air Quality—Evaluation under Section 32 of the Resource Management Act. Publication No. ME-1041, Ministry of the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. 2011; 39 p

[42] Pyne SJ. Fire: Nature and Culture. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago

[43] Booze TF, Reinhardt TE. A screening-level assessment of the health risks of chronic smoke exposure for wildland firefighters. Journal of Occupational and Environmental

[44] Combrink T, Cothran C, Fox W. Issues in Forest Restoration: Full Cost Accounting of the 2010 Schultz Fire. Ecological Restoration Institute White

Hygiene. 2004;**1**:296-305

et al. National Strategic Plan: Modeling and Data Systems for Wildland Fire and Air Quality. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station;

2017;**122**:6108-6129

1999. 60 p

No. 91; 2000. 251 p

Press; 2012. 207 p

**74**

[53] Gray AG, Jenkins MJ. Climate warming alters fuels across elevational gradients in Great Basin bristlecone pine-dominated sky island forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2017;**392**:125-136

[54] Rinne J. Short-term effects of wildfire on fishes and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the southwestern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 1996;**16**:653-658

**Chapter 4**

*Oddvar Skre*

**1. Introduction**

**77**

germinate more easily after a fire.

**Abstract**

Succession after Fire in a Coastal

Biomass and chemical composition in six dominant field and bottom layer species have been recorded for 5 years after a wildfire in a coastal pine forest in Sveio, West Norway, in June 1992. As a follow-up of this study, the percentage coverage of field and bottom layer species and the regeneration of main tree species (*Pinus sylvestris*, *Betula pubescens,* and *Salix* spp.) were recorded in 1997, 2001, and 2008. Preliminary results indicate that the three dominant field layer species, *Calluna vulgaris, Molinia caerulea,* and *Pteridium aquilinum*, had expanded at the

expense of other species, in particular *Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea*, *Deschampsia flexuosa,* and pioneer moss species, for example, *Polytrichum* spp. Seedlings of pine and saplings of birch and other deciduous species had established in the burned areas, and the succession of these species was followed and compared with nearby control plots. The strong growth of *Calluna vulgaris* after the fire indicates that periodic controlled burning may be an alternative management method of balancing carbon uptake rates in coastal areas of western Norway.

**Keywords:** succession, fire, coastal pine, coverage, regeneration

Forest fires have become more common recently as a result of climatic change resulting in warmer and drier summers. However, their effects are not only negative. The reason is that a forest fire makes nutrients more available, by increasing decomposition rates in the forest floor, removing trees and makes light more accessible for plants in the field and bottom layer [1, 2]. Many plant and insect species are dependent on periodic fires in order to survive, and in Norway, as many as 40 redlisted species are related to forest fires [3]. Forest fires may also remove competition from some species, thereby favoring others [4]. Finally, some species like the heather (*Calluna vulgaris*) and the herb *Geranium bohemicum* have seeds that are activated by fire [5, 6]. Most pine species like the coastal *Pinus sylvestris* growing in Fennoscandia are adapted to fire in the sense that they reproduce by seeds, which

In an earlier study [7], biomass and chemical composition in six dominant field and bottom layer species was recorded for 5 years after a wildfire in a coastal pine forest in Sveio, West Norway, in 1992, as compared with a control site outside of the burned area. As a follow-up of this study, the percentage coverage of field and bottom layer species and the regeneration of main tree species (*Pinus sylvestris, Betula pubescens,* and *Salix* spp.) were recorded in 1997, 2001, and 2008. The

Pine Forest in Norway

#### **Chapter 4**

## Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway

*Oddvar Skre*

#### **Abstract**

Biomass and chemical composition in six dominant field and bottom layer species have been recorded for 5 years after a wildfire in a coastal pine forest in Sveio, West Norway, in June 1992. As a follow-up of this study, the percentage coverage of field and bottom layer species and the regeneration of main tree species (*Pinus sylvestris*, *Betula pubescens,* and *Salix* spp.) were recorded in 1997, 2001, and 2008. Preliminary results indicate that the three dominant field layer species, *Calluna vulgaris, Molinia caerulea,* and *Pteridium aquilinum*, had expanded at the expense of other species, in particular *Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea*, *Deschampsia flexuosa,* and pioneer moss species, for example, *Polytrichum* spp. Seedlings of pine and saplings of birch and other deciduous species had established in the burned areas, and the succession of these species was followed and compared with nearby control plots. The strong growth of *Calluna vulgaris* after the fire indicates that periodic controlled burning may be an alternative management method of balancing carbon uptake rates in coastal areas of western Norway.

**Keywords:** succession, fire, coastal pine, coverage, regeneration

#### **1. Introduction**

Forest fires have become more common recently as a result of climatic change resulting in warmer and drier summers. However, their effects are not only negative. The reason is that a forest fire makes nutrients more available, by increasing decomposition rates in the forest floor, removing trees and makes light more accessible for plants in the field and bottom layer [1, 2]. Many plant and insect species are dependent on periodic fires in order to survive, and in Norway, as many as 40 redlisted species are related to forest fires [3]. Forest fires may also remove competition from some species, thereby favoring others [4]. Finally, some species like the heather (*Calluna vulgaris*) and the herb *Geranium bohemicum* have seeds that are activated by fire [5, 6]. Most pine species like the coastal *Pinus sylvestris* growing in Fennoscandia are adapted to fire in the sense that they reproduce by seeds, which germinate more easily after a fire.

In an earlier study [7], biomass and chemical composition in six dominant field and bottom layer species was recorded for 5 years after a wildfire in a coastal pine forest in Sveio, West Norway, in 1992, as compared with a control site outside of the burned area. As a follow-up of this study, the percentage coverage of field and bottom layer species and the regeneration of main tree species (*Pinus sylvestris, Betula pubescens,* and *Salix* spp.) were recorded in 1997, 2001, and 2008. The

present study was carried out as part of an integrated study on the rate of succession after fire in coastal pine and heath vegetation types. Although the total amounts of nutrients in soil may decrease as a result of the fire [8], their availability may be temporarily increased by conversion from organic to inorganic forms [9], leading to increased availability of nutrients during several years due to leaching [10]. According to Moe [11], a number of pine trees in the study site survived the fire and produced the seeds that were able to regenerate due to improved light and soil conditions (cf. [12, 13]). Because of the improved light and nutrient conditions, increased productivity was expected on short term in the burned areas. Experiments with pine [14] have shown that controlled burning may be a more successful method of regeneration of *Pinus sylvestris* than, for example, clear cutting.

The reproduction and establishment of vascular plants after a forest fire may take place in three ways, for example, (1) by the transport and spreading of seeds from surviving mother trees, (2) by germination from a seed bank, and (3) by vegetative reproduction from surviving roots, rhizomes, and stumps. In the present study, the further growth and succession rates of the most common trees and field layer species were followed up by comparing results from 1998, 2001, and 2008 with the results from the initial 5 years of succession after the fire in 1992 [7].

Based on the abovementioned relationships, the objectives of the present study may be formulated as follows:


seedlings of *Pinus sylvestris, Betula pubescens*, and *Salix* spp. was recorded in 1995, 2001, and 2008, as well as tree density on 10 by 10 m plots and the stem base diameter (mm), age, and total height (cm). The following field layer species were recorded: *Calluna vulgaris, Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, Pteridium aquilinum, Deschampsia flexuosa, Molinia caerulea*, and the mosses *Polytrichum commune* and *P. juniperinum*. The number of shoots per m<sup>2</sup> in pure stands were extrapolated from sampling squares of 10 by 10 cm (*Calluna, Deschampsia, Polytrichum*), 20 by 20 cm (*Vaccinium*), or 1 by 1 m (*Pteridium*). The overall biomass per unit area was then

*Map of Norway showing the location of the study area (left). The six study sites are classified on the small-scale (1:15,000) map over the burned study area (right), as follows: low fire intensity (1–2), medium fire intensity (3–4), and high fire intensity (5–6). The control site was located about 500 m outside and west of the burned*

corresponding percentage cover of each species (cf. [7]). The method was tested out by harvesting random samples of each species by ordinary sampling method using a core with known surface area [15]. In the present study, the results are given as

In earlier studies, the biomass per shoot or leaf (*Pteridium*) in most cases was not found to be significantly different from the control plot and was therefore used to estimate the overall biomass of field layer species (cf. [7]). In this study, the shoot density, height, and diameter growth was tested by ordinary statistical methods by

The observations of the sample plots in 1997, 2001, and 2008 confirmed the results from the short-term study [7]. The overall biomass of main field layer species was therefore estimated using the mentioned indirect method [15] where the biomass per shoot was multiplied with the shoot density and the coverage of the same species. The shoot density in pure stands is shown in **Table 1**, where the numbers in the table are referring to the size of the sample plots in cm2 (10 by 10 cm vs. 20 by 20 cm or 100 by 100 cm). **Table 1** shows a strong increase in shoot density

estimated by multiplying the calculated biomass in pure stands with the

using variance analysis [16] in order to find significant differences.

mean values (*n* = 5) from each of the six study sites.

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

**3. Results and discussion**

**79**

**Figure 1.**

*area.*

• What are the implications of the present study for the long-term carbon balance?

#### **2. Materials and methods**

The forest fire took place in June 1992 south and west of Hopsfjellet in Sveio, western Norway after an extremely warm and dry period. The burned site covered an area of about 300 ha and is located at 59°30<sup>0</sup> N, 5°20<sup>0</sup> E (see **Figure 1**). Mean temperatures (1961–1990) vary from 2°C in February to 14°C in August, with annual precipitation about 2000 mm [8]. Different parts of the area burned with different intensities [11], depending on soil depth and humidity*. Calluna* heaths dominated in the dry parts of the burned site, while *Vaccinium myrtillus* was more common on moist sites with deeper soil system. The topography is rather variable, and the thickness of the humus layer varied from <2 cm in the most dry and nutrient-poor areas to >20 cm where peat accumulation had taken place. In some cases, the mineral soil was almost absent, and the dry humus layer was burned off, leaving the underlying rock exposed. The fire intensity reached its maximum in these areas, while areas with high water level in soil were relatively little damaged by surface fire [13]. Six representative plots of 10 by 10 m size were established in 1993, covering the whole range of fire intensities.

**Growth estimation**. Instead of destructive biomass sampling of field layer species, the growth was estimated by measuring the percentage coverage and the corresponding shoot density in pure stands of the same species in 1997 and 2001. From these two parameters and estimates of biomass per shoot (**Table 3**), the total biomass per area was estimated (cf. [15]). The percentage coverage of regenerating

#### **Figure 1.**

present study was carried out as part of an integrated study on the rate of succession after fire in coastal pine and heath vegetation types. Although the total amounts of nutrients in soil may decrease as a result of the fire [8], their availability may be temporarily increased by conversion from organic to inorganic forms [9], leading to

According to Moe [11], a number of pine trees in the study site survived the fire and produced the seeds that were able to regenerate due to improved light and soil conditions (cf. [12, 13]). Because of the improved light and nutrient conditions, increased productivity was expected on short term in the burned areas. Experiments with pine [14] have shown that controlled burning may be a more successful

The reproduction and establishment of vascular plants after a forest fire may take place in three ways, for example, (1) by the transport and spreading of seeds from surviving mother trees, (2) by germination from a seed bank, and (3) by vegetative reproduction from surviving roots, rhizomes, and stumps. In the present study, the further growth and succession rates of the most common trees and field layer species were followed up by comparing results from 1998, 2001, and 2008 with the results from the initial 5 years of succession after the fire in 1992 [7].

Based on the abovementioned relationships, the objectives of the present study

• How has the growth of the main tree and field layer species changed in terms of

• Will the total plant biomass and productivity change permanently as a result of

• What are the implications of the present study for the long-term carbon

The forest fire took place in June 1992 south and west of Hopsfjellet in Sveio, western Norway after an extremely warm and dry period. The burned site covered an area of about 300 ha and is located at 59°30<sup>0</sup> N, 5°20<sup>0</sup> E (see **Figure 1**). Mean temperatures (1961–1990) vary from 2°C in February to 14°C in August, with annual precipitation about 2000 mm [8]. Different parts of the area burned with different intensities [11], depending on soil depth and humidity*. Calluna* heaths dominated in the dry parts of the burned site, while *Vaccinium myrtillus* was more common on moist sites with deeper soil system. The topography is rather variable, and the thickness of the humus layer varied from <2 cm in the most dry and nutrient-poor areas to >20 cm where peat accumulation had taken place. In some cases, the mineral soil was almost absent, and the dry humus layer was burned off, leaving the underlying rock exposed. The fire intensity reached its maximum in these areas, while areas with high water level in soil were relatively little damaged by surface fire [13]. Six representative plots of 10 by 10 m size were established in

**Growth estimation**. Instead of destructive biomass sampling of field layer species, the growth was estimated by measuring the percentage coverage and the corresponding shoot density in pure stands of the same species in 1997 and 2001. From these two parameters and estimates of biomass per shoot (**Table 3**), the total biomass per area was estimated (cf. [15]). The percentage coverage of regenerating

increased availability of nutrients during several years due to leaching [10].

method of regeneration of *Pinus sylvestris* than, for example, clear cutting.

may be formulated as follows:

**2. Materials and methods**

the fire?

balance?

**78**

percentage cover and biomass?

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

1993, covering the whole range of fire intensities.

*Map of Norway showing the location of the study area (left). The six study sites are classified on the small-scale (1:15,000) map over the burned study area (right), as follows: low fire intensity (1–2), medium fire intensity (3–4), and high fire intensity (5–6). The control site was located about 500 m outside and west of the burned area.*

seedlings of *Pinus sylvestris, Betula pubescens*, and *Salix* spp. was recorded in 1995, 2001, and 2008, as well as tree density on 10 by 10 m plots and the stem base diameter (mm), age, and total height (cm). The following field layer species were recorded: *Calluna vulgaris, Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, Pteridium aquilinum, Deschampsia flexuosa, Molinia caerulea*, and the mosses *Polytrichum commune* and *P. juniperinum*. The number of shoots per m<sup>2</sup> in pure stands were extrapolated from sampling squares of 10 by 10 cm (*Calluna, Deschampsia, Polytrichum*), 20 by 20 cm (*Vaccinium*), or 1 by 1 m (*Pteridium*). The overall biomass per unit area was then estimated by multiplying the calculated biomass in pure stands with the corresponding percentage cover of each species (cf. [7]). The method was tested out by harvesting random samples of each species by ordinary sampling method using a core with known surface area [15]. In the present study, the results are given as mean values (*n* = 5) from each of the six study sites.

In earlier studies, the biomass per shoot or leaf (*Pteridium*) in most cases was not found to be significantly different from the control plot and was therefore used to estimate the overall biomass of field layer species (cf. [7]). In this study, the shoot density, height, and diameter growth was tested by ordinary statistical methods by using variance analysis [16] in order to find significant differences.

#### **3. Results and discussion**

The observations of the sample plots in 1997, 2001, and 2008 confirmed the results from the short-term study [7]. The overall biomass of main field layer species was therefore estimated using the mentioned indirect method [15] where the biomass per shoot was multiplied with the shoot density and the coverage of the same species. The shoot density in pure stands is shown in **Table 1**, where the numbers in the table are referring to the size of the sample plots in cm2 (10 by 10 cm vs. 20 by 20 cm or 100 by 100 cm). **Table 1** shows a strong increase in shoot density of *Calluna vulgaris* and a moderate increase in *V. myrtillus* during the period of 1997–2001. In the other species, the shoot density was decreasing, and in *Deschampsia flexuosa* partly missing (see **Table 1**).

**Biomass estimates**. There was a significant increase from 1993 to 1995 (cf. [7]) in biomass per shoot in green and nongreen *Pteridium*, and in nongreen *Calluna vulgaris* tissue, and a corresponding decrease in green tissue of *Calluna* and *Deschampsia*, and nongreen *V. myrtillus* and *V. vitis-idaea*. During the following period, from 1995 to 2001, however, there were no significant changes in biomass per shoot in any of the investigated species (**Table 2**). The mean values of this parameter were therefore used to estimate the overall biomass of green and nongreen tissue in each species in 1995, 1997, and 2001.

The mean estimated biomass in g/m<sup>2</sup> of each of the investigated species was shown in **Figure 2**. From this figure, it may be concluded:


The *Calluna* biomass increased strongly during the whole period, due to a combined effect of increased shoot density and increased coverage. The green biomass in the *Calluna* regrowth after the fire was still very high in 2001, with a shoot/root ratio of 3.7, while the corresponding value was 0.5 at the control plot. The *Calluna vulgaris* has probably been enhanced by a high number of seeds that were present in the soil already before the fire (e.g., [17, 18]) and activated by the fire and better light and nutrient conditions [8]. This result was also confirmed by Måren [19] and Måren and Vandvik [6], who studied the succession after a controlled fire in a coastal heathland and found that seed germination in *Calluna* could be stimulated by smoke and ash from the fire. They also found that the seed bank in the soil was acting as a refuge and was not influenced by the management with prescribed burning (cf. [20]).

**Coverage of main species**. The coverage (%) of the main field layer species in 2001 and 2008 (**Table 3**) was recorded and compared with earlier measurements from 1995 [7]. There was a strong increase in the coverage of *Calluna vulgaris* and in the two *Vaccinium* species (*V. myrtillus* and *V, vitis-idaea*) as well as in the bracken (*Pteridium aquilinum*) during the period from 1995 to 2001 and a moderate increase in the coverage of the grass species *Molinia caerulea*. During the following period from 2001 to 2008, there was a further moderate increase in the coverage of these species, but in *Deschampsia flexuosa* and *Polytrichum* spp., the coverage was decreasing during the whole period. The coverage of *Pinus sylvestris* and *Betula pubescens* seedlings increased during the same period, from 22 to 28%. The total coverage increased strongly from 83 to 152% during the period of 1995–2001, but during the following period up to 2008, there was only a slight increase, from 152 to 157%. Strong variations were found in 2001 between sample plots, from a total of 109% on the nutrient-poor plot 5 to 223% on the mesotrophic plot 4 in accordance with soil conditions [21].

The coverage of *Calluna* was more than 50% already in 2001, and strong competition between the well-adapted *Calluna* and more slow-growing plants seemed **Species/plot**

**81**

Calluna

V. myr

V. v-i Pteridium

D. flex Molinia Polytrichum

Pinus Betula

**Total**

**Table 1.** *Percentage*

 *coverage in field layer species, including pine and birch seedlings, at each of the six study sites during 1995–2008*

**83**

 **165**

 **223**

 **130**

 **135**

 **109**

 **119**

 **152**

 **157**

 **186**

 *(*n *= 5) with mean values, as compared with the control site (Ctr).*

 **156**

 **149**

 **98**

 **165**

 **157**

 **161**

7

 14

 4

 16

 4

 4

**10**

13

 20

 9

 11

 8

 11

**14**

14

 15

 5

 16

 6

 5

**12**

18

 14

 11

 8

 7

 12

**14**

45

20

 19

 13

 70

 16

 5

 2

 13

**20**

12

 23

 2

 5

 16

 2

**10**

2

7

 20

 12

 6

 13

 11

 0

**10**

13

 7

 3

 20

 11

 9

**11**

12

 15 6

 2

 10

 2

 2

 3

 3

**4**

0

 4

 3

000

**1**

4

 46

 22

 22

 19

 6

 10

**21**

36

 30

 24

 26

 1

 20

**23**

8

2

 11

 13

 14

 6

 3

 14

**11**

11

 10

 17

 14

 7

 3

**10**

10

4

 4

 3

 5

 0

 26

 10

**9**

3

 13

 2

 10

 30

 19

**13**

40

30

 48

 64

 56

 58

 48

 60

**54**

51

 60

 71

 55

 32

 78

**58**

20

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

> **1995**

**1**

 **2**

 **3**

 **4**

 **5**

 **6**

 **Mean**

 **1**

 **2**

 **3**

 **4**

 **5**

 **6**

 **Mean**

**2001**

**2008**

**Ctr**


#### *Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

of *Calluna vulgaris* and a moderate increase in *V. myrtillus* during the period of 1997–2001. In the other species, the shoot density was decreasing, and in

**Biomass estimates**. There was a significant increase from 1993 to 1995 (cf. [7]) in biomass per shoot in green and nongreen *Pteridium*, and in nongreen *Calluna vulgaris* tissue, and a corresponding decrease in green tissue of *Calluna* and *Deschampsia*, and nongreen *V. myrtillus* and *V. vitis-idaea*. During the following period, from 1995 to 2001, however, there were no significant changes in biomass per shoot in any of the investigated species (**Table 2**). The mean values of this parameter were therefore used to estimate the overall biomass of green and non-

The mean estimated biomass in g/m<sup>2</sup> of each of the investigated species was

• There was a strong increase in green and nongreen *Calluna* tissue during the period from 1993 to 2001 to a top level that is 3–7 times as high as in the control

• In the remaining six investigated species (*Vaccinium myrtillus*, *V. vitis-idaea*, *Pteridium aquilinum*, *Molinia caerulea,* and the moss *Polytrichum* spp*.*), the biomass in green and nongreen tissue increased from 1993 to 1997 and then decreased – but still at a higher level than in the control plots, except from

The *Calluna* biomass increased strongly during the whole period, due to a combined effect of increased shoot density and increased coverage. The green biomass in the *Calluna* regrowth after the fire was still very high in 2001, with a shoot/root ratio of 3.7, while the corresponding value was 0.5 at the control plot. The *Calluna vulgaris* has probably been enhanced by a high number of seeds that were present in the soil already before the fire (e.g., [17, 18]) and activated by the fire and better light and nutrient conditions [8]. This result was also confirmed by Måren [19] and Måren and Vandvik [6], who studied the succession after a controlled fire in a coastal heathland and found that seed germination in *Calluna* could be stimulated by smoke and ash from the fire. They also found that the seed bank in the soil was acting as a refuge and was not influenced by the management with

**Coverage of main species**. The coverage (%) of the main field layer species in 2001 and 2008 (**Table 3**) was recorded and compared with earlier measurements from 1995 [7]. There was a strong increase in the coverage of *Calluna vulgaris* and in the two *Vaccinium* species (*V. myrtillus* and *V, vitis-idaea*) as well as in the bracken (*Pteridium aquilinum*) during the period from 1995 to 2001 and a moderate increase in the coverage of the grass species *Molinia caerulea*. During the following period from 2001 to 2008, there was a further moderate increase in the coverage of these species, but in *Deschampsia flexuosa* and *Polytrichum* spp., the coverage was decreasing during the whole period. The coverage of *Pinus sylvestris* and *Betula pubescens* seedlings increased during the same period, from 22 to 28%. The total coverage increased strongly from 83 to 152% during the period of 1995–2001, but during the following period up to 2008, there was only a slight increase, from 152 to 157%. Strong variations were found in 2001 between sample plots, from a total of 109% on the nutrient-poor plot 5 to 223% on the mesotrophic plot 4 in accordance

The coverage of *Calluna* was more than 50% already in 2001, and strong competition between the well-adapted *Calluna* and more slow-growing plants seemed

*Deschampsia flexuosa* partly missing (see **Table 1**).

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

green tissue in each species in 1995, 1997, and 2001.

*Vaccinium vitis-idaea* (see **Figure 2**).

prescribed burning (cf. [20]).

with soil conditions [21].

**80**

shown in **Figure 2**. From this figure, it may be concluded:

plots, and the highest level was found in the green tissue.

**Table**

 *(Ctr).*

*Percentagecoverageinfieldlayerspecies,includingpineandbirchseedlings,ateachofthe six studysitesduring1995–2008(*n*=5)withmeanvalues,ascomparedwiththecontrolsite*


In the two moss species *Polytrichum commune* and *P. juniperinum,* there was also

*juniperinum* and *Ceratodon purpureus* [8] are dominating at the nutrient-poor sites 5 and 6 (see map on **Figure 1**), and in agreement with earlier reports [18] seem to

The present results agree well with the results from a short-term study on the succession in a pine forest in Mykland, southern Norway after a forest fire in 2008 [25]. They found strong *Pinus* regeneration already 4 years after the fire (cf. **Table 4**), and the corresponding mean height of pine seedlings was then 10–50 cm, while the mean height of pine seedlings in the present study 9 years after the fire (2001) was 190 cm. The four most common pioneer species after the fire were the same as in the present study, but in a different order. In the present study, *Calluna vulgaris* was the dominant species with about 30% coverage already 3 years after the fire (**Table 3**), while in the Mykland study, *Molinia caerulea* was the most abundant (5–15%), with *Calluna* only covering 2–4% 4 years after the fire [25]. In both studies, the *Polytrichum* moss species were very common during the first year after

**Long-term successions**. Due to a strong increase in the total plant cover during the three first years after the fire, and to a certain degree in the shoot density, there was a strong increase in the overall biomass (cf. **Figure 2**), in particular in *Calluna* and *Molinia caerulea*, but also to a certain degree in *Deschampsia, Polytrichum,* and *Pteridium*. This increase continued in 1997, but then it culminated in all the investigated species except *Calluna*, which was totally dominating in 2001, probably due to the improved light and nutrient conditions. As a result, a gradual increase took place also in the total plant cover in the field layer and reached 90% by 1995 and

**2001 2008**

**Species mg/shoot Green Non-green**

**Species/plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sum 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sum** Pinus 1.4 5.6 3.6 2.4 1.2 0.8 **2.5** 3.4 6.2 4.6 2.0 2.0 1.6 **3.3** Betula 0.8 2.4 1.8 3.0 0.6 1.4 **1.7** 2.2 6.4 1.6 4.0 1.6 1.4 **2.9** Salix 0.2 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 **0.6** 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.2 **0.1**

*Mean biomass in mg per shoot of green and non-green tissue of the investigated species, measured in 2001*

*Calluna vulgaris* 118 40 *Vaccinium myrtillus* 86 88 *Vaccinium vitis-idaea* 160 96 *Pteridium aquilinum* 7290 5500 *Desdhampsia flexuosa* 90 30 *Molinia caerula* 270 90 *Polytrichum* spp. 20 12

*Mean tree density (*n *= 5) of* Pinus sylvestris, Betula pubescens *and* Salix *spp. on 10 m<sup>2</sup> study sites at the six*

a strong increase in biomass after the fire. The pioneer mosses *Polytrichum*

culminate 2–3 years after the fire (**Table 3**).

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

the fire.

**Table 4.**

**83**

**Table 3.**

*(*n *= 30).*

*investigated study sites, measured in 2001 and 2008.*

#### **Table 2.**

*The density in pure stands of the investigated species at each of the six study sites in 1997 and 2001 (*n *= 5), as related to the size of the sample plots in cm<sup>2</sup> and the mean density per species.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Mean estimated overall biomass (g/m<sup>2</sup> ) in green and nongreen tissue of the investigated field layer species during the period from 1993 to 2001 as compared with control plants from an unburned area outside the fire.*

to have caused a slight decrease in light-dependent species like *Vaccinium myrtillus* and *Deschampsia flexuosa* after an initial rapid period of establishment after the fire. Unlike C*alluna*, the regeneration of the two *Vaccinium* species takes place mainly from surviving rhizomes, and a comparison with the control plots shows that the green biomass had been strongly reduced by the fire (e.g., [22]).

In addition to *Calluna vulgaris*, two other species seemed to have taken advantage of the fire, for example, the bracken *Pteridium aquilinum* and the lightsensitive grass *Deschampsia flexuosa*. Both of these species are reproducing vegetatively, the *Pteridium* by putting out a very deep rhizome network that can survive medium and low intensity fires [23] and producing large leaves that are able to compete successfully on light and nutrients. *Deschampsia* are surviving as resting buds in the upper soil layer [18, 24] that take advantage of improved light and nutrient conditions after the fire [8]. However, the long-term study indicates that increased competition after 2001 may have caused a strong reduction in growth and survival rates of *Deschampsia* (cf. [7]).

The coastal and oligotrophic grass species *Molinia caerulea* also survived the fire because of its deep root system and humid soil conditions. It was not shown in the samplings from the short-term study, but then its coverage increased strongly from 1995 to 2001 and then stayed constant (see **Table 3**). Like *Deschampsia, Pteridium,* and *Calluna*, the *Molinia* tussocks seem to be favored by improved light conditions and are reported to inhibit pine reproduction by removing access to the mineral soil layer [25].

In the two moss species *Polytrichum commune* and *P. juniperinum,* there was also a strong increase in biomass after the fire. The pioneer mosses *Polytrichum juniperinum* and *Ceratodon purpureus* [8] are dominating at the nutrient-poor sites 5 and 6 (see map on **Figure 1**), and in agreement with earlier reports [18] seem to culminate 2–3 years after the fire (**Table 3**).

The present results agree well with the results from a short-term study on the succession in a pine forest in Mykland, southern Norway after a forest fire in 2008 [25]. They found strong *Pinus* regeneration already 4 years after the fire (cf. **Table 4**), and the corresponding mean height of pine seedlings was then 10–50 cm, while the mean height of pine seedlings in the present study 9 years after the fire (2001) was 190 cm. The four most common pioneer species after the fire were the same as in the present study, but in a different order. In the present study, *Calluna vulgaris* was the dominant species with about 30% coverage already 3 years after the fire (**Table 3**), while in the Mykland study, *Molinia caerulea* was the most abundant (5–15%), with *Calluna* only covering 2–4% 4 years after the fire [25]. In both studies, the *Polytrichum* moss species were very common during the first year after the fire.

**Long-term successions**. Due to a strong increase in the total plant cover during the three first years after the fire, and to a certain degree in the shoot density, there was a strong increase in the overall biomass (cf. **Figure 2**), in particular in *Calluna* and *Molinia caerulea*, but also to a certain degree in *Deschampsia, Polytrichum,* and *Pteridium*. This increase continued in 1997, but then it culminated in all the investigated species except *Calluna*, which was totally dominating in 2001, probably due to the improved light and nutrient conditions. As a result, a gradual increase took place also in the total plant cover in the field layer and reached 90% by 1995 and


#### **Table 3.**

to have caused a slight decrease in light-dependent species like *Vaccinium myrtillus* and *Deschampsia flexuosa* after an initial rapid period of establishment after the fire. Unlike C*alluna*, the regeneration of the two *Vaccinium* species takes place mainly from surviving rhizomes, and a comparison with the control plots shows that the

*the period from 1993 to 2001 as compared with control plants from an unburned area outside the fire.*

*) in green and nongreen tissue of the investigated field layer species during*

**1997 2001 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean**

Calluna 100 97 118 98 84 117 79 **99** 155 143 122 156 168 151 **149** V. myr 400 142 121 76 135 85 126 **114** 98 166 92 166 107 127 **126** V. v-i 400 65 43 49 35 54 53 **50** 39 57 40 45 56 39 **46** Pteridium 10000 12 12 14 14 13 10 **13** 15 12 11 10 10 6 **11**

Molinia 100 39 40 36 41 42 34 **39** 31 26 29 26 28 **28** Polytrichum 100 113 98 70 139 128 73 **120** 72 104 127 112 114 63 **99**

*The density in pure stands of the investigated species at each of the six study sites in 1997 and 2001 (*n *= 5), as*

In addition to *Calluna vulgaris*, two other species seemed to have taken advan-

The coastal and oligotrophic grass species *Molinia caerulea* also survived the fire because of its deep root system and humid soil conditions. It was not shown in the samplings from the short-term study, but then its coverage increased strongly from 1995 to 2001 and then stayed constant (see **Table 3**). Like *Deschampsia, Pteridium,* and *Calluna*, the *Molinia* tussocks seem to be favored by improved light conditions and are reported to inhibit pine reproduction by removing access to the mineral soil layer [25].

tage of the fire, for example, the bracken *Pteridium aquilinum* and the lightsensitive grass *Deschampsia flexuosa*. Both of these species are reproducing vegetatively, the *Pteridium* by putting out a very deep rhizome network that can survive medium and low intensity fires [23] and producing large leaves that are able to compete successfully on light and nutrients. *Deschampsia* are surviving as resting buds in the upper soil layer [18, 24] that take advantage of improved light and nutrient conditions after the fire [8]. However, the long-term study indicates that increased competition after 2001 may have caused a strong reduction in growth and

green biomass had been strongly reduced by the fire (e.g., [22]).

survival rates of *Deschampsia* (cf. [7]).

**Species cm2**

**Table 2.**

**Figure 2.**

**82**

*Mean estimated overall biomass (g/m<sup>2</sup>*

**/ plot**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

D. flex 100 84 147 180 182 130 76 **150** 116

*related to the size of the sample plots in cm<sup>2</sup> and the mean density per species.*

*Mean biomass in mg per shoot of green and non-green tissue of the investigated species, measured in 2001 (*n *= 30).*


#### **Table 4.**

*Mean tree density (*n *= 5) of* Pinus sylvestris, Betula pubescens *and* Salix *spp. on 10 m<sup>2</sup> study sites at the six investigated study sites, measured in 2001 and 2008.*

150% by 1997 and then stayed constant (**Table 3**). The improved light and nutrient conditions may partly also be a result of the accumulation of dead organic matter after the fire, as reported by Vestmoen [26] and Nygaard and Brean [25], on a much higher scale, and by similar studies in Sweden [27, 28]. The total biomass of the investigated species in 2001 was much higher than the corresponding biomass at the control plot, mainly because of the strong growth of *Calluna*. However, with increasing competition for light, water, and nutrients, a decrease is expected in the production rates of the field layer. **Tables 4** and **5** indicate that in the future there will be more competition also from *Pinus* and *Betula* seedlings that are expected to gradually replace the more light-dependent species in the field layer (see **Figure 3**).

Further information on tree growth and development is shown in **Table 5**. The established seedlings and saplings showed a strong (50%) height and diameter growth during the period from 2001 to 2008 in both species. Finally, it is interesting to note that the recorded age (years) of the two tree species corresponded well with the observed age in 2001 but was considerably lower in 2008, indicating a certain seed regeneration from surviving mother trees also after the fire, in accordance with

**Carbon-binding capacity.** One of the implications of **Figure 2** is that on short term, the CO2-binding capacity of the forest is severely damaged as a result of the fire, but on longer terms (10–15 years), the reduction in CO2 uptake is partly compensated by the strong growth in aboveground green *Calluna* tissue. This conclusion is partly supported by results from coastal heathland studies (e.g., [19]) but not by Kjønaas et al. [29] in long-term successional studies on a spruce plantation in southeastern Norway as influenced by clear cutting. They found that the CO2 uptake in understorey biomass and litter during the first 10–15 years after a clear cut was of the same order as the corresponding annual CO2 output in the living tree biomass during the following succession, up to the mature stage of 130 years. **Table 3** indicates that the percentage coverage of *Calluna* 10–15 years after the fire is of the same order or higher than the combined coverage of the two dominating tree species (*Pinus sylvestris* and *Betula pubescens*) at the control plot. The much higher shoot/root ratio in young *Calluna* relative to old plants at the control plot (3.7 vs. 0.5) also indicates that regularly controlled burning at intervals, for example, 5 or 10 years as described by Måren [19] and Kaland [30], may be as efficient as, for example, spruce plantation in the carbon uptake process as climatic regulators. These results have also been supported by other studies from northern boreal forests, for example, by Ivanova et al. [31], Kukavskaya et al. [32], and Tarasov et al. [33] on succession after fire in Siberian pine forests. Also, other studies emphasize the function of forest fires in the process of recycling nutrients and speeding up regeneration, photosynthesis, and growth, including the CO2-binding

In line with the three objectives of the study, some species may have taken advantage of improved light and nutrient conditions after the fire. This refers particularly to the heather (*Calluna vulgaris*), which seems to be particularly well adapted to fire. In fact, the coastal heaths with pine forests in Norway have been regularly burned for more than 2000 years in order to enhance the growth of green *Calluna* tissue as food for animals [30] and to facilitate seed regeneration in pine [14]. However, the fire also favors other light-dependent species like *Pteridium aquilinum* and *Molinia caerulea*. According to, for example, Måren et al. [37], *Pteridium* is competing with *Calluna* on burned areas of coastal heathlands, but repeated cutting of *Pteridium* will help favoring *Calluna* growth. Furthermore, because seed regeneration of pine is favored by exposed mineral, the fire will increase pine regrowth and juvenilization. On the other hand, plants dependent on vegetative reproduction like *Vaccinium myrtillus* may be permanently

In some parts of the study site (plots 4 and 5), the humus layer and soil were almost burned off, and the regrowth may have been permanently restricted by lack of nutrients and water (**Figure 4**). In these areas, the succession process may take place over a very long time, after a new soil layer has been formed by mosses and other pioneer plants. But, on the remaining part of the study site, where water and

the results from a similar study by Nygaard and Brean [25].

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

capacity (e.g., [34, 35]; see also [36]).

**4. Conclusion**

suppressed [38].

**85**

The regrowth and density of trees in 2001 and 2008, that is, 9 and 16 years after the fire, are shown in **Tables 4** and **5**. Seedlings of *Pinus sylvestris* and saplings of surviving *Betula pubescens* seemed to have established at all plots in 2001, and there was a further increase in density, to maximum of 3.3 and 2.9 trees per 10 m<sup>2</sup> in 2008. In *Salix,* the regrowth was small and insignificant (**Table 4**).


#### **Table 5.**

*Diameter and height (*n *= 5) of* Pinus sylvestris *and* Betula pubescens *seedlings at the six investigated study sites, with mean values, measured in 2001 and 2008.*

#### **Figure 3.**

*View of the low-intensity burned site 2 from 2008 with pine regeneration competing with* Calluna *and* Pteridium *in the field layer.*

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

150% by 1997 and then stayed constant (**Table 3**). The improved light and nutrient conditions may partly also be a result of the accumulation of dead organic matter after the fire, as reported by Vestmoen [26] and Nygaard and Brean [25], on a much higher scale, and by similar studies in Sweden [27, 28]. The total biomass of the investigated species in 2001 was much higher than the corresponding biomass at the control plot, mainly because of the strong growth of *Calluna*. However, with increasing competition for light, water, and nutrients, a decrease is expected in the production rates of the field layer. **Tables 4** and **5** indicate that in the future there will be more competition also from *Pinus* and *Betula* seedlings that are expected to gradually replace the more light-dependent species in the field layer (see **Figure 3**). The regrowth and density of trees in 2001 and 2008, that is, 9 and 16 years after the fire, are shown in **Tables 4** and **5**. Seedlings of *Pinus sylvestris* and saplings of surviving *Betula pubescens* seemed to have established at all plots in 2001, and there was a further increase in density, to maximum of 3.3 and 2.9 trees per 10 m<sup>2</sup> in

**2001 2008**

**Species/plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sum 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sum**

Pinus 3.1 1.8 2.8 4.0 3.2 3.4 **3.1** 7.7 3.4 4.1 3.7 5.2 4.2 **4.7** Betula 2.8 1.6 3.4 3.7 3.1 3.1 **3.1** 5.4 4.3 2.9 4.0 3.5 2.4 **3.8**

Pinus 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.4 2.1 **1.9** 4.0 2.5 2.6 2.7 1.8 2.1 **2.6** Betula 2.7 1.7 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.6 **2.5** 4.0 5.0 2.6 3.2 2.3 1.7 **3.1**

Pinus 9.3 8.8 8.3 9.0 8.9 10.7 **9.2** 13.0 11.0 11.2 11.5 12.3 11.0 **11.7** Betula 10.0 7.3 9.1 10.3 10.4 10.7 **9.6** 14.2 16.6 9.9 12.2 11.8 12.7 **12.9**

*Diameter and height (*n *= 5) of* Pinus sylvestris *and* Betula pubescens *seedlings at the six investigated study*

*View of the low-intensity burned site 2 from 2008 with pine regeneration competing with* Calluna *and*

2008. In *Salix,* the regrowth was small and insignificant (**Table 4**).

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

**Diameter (mm)**

**Height (m)**

**Age (yrs)**

*sites, with mean values, measured in 2001 and 2008.*

**Table 5.**

**Figure 3.**

**84**

Pteridium *in the field layer.*

Further information on tree growth and development is shown in **Table 5**. The established seedlings and saplings showed a strong (50%) height and diameter growth during the period from 2001 to 2008 in both species. Finally, it is interesting to note that the recorded age (years) of the two tree species corresponded well with the observed age in 2001 but was considerably lower in 2008, indicating a certain seed regeneration from surviving mother trees also after the fire, in accordance with the results from a similar study by Nygaard and Brean [25].

**Carbon-binding capacity.** One of the implications of **Figure 2** is that on short term, the CO2-binding capacity of the forest is severely damaged as a result of the fire, but on longer terms (10–15 years), the reduction in CO2 uptake is partly compensated by the strong growth in aboveground green *Calluna* tissue. This conclusion is partly supported by results from coastal heathland studies (e.g., [19]) but not by Kjønaas et al. [29] in long-term successional studies on a spruce plantation in southeastern Norway as influenced by clear cutting. They found that the CO2 uptake in understorey biomass and litter during the first 10–15 years after a clear cut was of the same order as the corresponding annual CO2 output in the living tree biomass during the following succession, up to the mature stage of 130 years. **Table 3** indicates that the percentage coverage of *Calluna* 10–15 years after the fire is of the same order or higher than the combined coverage of the two dominating tree species (*Pinus sylvestris* and *Betula pubescens*) at the control plot. The much higher shoot/root ratio in young *Calluna* relative to old plants at the control plot (3.7 vs. 0.5) also indicates that regularly controlled burning at intervals, for example, 5 or 10 years as described by Måren [19] and Kaland [30], may be as efficient as, for example, spruce plantation in the carbon uptake process as climatic regulators. These results have also been supported by other studies from northern boreal forests, for example, by Ivanova et al. [31], Kukavskaya et al. [32], and Tarasov et al. [33] on succession after fire in Siberian pine forests. Also, other studies emphasize the function of forest fires in the process of recycling nutrients and speeding up regeneration, photosynthesis, and growth, including the CO2-binding capacity (e.g., [34, 35]; see also [36]).

#### **4. Conclusion**

In line with the three objectives of the study, some species may have taken advantage of improved light and nutrient conditions after the fire. This refers particularly to the heather (*Calluna vulgaris*), which seems to be particularly well adapted to fire. In fact, the coastal heaths with pine forests in Norway have been regularly burned for more than 2000 years in order to enhance the growth of green *Calluna* tissue as food for animals [30] and to facilitate seed regeneration in pine [14]. However, the fire also favors other light-dependent species like *Pteridium aquilinum* and *Molinia caerulea*. According to, for example, Måren et al. [37], *Pteridium* is competing with *Calluna* on burned areas of coastal heathlands, but repeated cutting of *Pteridium* will help favoring *Calluna* growth. Furthermore, because seed regeneration of pine is favored by exposed mineral, the fire will increase pine regrowth and juvenilization. On the other hand, plants dependent on vegetative reproduction like *Vaccinium myrtillus* may be permanently suppressed [38].

In some parts of the study site (plots 4 and 5), the humus layer and soil were almost burned off, and the regrowth may have been permanently restricted by lack of nutrients and water (**Figure 4**). In these areas, the succession process may take place over a very long time, after a new soil layer has been formed by mosses and other pioneer plants. But, on the remaining part of the study site, where water and

**References**

ecm.1244

Norge 2010. 2010

Fagbokforlaget; 1996

**20**(5):871-888

[1] Rolstad J, Blanck Y-L, Storaunet KO. Fire history in a western Fennoscandian boreal forest as influenced by human landuse and climate. Ecological Monographs. 2017. DOI: 10.1002/

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

Management. 2nd ed. NJ: Prentice Hall;

[11] Moe B. Botaniske undersøkelser etter skogbrannen i Sveio; suksesjoner, skogstruktur og brannkart. Fylkemannen i Hordaland, Miljøvernavd. rapport 6/94.

[12] Yli-Vakkuri P. Emergence and initial development of tree seedlings on burnt-over forest land. Acta Forestalia

[13] Moe B. Suksesjonsstudier etter skogbrann. In: Solbraa K, editor. Brannflatedynamikk i skog, Aktuelt fra Skogforskning. Vol. 2. 1997. pp. 25-26

hjelpetiltak ved foryngelse av. kystfuruskog? In: Solbraa K, editor. Brannflatedynamikk i skog. Aktuelt fra Skogforsk. Vol. 2. 1997. pp. 16-17

[15] Skre O. Measuring changes in biomass and shoot density in some dominant field layer species after a forest fire in western Norway. In: Woxholtt S, editor. Proceedings from the Ninth IBFRA Conference in Oslo, September 21–23, 1998. 1999. pp. 72-78. Aktuelt fra. Skogforsk 4/99: 1–83

[16] Goodnight JH. The new general linear modes procedure. In: Proceedings of the First International SAS Users Conference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute

[17] Granstrom A. Seed banks in five boreal forest stands originating between 1810 and 1963. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1987;**60**:1815-1821

[18] Schimmel J. On fire; fire behaviour, fuel succession and vegetation response to fire in Swedish boreal forests [PhD thesis]. Umeå: Swedish University of

Agricultural Sciences; 1993

Inc.; 1976

[14] Øyen BH. Punktbrenning–et aktuelt

1997

Bergen. 1994

Fennica. 1962;**74**:1-51

[2] Storaunet KO, Rolstad J, Toeneiet M, Blanck Y-L. Strong anthropogenic signal in historic forest fire regime; A detailed spatio-temporal case study from southcentral Norway. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2013;**43**(9):836-845

[3] Storaunet KO, Gjerde I. Skog. In: Nybø S, editor. Naturindeks for

[4] Solbraa K. Brannflatedynamikk i skog. Sammendrag fra et seminar 13–14. Januar 1997 i Norges Forskningsråd, Oslo. Rapport Skogforsk 2/97. 1997

[5] Fægri K, Danielsen A. Maps of Distribution of Norwegian Vascular Plants III. The Southeastern Element.

[6] Måren IE, Vandvik V. Fire and regeneration; the role of seed banks in the dynamics of northern heathlands. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2009;

[7] Skre O, Wielgolaski FE, Moe B. Biomass and chemical composition of common forest plants in response to fire

[8] Klingsheim JM. Post-fire succession in two southern boreal coniferous forests in Norway, Hopsfjellet in Sveio and Turtermarka in Maridalen [MSc thesis]. University of Oslo; 1996

[9] Chandler C, Cheney P, Thomas P, Trabaud L, Williams D. Fire in Forestry.

[10] Kimmins JP. Forest Ecology; A

Vol. 1–2. N.Y.: Wiley; 1983

Foundation for Sustainable

**87**

in western Norway. Journal of Vegetation Science. 1998;**9**:501-510

#### **Figure 4.**

*View of the high-intensity burned site 5 from 2008 with missing or sparse soil cover and dead fallen pine trees. In the background Hopsfjellet and Mardalsfjellet.*

nutrients are not limiting factors, increasing pine and birch growth is expected to shadow out light-dependent plants such as *Deschampsia flexuosa*, *Molinia caerulea*, *Pteridium aquilinum,* and *Calluna vulgaris*, and after a period of time that may take 100 years or more [8], the ecosystem may have reached its climax stage again and be back to the starting point (cf. **Figure 3**).

The study also indicates that periodic burning of old-growth *Calluna* heath (cf. [19]) may be as efficient in the CO2 uptake process in short terms (10–15 years) as climate regulators as spruce plantations in coastal districts of Norway.

#### **Author details**

Oddvar Skre Norwegian Forest Research Institute, Skre Nature and Environment, Norway

\*Address all correspondence to: oddvar@nmvskre.no

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

#### **References**

[1] Rolstad J, Blanck Y-L, Storaunet KO. Fire history in a western Fennoscandian boreal forest as influenced by human landuse and climate. Ecological Monographs. 2017. DOI: 10.1002/ ecm.1244

[2] Storaunet KO, Rolstad J, Toeneiet M, Blanck Y-L. Strong anthropogenic signal in historic forest fire regime; A detailed spatio-temporal case study from southcentral Norway. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2013;**43**(9):836-845

[3] Storaunet KO, Gjerde I. Skog. In: Nybø S, editor. Naturindeks for Norge 2010. 2010

[4] Solbraa K. Brannflatedynamikk i skog. Sammendrag fra et seminar 13–14. Januar 1997 i Norges Forskningsråd, Oslo. Rapport Skogforsk 2/97. 1997

[5] Fægri K, Danielsen A. Maps of Distribution of Norwegian Vascular Plants III. The Southeastern Element. Fagbokforlaget; 1996

[6] Måren IE, Vandvik V. Fire and regeneration; the role of seed banks in the dynamics of northern heathlands. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2009; **20**(5):871-888

[7] Skre O, Wielgolaski FE, Moe B. Biomass and chemical composition of common forest plants in response to fire in western Norway. Journal of Vegetation Science. 1998;**9**:501-510

[8] Klingsheim JM. Post-fire succession in two southern boreal coniferous forests in Norway, Hopsfjellet in Sveio and Turtermarka in Maridalen [MSc thesis]. University of Oslo; 1996

[9] Chandler C, Cheney P, Thomas P, Trabaud L, Williams D. Fire in Forestry. Vol. 1–2. N.Y.: Wiley; 1983

[10] Kimmins JP. Forest Ecology; A Foundation for Sustainable

Management. 2nd ed. NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997

[11] Moe B. Botaniske undersøkelser etter skogbrannen i Sveio; suksesjoner, skogstruktur og brannkart. Fylkemannen i Hordaland, Miljøvernavd. rapport 6/94. Bergen. 1994

[12] Yli-Vakkuri P. Emergence and initial development of tree seedlings on burnt-over forest land. Acta Forestalia Fennica. 1962;**74**:1-51

[13] Moe B. Suksesjonsstudier etter skogbrann. In: Solbraa K, editor. Brannflatedynamikk i skog, Aktuelt fra Skogforskning. Vol. 2. 1997. pp. 25-26

[14] Øyen BH. Punktbrenning–et aktuelt hjelpetiltak ved foryngelse av. kystfuruskog? In: Solbraa K, editor. Brannflatedynamikk i skog. Aktuelt fra Skogforsk. Vol. 2. 1997. pp. 16-17

[15] Skre O. Measuring changes in biomass and shoot density in some dominant field layer species after a forest fire in western Norway. In: Woxholtt S, editor. Proceedings from the Ninth IBFRA Conference in Oslo, September 21–23, 1998. 1999. pp. 72-78. Aktuelt fra. Skogforsk 4/99: 1–83

[16] Goodnight JH. The new general linear modes procedure. In: Proceedings of the First International SAS Users Conference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1976

[17] Granstrom A. Seed banks in five boreal forest stands originating between 1810 and 1963. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1987;**60**:1815-1821

[18] Schimmel J. On fire; fire behaviour, fuel succession and vegetation response to fire in Swedish boreal forests [PhD thesis]. Umeå: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 1993

nutrients are not limiting factors, increasing pine and birch growth is expected to shadow out light-dependent plants such as *Deschampsia flexuosa*, *Molinia caerulea*, *Pteridium aquilinum,* and *Calluna vulgaris*, and after a period of time that may take 100 years or more [8], the ecosystem may have reached its climax stage again and

*View of the high-intensity burned site 5 from 2008 with missing or sparse soil cover and dead fallen pine trees.*

The study also indicates that periodic burning of old-growth *Calluna* heath (cf. [19]) may be as efficient in the CO2 uptake process in short terms (10–15 years)

as climate regulators as spruce plantations in coastal districts of Norway.

Norwegian Forest Research Institute, Skre Nature and Environment, Norway

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: oddvar@nmvskre.no

provided the original work is properly cited.

be back to the starting point (cf. **Figure 3**).

*In the background Hopsfjellet and Mardalsfjellet.*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

**Author details**

Oddvar Skre

**86**

**Figure 4.**

[19] Måren IE. Effects of management on heathland vegetation in Western Norway [PhD thesis]. University of Bergen; 2009

[20] Velle LG, Nilsen LS, Norderhaug A, Vandvik V. Does prescribed burning result in biotic homogenization of coastal heathlands? Global Change Biology. 2013;**20**(5):1429-1440

[21] Klingsheim JM. Revegetering og jordsmonnsutvikling de første årene etter skogbrann på Hopsfjellet i Sveio og Turteråsen i Maridalen. In: Vitensk. Mus. Rapp. Bot. Ser. 1995–1. Trondheim: Universitet i Trondheim; 1995

[22] Schimmel J, Granstrom A. Skogsbranderna och vegetationen. SkogForsk. 1991;**4**(91):39-46

[23] Whelan RJ. The ecology of fire. In: Cambridge Studies in Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1995

[24] Viro PJ. Effects of forest fire on soil. In: Kozlowski TT, Ahlgren CE, editors. Fire and Ecosystems. 1974. pp. 7-95

[25] Nygaard PH, Brean R. Dokumentasjon og erfaringer etter skogbrannen i Mykland 2008. In: Rapport Skog og Landskap 02/2014. 2014. pp. 33

[26] Vestmoen SM. Effects of forest fire on production of down woody debris in Aust-Agder County in Norway [MSc thesis]. Ås, Norway: UMB; 2011

[27] Zackrisson O, Nilsson M-C, Wardle D. Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfire in the boreal forest. Oikos. 1996;**77**:10-19

[28] Østlund L, Zackrisson O, Axelsson A-L. The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1997;**27**:1198-1206

[29] Kjønaas OJ, Skre O, Tau Strand L, Børja I, Clarke N, de Wit HA, et al. Understorey vegetation makes a difference: Above- and belowground carbon and nitrogen pools in a Norwegian Norway spruce chronosequence. Plant and Soil. 2010;**334**

on carbon storage in light conifer forests of the Lower Angara region, Siberia. Environmental Research Letters. 2011;**6**

*Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

[37] Måren IE, Vandvik V, Ekelund A. Restoration of bracken-induced *Calluna*

*vulgaris* heathlands; effects on vegetation dynamics and non-target species. Biological Conservation. 2008;

[38] Engelmark O. Fire history correlations to forest type and topography in northern Sweden. Annales Botanici Fennici. 1987;**24**: 317-324. Proceedings of the First International SAS Users Conference.

**141**:1032-1041

SAS Institute Inc.

**89**

[30] Kaland PE. The origin and management of Norwegian coastal heaths as reflected by pollen analysis. In: Behre KE, editor. Anthropogenic Indicators in Pollen Diagrams. Boston: A.A. Balkema; 1986. pp. 19-36

[31] Ivanova GA, Ivanov VA, Kovaleva NM, Conard SG, Zhila SV, Tarasov PA. Succession of vegetation after a high-intensity fire in a pine forest with lichens. Contemporary Problems of Ecology. 2017;**10**:52-61

[32] Kukavskaya EA, Ivanova GA, Conard SG, McRae DJ, Ivanov VA. Biomass dynamics of central Siberian Scots pine forests following surface fires of varying severity. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2014;**23**(6): 872-876

[33] Tarasov PA, Ivanov VA, Gaidukova AF. Analysis of growth dynamics and development of selfsowing Scots pine on post-fire sites. Khoinye Boreal'noi Zony. 2012;**30**(3–4): 284-290

[34] Brockway DG, Gatewood RG, Paris RB. Restoring fire as an ecological process in hortgrass prairie ecosystems; initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons. Journal of Environmental Management. 2002;**65**(2):135-152

[35] Brown JK, Smith JK. Wildland fire in ecosystems; effects of fire on flora. In: Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2000

[36] Ivanova GA, Conard SG, Kukavskaya EA, McRae DJ. Fire impact *Succession after Fire in a Coastal Pine Forest in Norway DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92158*

on carbon storage in light conifer forests of the Lower Angara region, Siberia. Environmental Research Letters. 2011;**6**

[19] Måren IE. Effects of management on heathland vegetation in Western Norway [PhD thesis]. University of

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

[29] Kjønaas OJ, Skre O, Tau Strand L, Børja I, Clarke N, de Wit HA, et al. Understorey vegetation makes a difference: Above- and belowground carbon and nitrogen pools in a Norwegian Norway spruce chronosequence. Plant

[30] Kaland PE. The origin and management of Norwegian coastal heaths as reflected by pollen analysis. In:

Behre KE, editor. Anthropogenic Indicators in Pollen Diagrams. Boston:

A.A. Balkema; 1986. pp. 19-36

[31] Ivanova GA, Ivanov VA,

Ecology. 2017;**10**:52-61

872-876

284-290

Kovaleva NM, Conard SG, Zhila SV, Tarasov PA. Succession of vegetation after a high-intensity fire in a pine forest with lichens. Contemporary Problems of

[32] Kukavskaya EA, Ivanova GA, Conard SG, McRae DJ, Ivanov VA. Biomass dynamics of central Siberian Scots pine forests following surface fires of varying severity. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2014;**23**(6):

[33] Tarasov PA, Ivanov VA, Gaidukova AF. Analysis of growth dynamics and development of selfsowing Scots pine on post-fire sites. Khoinye Boreal'noi Zony. 2012;**30**(3–4):

[34] Brockway DG, Gatewood RG, Paris RB. Restoring fire as an ecological process in hortgrass prairie ecosystems; initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons. Journal of Environmental Management. 2002;**65**(2):135-152

[35] Brown JK, Smith JK. Wildland fire in ecosystems; effects of fire on flora. In: Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2000

Kukavskaya EA, McRae DJ. Fire impact

[36] Ivanova GA, Conard SG,

and Soil. 2010;**334**

[20] Velle LG, Nilsen LS, Norderhaug A, Vandvik V. Does prescribed burning result in biotic homogenization of coastal heathlands? Global Change Biology. 2013;**20**(5):1429-1440

[21] Klingsheim JM. Revegetering og jordsmonnsutvikling de første årene etter skogbrann på Hopsfjellet i Sveio og Turteråsen i Maridalen. In: Vitensk. Mus. Rapp. Bot. Ser. 1995–1. Trondheim:

Universitet i Trondheim; 1995

[22] Schimmel J, Granstrom A. Skogsbranderna och vegetationen. SkogForsk. 1991;**4**(91):39-46

Cambridge Studies in Ecology.

[25] Nygaard PH, Brean R.

Dokumentasjon og erfaringer etter skogbrannen i Mykland 2008. In: Rapport Skog og Landskap 02/2014.

[26] Vestmoen SM. Effects of forest fire on production of down woody debris in Aust-Agder County in Norway [MSc thesis]. Ås, Norway: UMB; 2011

[27] Zackrisson O, Nilsson M-C, Wardle D. Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfire in the boreal

forest. Oikos. 1996;**77**:10-19

[28] Østlund L, Zackrisson O, Axelsson A-L. The history and

1997;**27**:1198-1206

**88**

transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

Press; 1995

2014. pp. 33

[23] Whelan RJ. The ecology of fire. In:

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

[24] Viro PJ. Effects of forest fire on soil. In: Kozlowski TT, Ahlgren CE, editors. Fire and Ecosystems. 1974. pp. 7-95

Bergen; 2009

[37] Måren IE, Vandvik V, Ekelund A. Restoration of bracken-induced *Calluna vulgaris* heathlands; effects on vegetation dynamics and non-target species. Biological Conservation. 2008; **141**:1032-1041

[38] Engelmark O. Fire history correlations to forest type and topography in northern Sweden. Annales Botanici Fennici. 1987;**24**: 317-324. Proceedings of the First International SAS Users Conference. SAS Institute Inc.

**91**

**Chapter 5**

**Abstract**

**1. Introduction**

Ecosystem

*Hussein A. El-Naggar*

Human Impacts on Coral Reef

Healthy, Coral reefs are the most spectacular, diverse and economically valuable marine ecosystems on the planet, Complex and productive, coral reefs are extremely important for biodiversity, providing a home to 35,000–60,000 species of plants and animals (over 25% of all marine life), many of which are not described by science. They are also vital for people and business. They provide nurseries for many species of commercially important fish, protection of coastal areas from storm waves. They are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in food, jobs and significant attraction for the tourism industry. Yet coral reef ecosystems have undergone phase shifts to alternate, degraded assemblages because of the combined human activates of unsustainable overfishing, intensive tourism, urbanization, sedimentation, declining water quality, pollution and primarily from the direct and indirect impacts of climate change. Most coral ecologists confirm that coral reef degradation has increased dramatically during the last three decades due to enhanced anthropogenic disturbances and their interaction with natural stressors. So, it is necessary to recognize the threats facing coral reefs from anthropogenic

activities and try to minimize and mitigate these impacts.

climate change, coral protection, proposed solutions

**Keywords:** coral reef ecosystem, anthropogenic activities, natural threats,

Coral reefs are extraordinary living geological diverse underwater ecosystems held together by calcium carbonate structures secreted by corals. They represent the most conspicuous and magnificent community in the tropical and subtropical regions. Coral reefs are built by colonies of tiny living animals found in shallow subtidal marine waters that contain few nutrients. Most coral reefs are built from stony corals, which in turn consist of polyps that live together in groups. The polyps belong to a group of animals known as Cnidaria, which also includes sea anemones and jellyfish. The polyps secrete a hard carbonate exoskeleton which support and protect their bodies. Most reefs grow best in warm, shallow, clear, sunny and agitated waters. The oldest coral reefs on the earth occurred about 500 million years ago, as well as the first relatives of recent corals developed in the south of Europe from about 230 million years ago. Most corals get their color from the symbiotic single-celled algae called zooxanthellae. Millions of these single-celled algae are living as symbionts within polyp tissues, intercellular in the gastrodermis layer. Zooxanthellae produce organic nutrients and oxygen through photosynthesis thus helping the coral in the growth and the process of producing limestone or calcium carbonate. Corals grow

#### **Chapter 5**

## Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem

*Hussein A. El-Naggar*

#### **Abstract**

Healthy, Coral reefs are the most spectacular, diverse and economically valuable marine ecosystems on the planet, Complex and productive, coral reefs are extremely important for biodiversity, providing a home to 35,000–60,000 species of plants and animals (over 25% of all marine life), many of which are not described by science. They are also vital for people and business. They provide nurseries for many species of commercially important fish, protection of coastal areas from storm waves. They are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in food, jobs and significant attraction for the tourism industry. Yet coral reef ecosystems have undergone phase shifts to alternate, degraded assemblages because of the combined human activates of unsustainable overfishing, intensive tourism, urbanization, sedimentation, declining water quality, pollution and primarily from the direct and indirect impacts of climate change. Most coral ecologists confirm that coral reef degradation has increased dramatically during the last three decades due to enhanced anthropogenic disturbances and their interaction with natural stressors. So, it is necessary to recognize the threats facing coral reefs from anthropogenic activities and try to minimize and mitigate these impacts.

**Keywords:** coral reef ecosystem, anthropogenic activities, natural threats, climate change, coral protection, proposed solutions

#### **1. Introduction**

Coral reefs are extraordinary living geological diverse underwater ecosystems held together by calcium carbonate structures secreted by corals. They represent the most conspicuous and magnificent community in the tropical and subtropical regions. Coral reefs are built by colonies of tiny living animals found in shallow subtidal marine waters that contain few nutrients. Most coral reefs are built from stony corals, which in turn consist of polyps that live together in groups. The polyps belong to a group of animals known as Cnidaria, which also includes sea anemones and jellyfish. The polyps secrete a hard carbonate exoskeleton which support and protect their bodies. Most reefs grow best in warm, shallow, clear, sunny and agitated waters. The oldest coral reefs on the earth occurred about 500 million years ago, as well as the first relatives of recent corals developed in the south of Europe from about 230 million years ago. Most corals get their color from the symbiotic single-celled algae called zooxanthellae. Millions of these single-celled algae are living as symbionts within polyp tissues, intercellular in the gastrodermis layer. Zooxanthellae produce organic nutrients and oxygen through photosynthesis thus helping the coral in the growth and the process of producing limestone or calcium carbonate. Corals grow

much faster with the help of the zooxanthellae. Corals get up 90% of their nutrients from their zooxanthellae. Zooxanthellae produce pigments visible through the clear body of the polyp and give the coral its beautiful color [1, 2].

Coral reefs provide a home for at least 25% of marine origin fauna, including fishes, echinoderms, crustaceans, mollusks, sponges, tunicates, and other cnidarians and so on. Coral reefs ecosystem (CRE) provides many services to tourism, fisheries in addition to coastline protection from wave action. The global economic value of coral reefs ecosystem is estimated between US \$29.8 and 375 billion per year. However, coral reef is a fragile ecosystem, because it is very sensitive to elevations of water temperature. Coral reef ecosystems are exposed to many threats most of them resulting from humans such as global warming, oceanic acidification, climate change, water pollution, Irrational tourism, blast fishing, overfishing, illegal fishing for aquarium fish, overuse of reef resources, harmful land-use practices including urbanization and agricultural runoff which may be harmful for reefs by enhancing algal overgrowth [3, 4].

Coral reef ecosystem degradation has increased dramatically during the last three decades due to enhanced anthropogenic disturbances and their interaction with natural stressors [5]. These stressors are thought to cause coral diseases and bleaching leading to a loss of coral cover. Unfortunately, very little is currently known about the prevalence, distribution and pathology of coral diseases in the Red Sea [1, 6].

The annihilation of the reef ecosystem will lead to the disappearance of 25% of marine habitats, and a quarter of marine life that needs to productive and diversified this three-dimensional building to stay alive. Graham et al. [7] found a serious decline in coral reef fish populations as a result of climate change. Coral reefs provide food and are a source of income for hundreds of millions of people scattered in many countries. The loss of this ecosystem will lead to unexpected effects with serious damages already beginning to appear. It has been estimated that the volume of services and natural resources offered by the coral reefs to humanity from 10 years ago to be about US \$30 billion per year, through benefits such as fisheries, tourism and shore protection; it is perhaps greatly increased now [8]. The mass coral bleaching and death of CRE is one of the most obvious effects of climate changes which warn the world that we should take global warming seriously. The loss of the oceans to most if not all effective CREs could lead to unexpected disasters. We are on the verge of these disasters, but they can be avoided if the necessary international efforts are combined for adverse impact mitigation [9].

#### **2. The main components of the coral reef ecosystem**

Coral reefs form some of the world's most productive ecosystems, providing complex and varied marine habitats that support a wide range of other organisms. The coral reef ecosystem is a collection of diversified communities which interact together and with the environment. The primary source of energy for any ecosystem including coral reef is the sun. Phytoplankton, algae, and other plants use the sun light for photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, the light energy from the sun in the presence of water and nutrients is converted into chemical energy. The chemical energy that is made by photosynthesis is passed from plants to animals then other animals then to simple nutrients by bacteria through the food chain. Although, the corals are the main organisms that form the basic structure of reef ecosystem, members of all other animal phyla and classes may be found on coral reefs, in addition to the significant role for certain species of algae in reef formation. The following is a short summary of the more important and abundant groups that make up coral reef composition [9, 10].

**93**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

1.**Algae:** Coral reefs are chronically at risk of algal encroachment. Overfishing and excess nutrient supply from onshore can enable algae to outcompete and

a.**The coralline algae:** These groups are very important in constructing and maintaining reef. They belong to the red algae, and can precipitate calcium carbonate as do corals, but tend to be encrusting and spreading out in thin layers over the reefs, cementing the various pieces of calcium carbonate together. These algae form what is called "the algal ridge" on reef which is

b.**Calcareous green algae:** These algae include certain species of green algae, such as Halimeda, which grow erect and secrete calcium carbonate,

c.**Other free living algae:** They include the free living algae that exist just below the surface layers of calcium carbonate in the coral colonies them-

a.**The stony corals:** These groups belong to the Order Scleractinia

b.**Order Gorgonacea:** Its members are commonly called sea fan and sea whip, which have an internal skeleton of spicules. They are abundant in

c.**Order Alcyonacea:** This order comprises the soft corals, which may be abundant in some Indo-Pacific regions than the stony corals, but very rare in Atlantic. Several species of soft corals have internal spicules of calcium

d.**Order Hydrocorallina:** It includes the hydrocorals, which belong to the class hydrozoa, and called "Fire corals," for their powerful nematocysts.

3.**Mollusca:** Mollusks have significant role in reef formation due to the ability of their species for calcium carbonate deposition. The most important of mollusk are the giant clam, *Tridacna* spp. and *Hippopus* spp. which may be up to 2200 individuals per square meter. Also there is a prominent role of other gastropods

4.**Echinodermata:** Some species of echinoderms have adverse effects on coral reef, particularly the sea star, *Acanthaster planci*, which predates the coral polyp and cause coral bleaching. However, other species of sea urchin, sea cucumbers, starfish and feather stars are found but their role in reef ecosystem

5.**Crustaceans and Polychaetes:** Members of these groups are very abundant on coral reefs but there is little information about their role in reef formation.

6.**Sponges:** They are essential for the functioning of the coral reefs ecosystem. Algae and corals produce organic material. This is filtered through sponges

(Madreporaria) and form the major structure of reefs.

The hydrocorals are conspicuous in the Atlantic Ocean.

and bivalves in deposition of CaCO2 at the coral reefs.

kill the coral. There are three groups of algae, these are:

the most rapidly calcifying zone on reef.

giving much of reef sand by breaking up.

selves but are inconspicuous on the reef.

2.**Members of phylum Cnidaria**

Atlantic Ocean.

carbonates.

is understood.

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

algal overgrowth [3, 4].

body of the polyp and give the coral its beautiful color [1, 2].

much faster with the help of the zooxanthellae. Corals get up 90% of their nutrients from their zooxanthellae. Zooxanthellae produce pigments visible through the clear

Coral reefs provide a home for at least 25% of marine origin fauna, including fishes, echinoderms, crustaceans, mollusks, sponges, tunicates, and other cnidarians and so on. Coral reefs ecosystem (CRE) provides many services to tourism, fisheries in addition to coastline protection from wave action. The global economic value of coral reefs ecosystem is estimated between US \$29.8 and 375 billion per year. However, coral reef is a fragile ecosystem, because it is very sensitive to elevations of water temperature. Coral reef ecosystems are exposed to many threats most of them resulting from humans such as global warming, oceanic acidification, climate change, water pollution, Irrational tourism, blast fishing, overfishing, illegal fishing for aquarium fish, overuse of reef resources, harmful land-use practices including urbanization and agricultural runoff which may be harmful for reefs by enhancing

Coral reef ecosystem degradation has increased dramatically during the last three

The annihilation of the reef ecosystem will lead to the disappearance of 25% of marine habitats, and a quarter of marine life that needs to productive and diversified this three-dimensional building to stay alive. Graham et al. [7] found a serious decline in coral reef fish populations as a result of climate change. Coral reefs provide food and are a source of income for hundreds of millions of people scattered in many countries. The loss of this ecosystem will lead to unexpected effects with serious damages already beginning to appear. It has been estimated that the volume of services and natural resources offered by the coral reefs to humanity from 10 years ago to be about US \$30 billion per year, through benefits such as fisheries, tourism and shore protection; it is perhaps greatly increased now [8]. The mass coral bleaching and death of CRE is one of the most obvious effects of climate changes which warn the world that we should take global warming seriously. The loss of the oceans to most if not all effective CREs could lead to unexpected disasters. We are on the verge of these disasters, but they can be avoided if the necessary

decades due to enhanced anthropogenic disturbances and their interaction with natural stressors [5]. These stressors are thought to cause coral diseases and bleaching leading to a loss of coral cover. Unfortunately, very little is currently known about the

prevalence, distribution and pathology of coral diseases in the Red Sea [1, 6].

international efforts are combined for adverse impact mitigation [9].

Coral reefs form some of the world's most productive ecosystems, providing complex and varied marine habitats that support a wide range of other organisms. The coral reef ecosystem is a collection of diversified communities which interact together and with the environment. The primary source of energy for any ecosystem including coral reef is the sun. Phytoplankton, algae, and other plants use the sun light for photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, the light energy from the sun in the presence of water and nutrients is converted into chemical energy. The chemical energy that is made by photosynthesis is passed from plants to animals then other animals then to simple nutrients by bacteria through the food chain. Although, the corals are the main organisms that form the basic structure of reef ecosystem, members of all other animal phyla and classes may be found on coral reefs, in addition to the significant role for certain species of algae in reef formation. The following is a short summary of the more important and abundant groups that

**2. The main components of the coral reef ecosystem**

make up coral reef composition [9, 10].

**92**

	- a.**The coralline algae:** These groups are very important in constructing and maintaining reef. They belong to the red algae, and can precipitate calcium carbonate as do corals, but tend to be encrusting and spreading out in thin layers over the reefs, cementing the various pieces of calcium carbonate together. These algae form what is called "the algal ridge" on reef which is the most rapidly calcifying zone on reef.
	- b.**Calcareous green algae:** These algae include certain species of green algae, such as Halimeda, which grow erect and secrete calcium carbonate, giving much of reef sand by breaking up.
	- c.**Other free living algae:** They include the free living algae that exist just below the surface layers of calcium carbonate in the coral colonies themselves but are inconspicuous on the reef.

### 2.**Members of phylum Cnidaria**


which convert this organic material into small particles which in turn are absorbed by algae and corals. It was recorded that, some species of Siliceous sponges (class: Demospongiae) may be important in holding coral and rubble together, and prevent loss from reef until it can be fused together by coralline algae. Other sponges have symbiotic blue green algae responsible for net primary productivity.


#### **3. The importance of the coral reef ecosystem**

Coral reef ecosystems are one of the most diverse and beautiful natural environments on earth. Coral reefs have an important role in the marine and coastal environments. They provide valuable habitat (food and shelter) for a great diversity of plants and animals, including important breeding and nursery grounds for many marine organisms [10].

Coral reefs also provide protection from coastal erosion by acting as natural breakwaters for big waves and storms. Also, the breakdown of corals and other organisms living in the reef habitat creates beaches, which are an important resource for the survival of many coastal organisms, including endangered sea turtles and monk seals. Coral reefs are an important environmental and economic resource for people. In addition to shoreline protection, reefs provide food, recreational and employment opportunities, and are a potential source for new medicines [11, 12]. Coral reefs also provide economic benefits to coastal communities from tourism. The major benefits from coral reef ecosystem will be described as follows:

#### **3.1 Reef as a source of income**

The diversity of marine life and coasts protected and supported by coral reefs supply attractive conditions and ambience for visitors, reef lovers, divers and snorkelers. Actually, there are more than 8.5 million certified divers in the USA who spend money on diving during each year. The coral reef destruction generates a considerable loss of tourism employment, marine recreation industries and fishing activities. These can have huge impacts on inhabitants of coral reef areas that essentially rely on income from tourism [13, 14].

The coral reefs ecosystem provides a significant protein source for millions of people, and is considered as part of their lives. The people inhabiting coral reef areas madly love it, because the coral reef is considered a part of their lives, providing them

**95**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

live in areas nearest to reefs [10].

million American dollars [15].

**3.3 Coral reefs save our lives**

inhabiting Caribbean reef [16].

threats to our lives [11, 12].

the coral reef ecosystem [15, 17].

**3.4 Coral reefs serve as a home for fishes**

**4. Global threats facing reef ecosystems**

as pollution and mechanical damage [18].

with the major part of their food through fishing and tourism services. Coral reefs are also strongly linked with cultural, spiritual and traditional values of many people who

Another benefit to people from coral reefs is that they act as the guards of our coast. They serve as a buffer and protection for the shore areas from the pounding of ocean waves. In the absence of coral reefs, many of beaches and coastal cities would become vulnerable to storm damage and wave action. In the Maldives, when the coral reef and sand were mined away along the coast, it cost \$10 million American dollars for each kilometer to construct a wall for coastline protection. In Indonesia, the value of this protective service of coral reefs is estimated at 314

Just as in the rain forest, plant and animal life in reef ecosystem contain promising medicinal components, several of which are just being detected. Already, many important drugs have been developed from chemicals extracted from coral reef organisms. AZT is the most famous of these drugs, it is a treatment for HIV infections, which relies on chemicals extracted from sponge

Several unique compounds extracted from coral reefs have also produced the treatments for skin cancer, leukemia, ulcers and cardiovascular diseases. In addition, the unique skeletal structures produced from reef have been used to produce the advanced forms of bone grafting materials. Surprisingly, more than half of all new research related cancer drug discovery focuses on marine organisms. The fragile and beautiful organisms of coral reefs have the potent to make even huge contributions to our lives through providing new treatments for diseases that are

Over the last 350 million years, coral reefs have developed to become one of the most and largest complex ecosystems on the earth planet. Coral reefs provide shelter for about 25% of all known marine species. They serve as a home to 4000 fish species, 700 corals species and thousands of other forms of flora and fauna. Ecologists estimate that more than one million of biota species are associated with

Coral Reef ecosystems are facing many natural and anthropogenic threats. Many human impacts are resulting in the destruction and degradation of coral reefs ecosystem to cause loss in biodiversity, fundamental supplies for food and reef economic revenue. Combined with threats from nature in the form of diseases, earthquakes, climate change, typhoons and storms, coral reefs are struggling to survive. Natural stressors are made worse by human disturbances. For example, the diseases may be present at a higher level in corals stressed by human influences such

**3.2 Coral reefs act as protector from storm and wave action**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

primary productivity.

marine organisms [10].

**3.1 Reef as a source of income**

essentially rely on income from tourism [13, 14].

quick cycling of organic matter.

which convert this organic material into small particles which in turn are absorbed by algae and corals. It was recorded that, some species of Siliceous sponges (class: Demospongiae) may be important in holding coral and rubble together, and prevent loss from reef until it can be fused together by coralline algae. Other sponges have symbiotic blue green algae responsible for net

7.**Coral reef fishes**: Fishes are very conspicuous and abundant and many of them may have an adverse effect on coral structure due to their feeding regime.

8.**Bacteria:** The role of these organisms is very important in reefs structures. This group is very abundant and is responsible for the decomposition and

9.**Other communities:** Sea eels and snakes as well as marine birds; such as boobies, pelicans, gannets and herons, all feed on fish and other coral reef components'. Land-based reptiles such as monitor lizards, marine crocodile and semiaquatic snakes such as *Laticauda colubrina* can be intermittently associated with reefs and feed on some of their components. Sea turtles, such

Coral reef ecosystems are one of the most diverse and beautiful natural environments on earth. Coral reefs have an important role in the marine and coastal environments. They provide valuable habitat (food and shelter) for a great diversity of plants and animals, including important breeding and nursery grounds for many

Coral reefs also provide protection from coastal erosion by acting as natural breakwaters for big waves and storms. Also, the breakdown of corals and other organisms living in the reef habitat creates beaches, which are an important resource for the survival of many coastal organisms, including endangered sea turtles and monk seals. Coral reefs are an important environmental and economic resource for people. In addition to shoreline protection, reefs provide food, recreational and employment opportunities, and are a potential source for new medicines [11, 12]. Coral reefs also provide economic benefits to coastal communities from tourism. The major benefits from coral reef ecosystem will be described as

The diversity of marine life and coasts protected and supported by coral reefs supply attractive conditions and ambience for visitors, reef lovers, divers and snorkelers. Actually, there are more than 8.5 million certified divers in the USA who spend money on diving during each year. The coral reef destruction generates a considerable loss of tourism employment, marine recreation industries and fishing activities. These can have huge impacts on inhabitants of coral reef areas that

The coral reefs ecosystem provides a significant protein source for millions of people, and is considered as part of their lives. The people inhabiting coral reef areas madly love it, because the coral reef is considered a part of their lives, providing them

as hawksbill sea turtles, feed on sponges between reefs.

**3. The importance of the coral reef ecosystem**

**94**

follows:

with the major part of their food through fishing and tourism services. Coral reefs are also strongly linked with cultural, spiritual and traditional values of many people who live in areas nearest to reefs [10].

#### **3.2 Coral reefs act as protector from storm and wave action**

Another benefit to people from coral reefs is that they act as the guards of our coast. They serve as a buffer and protection for the shore areas from the pounding of ocean waves. In the absence of coral reefs, many of beaches and coastal cities would become vulnerable to storm damage and wave action. In the Maldives, when the coral reef and sand were mined away along the coast, it cost \$10 million American dollars for each kilometer to construct a wall for coastline protection. In Indonesia, the value of this protective service of coral reefs is estimated at 314 million American dollars [15].

#### **3.3 Coral reefs save our lives**

Just as in the rain forest, plant and animal life in reef ecosystem contain promising medicinal components, several of which are just being detected. Already, many important drugs have been developed from chemicals extracted from coral reef organisms. AZT is the most famous of these drugs, it is a treatment for HIV infections, which relies on chemicals extracted from sponge inhabiting Caribbean reef [16].

Several unique compounds extracted from coral reefs have also produced the treatments for skin cancer, leukemia, ulcers and cardiovascular diseases. In addition, the unique skeletal structures produced from reef have been used to produce the advanced forms of bone grafting materials. Surprisingly, more than half of all new research related cancer drug discovery focuses on marine organisms. The fragile and beautiful organisms of coral reefs have the potent to make even huge contributions to our lives through providing new treatments for diseases that are threats to our lives [11, 12].

#### **3.4 Coral reefs serve as a home for fishes**

Over the last 350 million years, coral reefs have developed to become one of the most and largest complex ecosystems on the earth planet. Coral reefs provide shelter for about 25% of all known marine species. They serve as a home to 4000 fish species, 700 corals species and thousands of other forms of flora and fauna. Ecologists estimate that more than one million of biota species are associated with the coral reef ecosystem [15, 17].

#### **4. Global threats facing reef ecosystems**

Coral Reef ecosystems are facing many natural and anthropogenic threats. Many human impacts are resulting in the destruction and degradation of coral reefs ecosystem to cause loss in biodiversity, fundamental supplies for food and reef economic revenue. Combined with threats from nature in the form of diseases, earthquakes, climate change, typhoons and storms, coral reefs are struggling to survive. Natural stressors are made worse by human disturbances. For example, the diseases may be present at a higher level in corals stressed by human influences such as pollution and mechanical damage [18].

A majority of the problems threatening coral reefs are the direct (and indirect) result of human activities on land, and in the marine environment. Marine debris, water pollution, sedimentation, overfishing, careless recreation, and global warming are some examples of human-caused threats to the coral reef habitat. Each of these threats has a significant impact on the health of coral reefs. Coral reefs grow very slowly and can take hundreds of years to form. If damage to coral reefs continues at the current rate, over half of all reefs in the world could disappear in our lifetimes. Currently, millions of acres of reef have already been severely damaged or destroyed. Through education, awareness, and action, people can help to preserve and protect coral reefs [15]. The threats facing coral reef ecosystems can be summarized as below:

#### **4.1 Natural Impacts**

#### *4.1.1 Earthquakes and storms*

Disasters such as earthquakes and storms occur periodically and naturally and devastate massive areas of coral reefs. These natural events can be more severe if the communities of coral reef are already weakened by other influences and recovery is inhibited by algal overgrowth due to the lack of grazing organisms, removed by fishing.

#### *4.1.2 Climate change and acidification*

Climate change impacts have been identified as one of the greatest global threats to coral reef ecosystems. If the temperatures of sea water stay higher than the usual for some weeks, the symbiotic algae "zooxanthellae" that corals rely on for their food leave the coral tissue. Actually, without zooxanthellae the corals turn to white color, because it gives corals their color. Unhealthy white corals are called bleached. Bleached corals are weak and lose their ability to combat diseases and then die [18]. As climate change continues, bleaching will become more common, and the overall health of coral reefs will decline [19, 20].

Since the late nineteenth century, the global temperature of oceans has risen by 1.3°F (0.74°C), causing more frequent and severe corals bleaching around the world. At the recent increasing emissions rate of greenhouse gases, the global temperature could rise up to 7.3°F (4.1°C). These changes in global temperature already have harmful effects on coral reef ecosystems and will continue to impact on coral reef ecosystems over the world during the next century. The decline and loss of coral reef ecosystems have significant social, cultural, economic, and ecological bad impacts on people and communities around the world [21].

As water temperature rises, infectious diseases and huge bleaching may likely become more frequent. In addition, carbon dioxide absorbed into the sea water from the atmosphere has begun to reduce the calcification rates in reef-building corals and organisms associated with coral throughout change of water chemistry by decreases in pH (ocean acidification). In the long term, the failure in addressing carbon emissions and the impacts of rising water temperatures and ocean acidification could make the several efforts to coral reef ecosystems managements futile. In summary, climate change and ocean acidification have been identified as the most important threats to CRE on a global basis [22].

In the last decades, 33–50% of corals were significantly degraded, because of the negative impacts that accompanied climate change [10]. Recently, some areas have lost about half or more of their living coral and more deterioration can occur over the next two decades due to continued temperature rise. Because of the destruction

**97**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

investigation.

for coral [25].

*4.1.4 Coral diseases*

limestone behind it [16].

turn completely white [2].

*4.1.3 Crown-of-Thorns*

of the CRE, 25% of marine species would be in danger while the economic losses will showcase hundreds of millions of people to the lack of food security and increasing poverty [23]. Wilkinson [10] recorded bleaching and death of about 16% of the global reefs communities together with high average of surface temperature in 1998. Since then, the bleaching and death of coral occur on a large scale, with

Other reasons for coral bleaching are the extreme lowering in tides levels, increased UV radiation and changes in salinity and nutrient levels. Coral reefs may recover but this extreme incident is generally presumed to weakened it. The death may be occurring largely due to starvation, although it is thought that some autolysis (tissue destruction) occurs. The physiological mechanisms involved with bleaching are not fully understood and are currently a source of

Historically, tropical cyclones and poor water quality that cause outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish have been the major causes of coral loss. Current increases in the Crown-of-Thorns starfish populations that eat corals are considered as another natural threat to reefs. When present in huge numbers, these stars are able to destroy massive areas of coral reef. Recovery of the coral reef from the outbreaks of Crown-of-Thorns may take up to 20–40 years, where the damage is not severe. However, coral recovery in some world areas may never occur when the coral is being taken over by sponge, algal cover and other coral species. *Acanthaster planci* can produce many million babies during 1 year. People have contributed to their population increase through increase of the nutrients from sewage and over harvesting of their natural predator Triton Trumpet and so on. Crown-of-Thorns babies gave more plant food (seaweed) to survive and become devastating adults

Coral reefs when are under stress, suffer many bacterial infections as a result of growing production of protective mucus. The coral production for excessive mucus due to natural and man-made influences (e.g., global warming, toxic chemicals, increased sedimentation and so on) can also promote the growth of many blue green algae; this algae is thought to be responsible for black band disease (Intense black band of filaments across coral colonies). This disease kills the Coral polyps and the black band advances then leaving the reef as a white

Although this disease is rare, the pathogenic bacteria and parasites resulting from fecal contamination may cause some diseases in coral reefs, particularly if corals are stressed by unfavorable environmental conditions. Naturally, the diseases occur for corals in healthy ecosystems, but the pathogen-containing pollution inputs could exacerbate the intensity and frequency of disease outbreaks [16].

A change of environmental conditions such as higher temperatures or a change in salinity but also disease can cause the polyps to expel the zooxanthellae algae. The coral becomes totally white (= coral bleaching). If the coral regains some algae it might survive, but bleaching can be irreversible and then the coral dies. Coral bleaching is the loss of intracellular endosymbionts (zooxanthellae) from coral tissue, when corals are stressed by changes in conditions such as temperature, light, or nutrients, they expel the symbiotic algae living in their tissues, causing them to

increasing severity of these effects over the successive decades [24].

#### *Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

of the CRE, 25% of marine species would be in danger while the economic losses will showcase hundreds of millions of people to the lack of food security and increasing poverty [23]. Wilkinson [10] recorded bleaching and death of about 16% of the global reefs communities together with high average of surface temperature in 1998. Since then, the bleaching and death of coral occur on a large scale, with increasing severity of these effects over the successive decades [24].

Other reasons for coral bleaching are the extreme lowering in tides levels, increased UV radiation and changes in salinity and nutrient levels. Coral reefs may recover but this extreme incident is generally presumed to weakened it. The death may be occurring largely due to starvation, although it is thought that some autolysis (tissue destruction) occurs. The physiological mechanisms involved with bleaching are not fully understood and are currently a source of investigation.

#### *4.1.3 Crown-of-Thorns*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

marized as below:

fishing.

**4.1 Natural Impacts**

*4.1.1 Earthquakes and storms*

*4.1.2 Climate change and acidification*

health of coral reefs will decline [19, 20].

impacts on people and communities around the world [21].

important threats to CRE on a global basis [22].

A majority of the problems threatening coral reefs are the direct (and indirect) result of human activities on land, and in the marine environment. Marine debris, water pollution, sedimentation, overfishing, careless recreation, and global warming are some examples of human-caused threats to the coral reef habitat. Each of these threats has a significant impact on the health of coral reefs. Coral reefs grow very slowly and can take hundreds of years to form. If damage to coral reefs continues at the current rate, over half of all reefs in the world could disappear in our lifetimes. Currently, millions of acres of reef have already been severely damaged or destroyed. Through education, awareness, and action, people can help to preserve and protect coral reefs [15]. The threats facing coral reef ecosystems can be sum-

Disasters such as earthquakes and storms occur periodically and naturally and devastate massive areas of coral reefs. These natural events can be more severe if the communities of coral reef are already weakened by other influences and recovery is inhibited by algal overgrowth due to the lack of grazing organisms, removed by

Climate change impacts have been identified as one of the greatest global threats to coral reef ecosystems. If the temperatures of sea water stay higher than the usual for some weeks, the symbiotic algae "zooxanthellae" that corals rely on for their food leave the coral tissue. Actually, without zooxanthellae the corals turn to white color, because it gives corals their color. Unhealthy white corals are called bleached. Bleached corals are weak and lose their ability to combat diseases and then die [18]. As climate change continues, bleaching will become more common, and the overall

Since the late nineteenth century, the global temperature of oceans has risen by 1.3°F (0.74°C), causing more frequent and severe corals bleaching around the world. At the recent increasing emissions rate of greenhouse gases, the global temperature could rise up to 7.3°F (4.1°C). These changes in global temperature already have harmful effects on coral reef ecosystems and will continue to impact on coral reef ecosystems over the world during the next century. The decline and loss of coral reef ecosystems have significant social, cultural, economic, and ecological bad

As water temperature rises, infectious diseases and huge bleaching may likely become more frequent. In addition, carbon dioxide absorbed into the sea water from the atmosphere has begun to reduce the calcification rates in reef-building corals and organisms associated with coral throughout change of water chemistry by decreases in pH (ocean acidification). In the long term, the failure in addressing carbon emissions and the impacts of rising water temperatures and ocean acidification could make the several efforts to coral reef ecosystems managements futile. In summary, climate change and ocean acidification have been identified as the most

In the last decades, 33–50% of corals were significantly degraded, because of the negative impacts that accompanied climate change [10]. Recently, some areas have lost about half or more of their living coral and more deterioration can occur over the next two decades due to continued temperature rise. Because of the destruction

**96**

Historically, tropical cyclones and poor water quality that cause outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish have been the major causes of coral loss. Current increases in the Crown-of-Thorns starfish populations that eat corals are considered as another natural threat to reefs. When present in huge numbers, these stars are able to destroy massive areas of coral reef. Recovery of the coral reef from the outbreaks of Crown-of-Thorns may take up to 20–40 years, where the damage is not severe. However, coral recovery in some world areas may never occur when the coral is being taken over by sponge, algal cover and other coral species. *Acanthaster planci* can produce many million babies during 1 year. People have contributed to their population increase through increase of the nutrients from sewage and over harvesting of their natural predator Triton Trumpet and so on. Crown-of-Thorns babies gave more plant food (seaweed) to survive and become devastating adults for coral [25].

#### *4.1.4 Coral diseases*

Coral reefs when are under stress, suffer many bacterial infections as a result of growing production of protective mucus. The coral production for excessive mucus due to natural and man-made influences (e.g., global warming, toxic chemicals, increased sedimentation and so on) can also promote the growth of many blue green algae; this algae is thought to be responsible for black band disease (Intense black band of filaments across coral colonies). This disease kills the Coral polyps and the black band advances then leaving the reef as a white limestone behind it [16].

Although this disease is rare, the pathogenic bacteria and parasites resulting from fecal contamination may cause some diseases in coral reefs, particularly if corals are stressed by unfavorable environmental conditions. Naturally, the diseases occur for corals in healthy ecosystems, but the pathogen-containing pollution inputs could exacerbate the intensity and frequency of disease outbreaks [16].

A change of environmental conditions such as higher temperatures or a change in salinity but also disease can cause the polyps to expel the zooxanthellae algae. The coral becomes totally white (= coral bleaching). If the coral regains some algae it might survive, but bleaching can be irreversible and then the coral dies. Coral bleaching is the loss of intracellular endosymbionts (zooxanthellae) from coral tissue, when corals are stressed by changes in conditions such as temperature, light, or nutrients, they expel the symbiotic algae living in their tissues, causing them to turn completely white [2].

#### *4.1.5 Invasive alien species*

Invasive alien species are non-native (exotic) species that may cause huge environmental damages and can have effects on fisheries stock, economy and even on human health. They should not be confused with introduced spe-cies which are also non-native and have been deliberately introduced for a benefit or purpose within the limits imposed on them. It is estimated that of the several of the introduced species to different habitats and different climes have threats to native ecosystems. These invasive alien species have the ability to rapidly grow, vigorously compete with the native species. These species in the absence of their natural preda-tors can lead to the pushing out native species and finally to ecological havoc. They can be able to change and threaten native biodiversity and contribute to economic hardship and social instability, placing constraints on environmental conservation, economic growth and sustainable development [26]. Actually, the threat to global biodiversity from Invasive Alien Species is the second after habitat destruction. Ballast water is the major channel of spreading Invasive Alien Species in marine habitats. Ships discharge their cargo of ballast water at ports; with this discharge, they also release organisms that were taken in accidentally with the ballast water from other ports [27].

#### **4.2 Anthropogenic impacts**

#### *4.2.1 Use the coral reefs in construction and curio trade*

Coral reefs are used as a construction tool for many purposes. They may be used for the construction of house foundations, canals, streets, embankment of fish ponds and lime kilns. Large businesses also are keen on collecting coral reefs for selling them as souvenirs or in the aquarium trade.

#### *4.2.2 Chemical pollution*

Coastal waters suffer from huge amounts of a variety of agricultural and industrial chemicals that are released into them. Fertilizers and pesticides used in agricultural development projects are discharged into the sea and might lead to coral reef destruction. Pesticides pollution may destroy or harm to reef communities. They lead to further deterioration through accumulating in tissues and may affect physiological processes of animals. Herbicides may impact the basic food chain; they can destroy and damage symbionts zooxanthellae algae in coral reef, other algal, sea grass and even free living phytoplankton communities.

The chemical spillage from oil tankers, harbors and pipelines have heavy impacts on feeding, growth rate, reproduction, defensive responses and even on cell structure in coral reefs. Industrial activities such as dredging, mining and refining produce heavy metals and hydrocarbon pollutants that are released into coastal waters. Many coral species are more sensitive to these pollutants, which can damage the ecosystem of coral [28]. Herbicides and pesticides can affect coral reproduction, growth, and other physiological processes, in particular, can affect the symbiotic algae (plants). This can damage their partnership with coral and result in bleaching.

#### *4.2.3 Nutrients loading/sewage*

The discharge of aquacultural and agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, feed waste and other materials can result in more nutrients loading into coastal areas. These organic compounds lead to increases of eutrophi-cation

**99**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

*4.2.4 Fishing and overfishing*

reef ecosystem. For instance, 3150 km<sup>2</sup>

ship anchored on one occasion [29].

physical damage to coral reefs [30].

*4.2.5 Construction and sedimentation*

more than 1 or 2 days [33].

and animals on coral reefs [34].

is also suffering from organic pollution [31].

reefs through run off from land, streams and rivers [32].

killed.

status of coastal areas and subsequent oxygen depletion. When the nutrient loading into coastal areas and eutrophication occur, the community becomes dominated by algae and seaweed, to the limit transcend grazing organisms' capacity to control. These can leads to light reduction, oxygen depletion and perhaps death of the communities living there. When coral reef ecosystems are subjected to huge quantities of nutrients, they are easily taken over by algae and may be severely damaged, if not

Illegal fishing such as blast "dynamite," cyanide or poison (duva) fishing and hunting by gum boots, are all destructive of any ecosystem. Other injurious practices of fishing include reef structure disintegration in order to remove hiding places, weight traps and herd fish into nets by beating coral surfaces. Accidental grounding of boats and anchor damage may be significant threat to coral reef ecosystem. Such practices lead to annihilation and degradation of habitat of coral

Overfishing may alter food-webs structure of coral reef ecosystem and cause cascading impacts, such as decrease of the grazer fish numbers that remove algal overgrowth and keep corals clean. Blast fishing (kill fish by explosives) may create

The vast majority of the world's reefs are affected by over exploitation of resources. This may lead to decrease of average size of the fish and reduction of target predatory fish. Removal of main predator and herbivores species may result in change of large scale reef ecosystem. When grazers are removed from reef ecosystem, the algae quickly take over and dominate, particularly if the ecosystem

Sedimentation is an extremely important cause of destruction of coral reef ecosystem. Predominating, coastal development and construction can lead to heavy amounts of sediment. There are other effects caused by inadequate land management and deforestation, where sediment run off from farms and land and settling on the reefs. In this context, Watersheds that are cleared of their vegetation cover are vulnerable to flooding and erosion and can lead to increase of sedimentation levels reaching coral reefs. Agriculture chemicals also make their way reaching coral

Dredging has several serious impacts on coral reefs ecosystem. The most spectacular effects are produced by sedimentation, turbidity, silt suspension, reduction of oxygen and release of bacteria and toxic substances. Great quantities of either fine or coarse particles can cover corals, which are unable to withstand cover for

The corals secrete protective mucus in a bid to rid themselves of the sedi-mentation. This process requires high energy levels, which have to be diverted away from essential processes. If this problem is exacerbate by other stresses, for example, temperature change, then the reefs become extra stressed and may die. The mucus secretion for sediment clearing makes the reefs more susceptible to infection by bacteria and therefore more probable to suffer from diseases [15]. The higher level of sedimentation that exceeds the clearing capacity of mucus secretion of coral reefs can reduce light breakthrough and may change the vertical distribu-tion of plants

of coral reef were destroyed when one cruise

status of coastal areas and subsequent oxygen depletion. When the nutrient loading into coastal areas and eutrophication occur, the community becomes dominated by algae and seaweed, to the limit transcend grazing organisms' capacity to control. These can leads to light reduction, oxygen depletion and perhaps death of the communities living there. When coral reef ecosystems are subjected to huge quantities of nutrients, they are easily taken over by algae and may be severely damaged, if not killed.

#### *4.2.4 Fishing and overfishing*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

Invasive alien species are non-native (exotic) species that may cause huge environmental damages and can have effects on fisheries stock, economy and even on human health. They should not be confused with introduced spe-cies which are also non-native and have been deliberately introduced for a benefit or purpose within the limits imposed on them. It is estimated that of the several of the introduced species to different habitats and different climes have threats to native ecosystems. These invasive alien species have the ability to rapidly grow, vigorously compete with the native species. These species in the absence of their natural preda-tors can lead to the pushing out native species and finally to ecological havoc. They can be able to change and threaten native biodiversity and contribute to economic hardship and social instability, placing constraints on environmental conservation, economic growth and sustainable development [26]. Actually, the threat to global biodiversity from Invasive Alien Species is the second after habitat destruction. Ballast water is the major channel of spreading Invasive Alien Species in marine habitats. Ships discharge their cargo of ballast water at ports; with this discharge, they also release organisms that were taken in accidentally with the

Coral reefs are used as a construction tool for many purposes. They may be used

Coastal waters suffer from huge amounts of a variety of agricultural and industrial chemicals that are released into them. Fertilizers and pesticides used in agricultural development projects are discharged into the sea and might lead to coral reef destruction. Pesticides pollution may destroy or harm to reef communities. They lead to further deterioration through accumulating in tissues and may affect physiological processes of animals. Herbicides may impact the basic food chain; they can destroy and damage symbionts zooxanthellae algae in coral reef, other algal, sea

The chemical spillage from oil tankers, harbors and pipelines have heavy impacts on feeding, growth rate, reproduction, defensive responses and even on cell structure in coral reefs. Industrial activities such as dredging, mining and refining produce heavy metals and hydrocarbon pollutants that are released into coastal waters. Many coral species are more sensitive to these pollutants, which can damage the ecosystem of coral [28]. Herbicides and pesticides can affect coral reproduction, growth, and other physiological processes, in particular, can affect the symbiotic algae (plants). This can

The discharge of aquacultural and agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, feed waste and other materials can result in more nutrients loading into coastal areas. These organic compounds lead to increases of eutrophi-cation

for the construction of house foundations, canals, streets, embankment of fish ponds and lime kilns. Large businesses also are keen on collecting coral reefs for

*4.1.5 Invasive alien species*

ballast water from other ports [27].

*4.2.1 Use the coral reefs in construction and curio trade*

selling them as souvenirs or in the aquarium trade.

grass and even free living phytoplankton communities.

damage their partnership with coral and result in bleaching.

**4.2 Anthropogenic impacts**

*4.2.2 Chemical pollution*

*4.2.3 Nutrients loading/sewage*

**98**

Illegal fishing such as blast "dynamite," cyanide or poison (duva) fishing and hunting by gum boots, are all destructive of any ecosystem. Other injurious practices of fishing include reef structure disintegration in order to remove hiding places, weight traps and herd fish into nets by beating coral surfaces. Accidental grounding of boats and anchor damage may be significant threat to coral reef ecosystem. Such practices lead to annihilation and degradation of habitat of coral reef ecosystem. For instance, 3150 km<sup>2</sup> of coral reef were destroyed when one cruise ship anchored on one occasion [29].

Overfishing may alter food-webs structure of coral reef ecosystem and cause cascading impacts, such as decrease of the grazer fish numbers that remove algal overgrowth and keep corals clean. Blast fishing (kill fish by explosives) may create physical damage to coral reefs [30].

The vast majority of the world's reefs are affected by over exploitation of resources. This may lead to decrease of average size of the fish and reduction of target predatory fish. Removal of main predator and herbivores species may result in change of large scale reef ecosystem. When grazers are removed from reef ecosystem, the algae quickly take over and dominate, particularly if the ecosystem is also suffering from organic pollution [31].

#### *4.2.5 Construction and sedimentation*

Sedimentation is an extremely important cause of destruction of coral reef ecosystem. Predominating, coastal development and construction can lead to heavy amounts of sediment. There are other effects caused by inadequate land management and deforestation, where sediment run off from farms and land and settling on the reefs. In this context, Watersheds that are cleared of their vegetation cover are vulnerable to flooding and erosion and can lead to increase of sedimentation levels reaching coral reefs. Agriculture chemicals also make their way reaching coral reefs through run off from land, streams and rivers [32].

Dredging has several serious impacts on coral reefs ecosystem. The most spectacular effects are produced by sedimentation, turbidity, silt suspension, reduction of oxygen and release of bacteria and toxic substances. Great quantities of either fine or coarse particles can cover corals, which are unable to withstand cover for more than 1 or 2 days [33].

The corals secrete protective mucus in a bid to rid themselves of the sedi-mentation. This process requires high energy levels, which have to be diverted away from essential processes. If this problem is exacerbate by other stresses, for example, temperature change, then the reefs become extra stressed and may die. The mucus secretion for sediment clearing makes the reefs more susceptible to infection by bacteria and therefore more probable to suffer from diseases [15]. The higher level of sedimentation that exceeds the clearing capacity of mucus secretion of coral reefs can reduce light breakthrough and may change the vertical distribu-tion of plants and animals on coral reefs [34].

#### *4.2.6 Cutting of mangroves*

Mangroves destruction by obvious cutting or pollution has resounding consequences on reef ecosystem. Mangroves destruction leads to the removal of the main source of leaf litter, a food resource for the set of reef animals. Also, mangroves provide the nutrient rich feeding grounds for several marine species. Moreover, mangroves protect the shoreline against storms and cyclones and give it stability against land loss by erosion.

#### *4.2.7 Rubbish/litter*

Trash such as discarded fishing gear, bottles and plastic bags that get to the coast may settle on reefs and prevent the sunlight required for photosyn-thesis or decomposition and kill reef organisms and damage or break corals. Degraded plastics and small pieces of plastic can be ingested by coral, turtles, fish and other reef animals, which can block their digestive tracts and kill them.

Litter and rubbish are one of the groups of largest problems facing any ecosystem. The decomposition of this artificial rubbish takes a very long time. Plastic bottles decomposed in 150 years, plastic bags 50 years, batteries in 200 years, paper in 1 year and cigarette in 75 years. A turtle facing a plastic bag similar to jellyfish may swallow it and can choke it. Batteries leak poisons as they breakdown and can con-taminate the fish we eat, as well as kill corals and other marine life. Rubbish should be disposed of properly, by recycling or taking it back to the mainland dump. If rubbish is left lying around, it can easily get blown into the sea.

#### *4.2.8 Tourism*

Tourism has a large potential to contribute to sustainable socio-economic development and environmental conservation. It can support the protection of natural resources, as local residents realize the value of their assets and try to preserve it. Tourism can also provide another form of land use (other than agriculture) which supports land conversion. It can also contribute to maintaining livelihoods and preserving cultural practices. Opportunities arise for education and awarenessraising to understand and respect cultural diversity along with biodiversity. All these benefits can be derived from the tourism if optimally used and controlled in the required form to preserve the environment, biological diversity and natural habitats. The uncontrol and misuse of tourism can lead to the degradation and collapse of ecosystems and biodiversity that are essentially the real attraction of tourism [4, 14, 35].

Tourism and biodiversity are closely linked both in terms of impacts and dependency. Many types of tourism rely directly on ecosystem services and biodiversity (ecotourism, agritourism, wellness tourism, adventure tourism, etc.). Tourism uses recreational services and supply services provided by ecosystems. Tourists are looking for cultural and environmental authenticity, contact with local communities and learning about flora, fauna, ecosystems and their conservation. On the other hand, too many tourists can also have a negative, degrading effect on biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, the tourism sector has both a strong influence on biodiversity loss and a role to play in its conservation [36]. Regrettably, the tourismenvironment relationship is unbalanced; tourism is depending on an environment that is vulnerable to the tourism impacts [37]. Yet it's not easy to achieve sustainable development in many developing countries that heavily rely on tourism income, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas. Other influences come from the tourists services area such as domestic wastes, garbage and many bad practices from site

**101**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

*4.2.10 Fish-feeding*

*4.2.9 Coral harvesting for the aquarium trade*

visitors. The main harmful human activities that can destroy the biodiversity stock

Coral harvesting for the aquarium trade, jewelry, and curios can lead to overharvesting of specific species, destruction of reef habitat, and reduced biodiversity. The practice of keeping marine aquaria as a hobby has increased in the last decade. It is reported that, globally, between 1.5 and 2 million people keep saltwater aquaria [38, 39]. Murray et al. [40] confirmed that the areas of southern California rocky shores which have been used by humans intensely for recreational activities such as fishing, exploration, walking, enjoyment of the out-of-doors, and educational field trips had suffered from reduction of species abundance and diversity due to visitors collection of intertidal organisms for consumption, fish bait, home aquariums and other purposes. The most direct effects of intensive collection are decreased abundances of exploited species and because humans preferentially collect larger individuals, altered population size structures. El-Naggar et al. [4] attributed the reduction of certain gastropod shells (Cypraeidae) from Aqaba Gulf to their

The feeding behavior of reef fishes, eels, sharks and even rays has come to a "selling point" through commercial fish feeding dive tours and "interactive diving." However, many do not realize the harmful effects this activity has on these animals. Studies done around the world have indicated that fish feeding significantly alters behavioral patterns by "training" these wild creatures with human food handouts. In addition, fish feeding causes health problems for the fed animals and disrupts the natural processes within the marine community. Here in the Mamanucas, particularly at sites where fish feeding occurs, there has been an increase in aggressive behavior within schools of surgeonfish, fighting amongst themselves and causing injury, even to the point of destroying their own reef habitat by breaking hard corals. Triggerfish have also been observed biting and destroying the reef structure. Sergeant Damselfish swarm around snorkelers or divers expecting to be fed. The fish that are fed often "peck' at the snorkelers or divers entering the water, taking away the pleasure of observing the reef and its inhabitants in a calm and inoffensive manner. By feeding the algae eaters that control algae growth, they become handout feeders that soon neglect their important role of eating algae, which in turn can overgrow corals. Major conservation organizations, including UNEP, DAN, WWF and Environmental Defense, encourage passive interaction with marine life and

in any area result from uncontrolled tourism and fishing activity [1].

intensive collection by visitors because they have beautiful shells.

avoiding feeding and petting, which may lead to accidental injury.

**conserve the coral reef )**

the preserve of coral reef ecosystem.

**5. Proposed solutions to mitigation of the coral reef threats (methods for** 

The aggregate effects of these stressors can decrease resilience of the reef overall

and increase susceptibility to disease and invasive species. The anthropogenic stressors on coral reef ecosystem are suggested potential factors respon-sible for the degradation and instability of any ecosystem. Any bad practices from human; directly and indirectly can have effects on coral reef ecosystem. So, it is necessary to create new strategies to protect coral reef ecosystems. Given that 20% of the coral reefs in the world have already been destroyed much has to be done in the future for

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

Mangroves destruction by obvious cutting or pollution has resounding consequences on reef ecosystem. Mangroves destruction leads to the removal of the main source of leaf litter, a food resource for the set of reef animals. Also, mangroves provide the nutrient rich feeding grounds for several marine species. Moreover, mangroves protect the shoreline against storms and cyclones and give it

Trash such as discarded fishing gear, bottles and plastic bags that get to the coast may settle on reefs and prevent the sunlight required for photosyn-thesis or decomposition and kill reef organisms and damage or break corals. Degraded plastics and small pieces of plastic can be ingested by coral, turtles, fish and other reef animals,

Litter and rubbish are one of the groups of largest problems facing any ecosystem. The decomposition of this artificial rubbish takes a very long time. Plastic bottles decomposed in 150 years, plastic bags 50 years, batteries in 200 years, paper in 1 year and cigarette in 75 years. A turtle facing a plastic bag similar to jellyfish may swallow it and can choke it. Batteries leak poisons as they breakdown and can con-taminate the fish we eat, as well as kill corals and other marine life. Rubbish should be disposed of properly, by recycling or taking it back to the mainland dump. If rubbish is left lying around, it can easily get blown into the sea.

Tourism has a large potential to contribute to sustainable socio-economic development and environmental conservation. It can support the protection of natural resources, as local residents realize the value of their assets and try to preserve it. Tourism can also provide another form of land use (other than agriculture) which supports land conversion. It can also contribute to maintaining livelihoods and preserving cultural practices. Opportunities arise for education and awarenessraising to understand and respect cultural diversity along with biodiversity. All these benefits can be derived from the tourism if optimally used and controlled in the required form to preserve the environment, biological diversity and natural habitats. The uncontrol and misuse of tourism can lead to the degradation and collapse of ecosystems and biodiversity that are essentially the real attraction of

Tourism and biodiversity are closely linked both in terms of impacts and dependency. Many types of tourism rely directly on ecosystem services and biodiversity (ecotourism, agritourism, wellness tourism, adventure tourism, etc.). Tourism uses recreational services and supply services provided by ecosystems. Tourists are looking for cultural and environmental authenticity, contact with local communities and learning about flora, fauna, ecosystems and their conservation. On the other hand, too many tourists can also have a negative, degrading effect on biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, the tourism sector has both a strong influence on biodiversity loss and a role to play in its conservation [36]. Regrettably, the tourismenvironment relationship is unbalanced; tourism is depending on an environment that is vulnerable to the tourism impacts [37]. Yet it's not easy to achieve sustainable development in many developing countries that heavily rely on tourism income, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas. Other influences come from the tourists services area such as domestic wastes, garbage and many bad practices from site

*4.2.6 Cutting of mangroves*

*4.2.7 Rubbish/litter*

*4.2.8 Tourism*

tourism [4, 14, 35].

stability against land loss by erosion.

which can block their digestive tracts and kill them.

**100**

visitors. The main harmful human activities that can destroy the biodiversity stock in any area result from uncontrolled tourism and fishing activity [1].

#### *4.2.9 Coral harvesting for the aquarium trade*

Coral harvesting for the aquarium trade, jewelry, and curios can lead to overharvesting of specific species, destruction of reef habitat, and reduced biodiversity. The practice of keeping marine aquaria as a hobby has increased in the last decade. It is reported that, globally, between 1.5 and 2 million people keep saltwater aquaria [38, 39]. Murray et al. [40] confirmed that the areas of southern California rocky shores which have been used by humans intensely for recreational activities such as fishing, exploration, walking, enjoyment of the out-of-doors, and educational field trips had suffered from reduction of species abundance and diversity due to visitors collection of intertidal organisms for consumption, fish bait, home aquariums and other purposes. The most direct effects of intensive collection are decreased abundances of exploited species and because humans preferentially collect larger individuals, altered population size structures. El-Naggar et al. [4] attributed the reduction of certain gastropod shells (Cypraeidae) from Aqaba Gulf to their intensive collection by visitors because they have beautiful shells.

#### *4.2.10 Fish-feeding*

The feeding behavior of reef fishes, eels, sharks and even rays has come to a "selling point" through commercial fish feeding dive tours and "interactive diving." However, many do not realize the harmful effects this activity has on these animals. Studies done around the world have indicated that fish feeding significantly alters behavioral patterns by "training" these wild creatures with human food handouts. In addition, fish feeding causes health problems for the fed animals and disrupts the natural processes within the marine community. Here in the Mamanucas, particularly at sites where fish feeding occurs, there has been an increase in aggressive behavior within schools of surgeonfish, fighting amongst themselves and causing injury, even to the point of destroying their own reef habitat by breaking hard corals. Triggerfish have also been observed biting and destroying the reef structure. Sergeant Damselfish swarm around snorkelers or divers expecting to be fed. The fish that are fed often "peck' at the snorkelers or divers entering the water, taking away the pleasure of observing the reef and its inhabitants in a calm and inoffensive manner. By feeding the algae eaters that control algae growth, they become handout feeders that soon neglect their important role of eating algae, which in turn can overgrow corals. Major conservation organizations, including UNEP, DAN, WWF and Environmental Defense, encourage passive interaction with marine life and avoiding feeding and petting, which may lead to accidental injury.

#### **5. Proposed solutions to mitigation of the coral reef threats (methods for conserve the coral reef )**

The aggregate effects of these stressors can decrease resilience of the reef overall and increase susceptibility to disease and invasive species. The anthropogenic stressors on coral reef ecosystem are suggested potential factors respon-sible for the degradation and instability of any ecosystem. Any bad practices from human; directly and indirectly can have effects on coral reef ecosystem. So, it is necessary to create new strategies to protect coral reef ecosystems. Given that 20% of the coral reefs in the world have already been destroyed much has to be done in the future for the preserve of coral reef ecosystem.

#### **5.1 Establishment of marine protected areas**

One of the key techniques of conserving coral reef ecosystem is the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are important tools for marine conservation and management. Although there are many types of MPAs, in all them, there are areas set aside for unlimited human activities. When the MPAs restriction is highest, they are considered as "no-take" areas, where the deal-ing with all forms of marine life is prevented; even recreation, research and educa-tion are restricted. Many of MAPs were constructed specifically for management of a special purpose (for instance, for biodiversity preservation, as a refuge of a certain species to breed, for conservation of a historical site or even for recreation). Multiple use management protected areas are zones to permit for complete limitation on dealing in some areas and managed use in others [41]. However, a main problem in MPAs is that they fail to achieved their management objectives and become parks on paper only [42]. Even though MPAs may be gazetted legally, enforcement of relevant laws (zoning, prohibiting certain activities) is often poor.

#### **5.2 Prevention of over-harvesting through legislation**

Many species are protected under general species protection laws across the region. Most of this protection is afforded to marine vertebrates, but some countries– such as India and Sri Lanka–have laws protecting several species of coral, mollusks and echinoderms. In India, all Stony corals, all Black corals, all Fire corals, and all Sea fans are protected by law [43]. In Sri Lanka, all Stony corals are protected by law [44].

#### **5.3 Monitoring**

Coral reefs monitoring is a substantial process for developing efficacious strategies of management. Only through monitoring only, is it possible to assess patterns and trends of coral reefs health and use. There are many worldwide organizations specializing in monitoring of coral reefs status. The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) devote their efforts and coordinates in order to improve coral reefs management in the whole world, this through capacity building and knowledge sharing and works closely with Reef Base (Global database about coral reef related information) and Reef Check. After the coral bleaching event in 1998 and with the continuous threat of coral degradation as a result of other anthropogenic activities, Coastal Ocean Research and Development in the Indian Ocean (CORDIO) commenced in 1999. CORDIO supports and funds the scientists and organizations in the Indian Ocean Region, for assurance of monitoring of coral reefs status in the region with focus on both socio-economic and ecological impacts of coral reef degradation. Monitoring plays a critical role in managing Marine Protected Areas. The importance of monitoring and research is in guiding management of the fisheries and biodiversity resources. It is necessary to develop a long term monitoring plan for management of abundance and diversity of biota coupled with an assessment of fishing and habitats quality including coral reef [1].

#### **5.4 Building awareness**

Building awareness about coral reef ecosystems, their biodiversity, services they provide and their business are highly supportive of mitigation of the threats that are facing these fragile ecosystem of coral reefs. Awareness at the community levels is extreme efficient as it may help to encourage coral reefs users to change their behavior

**103**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

**communities**

process of reef management.

to sustainable use of these ecosystems. On the other hand, the awareness at national level through conservation education by the media and other means is necessary to guarantee that decision makers integrate coral reef preser-vation into all development stages. It is also important to ensure that some envi-ronmental issues, such as poorly planned or unplanned inland development and pollution, are prevented in order to protect coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs. Worldwide, 1997 was designated as International Year of the Coral Reef Because of growing threats to coral reefs in the whole world. Also, 2008 was designated as International Year of the Coral Reef.

**5.5 Support of sustainable livelihoods and participation in reef dependent** 

The relationship between reef ecosystems and poverty is very significant, whereas 67% of all countries having reef areas are developing countries and about

Coral reef ecosystems contribute to the national economies and provide significant resources for poor people. The current direction of growing threats to coral resources is projected to impact poor communities dependent on reef ecosystem. To make matters worse, the predominating objectives of reef ecosystem management for preservation restrict community access to their resources thus reducing livelihood options for these communities. Oftentimes, these restrictions are not followed by communities which may have weak understanding or low participation in the

It is now well recognized that these communities need to be offered alternates for livelihoods in order to assure that reefs are not further damaged, as well as to mitigate poverty for these communities. Therefore, managers of coastal areas are highly switching toward more integrated as well contributory approaches for coral reefs conservation and management. These approaches include identifying and supporting alternate livelihoods for reducing reliance on reef components, in addition to promoting the activities of current livelihood to make them more cost and resource use effective . Rather than comprehensive restrictions on reefs resources use, recently, limited and controlled uses of these resources are advocated in certain circumstances. The reef access rights, resolution of struggles over resource uses, local community involvement and cooperative reef management are now being

It is now understood that the standard approaches of management of coastal zones have not been successful in realizing sustainable development and reef

The shifting from small and isolated efforts of management to large-scale networks using cooperative management is a new trend. Increasing reefs area under high conservation is a main propulsion for this shifting, thus now 33% of Great Barrier Reef has been declared as a highly protected areas or as notake zones, where no activity is permitted except in the narrowest limits. The cooperation for creating greater network of Marine Protected Areas is another meth - od that has been favored by main Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund who are developing training modules to identify and develop a network of Marine Protected Areas in Asia depending on zones of highest biodiversity. Another shift is in the effort to focus research on real-life

preservation aims and there is need for change in approaches [16].

25% of these countries are least developed countries [45].

integrated in to reefs resources management [46].

problems that resource managers face [16].

**5.6 New management initiatives**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

**5.1 Establishment of marine protected areas**

**5.2 Prevention of over-harvesting through legislation**

One of the key techniques of conserving coral reef ecosystem is the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are important tools for marine conservation and management. Although there are many types of MPAs, in all them, there are areas set aside for unlimited human activities. When the MPAs restriction is highest, they are considered as "no-take" areas, where the deal-ing with all forms of marine life is prevented; even recreation, research and educa-tion are restricted. Many of MAPs were constructed specifically for management of a special purpose (for instance, for biodiversity preservation, as a refuge of a certain species to breed, for conservation of a historical site or even for recreation). Multiple use management protected areas are zones to permit for complete limitation on dealing in some areas and managed use in others [41]. However, a main problem in MPAs is that they fail to achieved their management objectives and become parks on paper only [42]. Even though MPAs may be gazetted legally, enforcement of relevant laws (zoning, prohibiting certain activities) is often poor.

Many species are protected under general species protection laws across the region. Most of this protection is afforded to marine vertebrates, but some countries– such as India and Sri Lanka–have laws protecting several species of coral, mollusks and echinoderms. In India, all Stony corals, all Black corals, all Fire corals, and all Sea fans are protected by law [43]. In Sri Lanka, all Stony corals are protected by law [44].

Coral reefs monitoring is a substantial process for developing efficacious strategies of management. Only through monitoring only, is it possible to assess patterns and trends of coral reefs health and use. There are many worldwide organizations specializing in monitoring of coral reefs status. The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) devote their efforts and coordinates in order to improve coral reefs management in the whole world, this through capacity building and knowledge sharing and works closely with Reef Base (Global database about coral reef related information) and Reef Check. After the coral bleaching event in 1998 and with the continuous threat of coral degradation as a result of other anthropogenic activities, Coastal Ocean Research and Development in the Indian Ocean (CORDIO) commenced in 1999. CORDIO supports and funds the scientists and organizations in the Indian Ocean Region, for assurance of monitoring of coral reefs status in the region with focus on both socio-economic and ecological impacts of coral reef degradation. Monitoring plays a critical role in managing Marine Protected Areas. The importance of monitoring and research is in guiding management of the fisheries and biodiversity resources. It is necessary to develop a long term monitoring plan for management of abundance and diversity of biota coupled with an assessment of fishing and habitats quality including

Building awareness about coral reef ecosystems, their biodiversity, services they provide and their business are highly supportive of mitigation of the threats that are facing these fragile ecosystem of coral reefs. Awareness at the community levels is extreme efficient as it may help to encourage coral reefs users to change their behavior

**102**

coral reef [1].

**5.4 Building awareness**

**5.3 Monitoring**

to sustainable use of these ecosystems. On the other hand, the awareness at national level through conservation education by the media and other means is necessary to guarantee that decision makers integrate coral reef preser-vation into all development stages. It is also important to ensure that some envi-ronmental issues, such as poorly planned or unplanned inland development and pollution, are prevented in order to protect coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs. Worldwide, 1997 was designated as International Year of the Coral Reef Because of growing threats to coral reefs in the whole world. Also, 2008 was designated as International Year of the Coral Reef.

#### **5.5 Support of sustainable livelihoods and participation in reef dependent communities**

The relationship between reef ecosystems and poverty is very significant, whereas 67% of all countries having reef areas are developing countries and about 25% of these countries are least developed countries [45].

Coral reef ecosystems contribute to the national economies and provide significant resources for poor people. The current direction of growing threats to coral resources is projected to impact poor communities dependent on reef ecosystem. To make matters worse, the predominating objectives of reef ecosystem management for preservation restrict community access to their resources thus reducing livelihood options for these communities. Oftentimes, these restrictions are not followed by communities which may have weak understanding or low participation in the process of reef management.

It is now well recognized that these communities need to be offered alternates for livelihoods in order to assure that reefs are not further damaged, as well as to mitigate poverty for these communities. Therefore, managers of coastal areas are highly switching toward more integrated as well contributory approaches for coral reefs conservation and management. These approaches include identifying and supporting alternate livelihoods for reducing reliance on reef components, in addition to promoting the activities of current livelihood to make them more cost and resource use effective . Rather than comprehensive restrictions on reefs resources use, recently, limited and controlled uses of these resources are advocated in certain circumstances. The reef access rights, resolution of struggles over resource uses, local community involvement and cooperative reef management are now being integrated in to reefs resources management [46].

#### **5.6 New management initiatives**

It is now understood that the standard approaches of management of coastal zones have not been successful in realizing sustainable development and reef preservation aims and there is need for change in approaches [16].

The shifting from small and isolated efforts of management to large-scale networks using cooperative management is a new trend. Increasing reefs area under high conservation is a main propulsion for this shifting, thus now 33% of Great Barrier Reef has been declared as a highly protected areas or as notake zones, where no activity is permitted except in the narrowest limits. The cooperation for creating greater network of Marine Protected Areas is another meth - od that has been favored by main Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund who are developing training modules to identify and develop a network of Marine Protected Areas in Asia depending on zones of highest biodiversity. Another shift is in the effort to focus research on real-life problems that resource managers face [16].

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

#### **Author details**

Hussein A. El-Naggar Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

\*Address all correspondence to: hu\_gar2000@yahoo.com

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**105**

2012;**1**:50-61

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

[1] Mona MH, El-Naggar HA, El-Gayar EE, Masood MF, Mohamed ENE. Effect of human activities on biodiversity in Nabq Protected Area, South Sinai, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research. [9] ISRS "International Society for Reef Studies". ISRS Consensus Statement on Climate Change and Coral Bleaching. Prepared for the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris, December 2015. Available from: http://coralreefs.org/ wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ISRS

[10] Wilkinson C. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre; 2008. 296 p

[11] Hasaballah AI, El-Naggar HA. Antimicrobial activities of some marine sponges, and its biological, repellent effects against *Culex pipiens* (Diptera: Culicidae). Annual Research & Review

[12] El-Naggar HA, Hasaballah AI. Acute larvicidal toxicity and repellency effect of *Octopus cyanea* crude extract against the filariasis vector, *Culex pippiens*. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology. 2018;**48**(3):721-728

[13] Mathieu L, Langford IH, Kenyon W. Valuing marine parks in a developing country: A case study of the Seychelles. CSERGE Working Paper GEC. 2000;**27**

[14] Emerton L. Seychelles Biodiversity: Economic Assessment. Paper prepared for National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Conservation and National Parks Section, Division of Environment,

[15] Burke L, Selig L, Spalding M. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2002. 72 p

[16] Wilkinson C. Status of the Coral Reefs of the World. Vol. 1 + 2. Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Australian Institute of Marine Science; 2004. 557p

Victoria; 1997

in Biology. 2017;**12**(3):1-14

[2] El-Naggar HA. Student Lectures, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University;

[3] Wilkinson C, Brodie J. Catchment

Management and Coral Reef Conservation: A Practical Guide for Coastal Resource Managers to Reduce Damage from Catchment Areas Based on Best Practice Case Studies. Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre; 2011

[4] El-Naggar HA, El-Gayar EE, Mohamed ENE, Mona MH. Intertidal Macro-benthos diversity and their relation with tourism activities at Blue Hole Diving Site, Dahab, South Sinai, Egypt. SYLWAN. 2017;**161**(11):227-251

[5] Ali AAM, Hamed MA, Abd El-Azim H. Heavy metals distribution in the coral reef ecosystems of the Northern Red Sea. Helgoland Marine

[6] Al-Moghrabi SM. Unusual black band disease (BBD) outbreak in the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba (Jordan). Coral Reefs. 2001;**19**:330-331

Macneil MA, Mouillot D, Wilson SK. Predicting climate-driven regime shifts versus rebound potential in coral reefs.

[8] de Groot R, Brander L, Van Der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services.

Research. 2011;**65**:67-80

[7] Graham NAJ, Jennings S,

Nature. 2015;**5181**:94-97

**References**

2019;**45**:33-43

2019

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

#### **References**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

**104**

**Author details**

Hussein A. El-Naggar

Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: hu\_gar2000@yahoo.com

provided the original work is properly cited.

[1] Mona MH, El-Naggar HA, El-Gayar EE, Masood MF, Mohamed ENE. Effect of human activities on biodiversity in Nabq Protected Area, South Sinai, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research. 2019;**45**:33-43

[2] El-Naggar HA. Student Lectures, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University; 2019

[3] Wilkinson C, Brodie J. Catchment Management and Coral Reef Conservation: A Practical Guide for Coastal Resource Managers to Reduce Damage from Catchment Areas Based on Best Practice Case Studies. Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre; 2011

[4] El-Naggar HA, El-Gayar EE, Mohamed ENE, Mona MH. Intertidal Macro-benthos diversity and their relation with tourism activities at Blue Hole Diving Site, Dahab, South Sinai, Egypt. SYLWAN. 2017;**161**(11):227-251

[5] Ali AAM, Hamed MA, Abd El-Azim H. Heavy metals distribution in the coral reef ecosystems of the Northern Red Sea. Helgoland Marine Research. 2011;**65**:67-80

[6] Al-Moghrabi SM. Unusual black band disease (BBD) outbreak in the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba (Jordan). Coral Reefs. 2001;**19**:330-331

[7] Graham NAJ, Jennings S, Macneil MA, Mouillot D, Wilson SK. Predicting climate-driven regime shifts versus rebound potential in coral reefs. Nature. 2015;**5181**:94-97

[8] de Groot R, Brander L, Van Der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services. 2012;**1**:50-61

[9] ISRS "International Society for Reef Studies". ISRS Consensus Statement on Climate Change and Coral Bleaching. Prepared for the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris, December 2015. Available from: http://coralreefs.org/ wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ISRS

[10] Wilkinson C. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre; 2008. 296 p

[11] Hasaballah AI, El-Naggar HA. Antimicrobial activities of some marine sponges, and its biological, repellent effects against *Culex pipiens* (Diptera: Culicidae). Annual Research & Review in Biology. 2017;**12**(3):1-14

[12] El-Naggar HA, Hasaballah AI. Acute larvicidal toxicity and repellency effect of *Octopus cyanea* crude extract against the filariasis vector, *Culex pippiens*. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology. 2018;**48**(3):721-728

[13] Mathieu L, Langford IH, Kenyon W. Valuing marine parks in a developing country: A case study of the Seychelles. CSERGE Working Paper GEC. 2000;**27**

[14] Emerton L. Seychelles Biodiversity: Economic Assessment. Paper prepared for National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Conservation and National Parks Section, Division of Environment, Victoria; 1997

[15] Burke L, Selig L, Spalding M. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2002. 72 p

[16] Wilkinson C. Status of the Coral Reefs of the World. Vol. 1 + 2. Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Australian Institute of Marine Science; 2004. 557p

[17] Hughes TP, Baird AH, Card M, Connolly SR, Folke C, Grosberg R, et al. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science. 2003;**301**:929-933

[18] Dalton SJ, Smith DA. Coral disease dynamics at a subtropical location, Solitary Islands Marine Park, Eastern Australia. Coral Reefs. 2006;**25**:37-45

[19] Beeden R, Willis BL, Raymundo LJ, Page CA, Weil E. Underwater Cards for Assessing Coral Health on Indo-Pacific Reefs. Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management Program. Melbourne: Currie Communications; 2008 22pp

[20] Kleypas JA, Yates KK. Coral reefs and ocean acidification. Oceanography. 2009;**22**(4):108-117

[21] NOAA "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration". NOAA declares third ever global coral bleaching event. 2015. Available from: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/ stories2015/100815-noaa-declaresthird-coral-bleaching-event.html

[22] IPCC "International Panel on Climate Change". The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Stocker TF, et al., ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2013. 1535 p

[23] Jackson JBC, Donovan MK, Cramer KL, Lam VV. Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012. Gland, Switzerland: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IUCN; 2014. 304 pp

[24] Hoegh-Guldberg O, Cai R, Poloczanska ES, Brewer PG, Sundby S, Hilmi K, et al. The ocean. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional

Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; 2014. pp. 1655-1731

[25] Forbes E. Coral Reefs and the Crown-of-Thorns Starfi sh. 2006. Available from: http://jrscience. wcp.muohio.edu/fieldcourses06/ PapersMarineEcologyArticles/ CoralReefsandtheCrown-of-.html

[26] IUCN. Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species. Gland: Switzerland: IUCN; 2000. p. 21

[27] ten Hallers-Tjabbes C. Marine Biodiversity threatened by ballast water transported by ships; curbing the threat. In subtheme, Coping with Aliens. In: Proceedings of Biodiversity loss and species extinctions, managing risk in a changing world. A global synthesis workshop convened at the IUCN World Conservation Forum 18-20 November 2004. Bangkok, Thailand; 2004

[28] Available from: http://www.iucn. org/themes/wcpa/newsbulletins/ webstories/guimarassep2006htm.htm

[29] Jackson JB et al. Historical over-fishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science. 2001;**293**(5530):629-637

[30] Donaldson TJ, Graham TR, McGilvray GJ, Phillips MJ, Rimmer MA, Sadovy YJ, et al. While Stocks Last: The Live Reef Food Fish Trade. Asian Development Bank. Available from: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ Live\_Reef\_Food\_Fish\_Trade/62289\_ summary.pdf; 2003

[31] Baillie J, Groombridge B (Compilers and Editors). IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2007.

**107**

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

[32] Brown BE, Dunne RP, Scofi TP. Coral rock extraction in the Maldives, central Indian Ocean– limiting the damage. Coral Reefs.

[33] Rajasuriya A, Zahri H,

CORDIO; 2004. pp. 213-233

Harper Collins; 1993. 579 pp

2012;**1**:416-434

2010. 25 p

Publishers; 1993

[35] Hilmi N, Safa A, Reynaud S, Allemand D. Coral reefs and tourism in Egypt's Red Sea. Topics in Middle Eastern and African Economies.

Venkataraman K, Islam Z Tamelander J. Status of coral reefs in South Asia: Bangladesh, Chagos, India, Maldives and Sri Lanka. In: Souter D, Linden O, editors. Coral reef degradation in the Indian Ocean Status Report. Sweden:

[41] Agardy MT. Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas. Trends in Ecology and

[43] Wlidlife Protection Act India. 1972. Available from: http://envfor.nic.in/

[45] UNDP. Human Development Report 2002. United Nations Development Programme. 2002. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/

[46] Whittingham E, Campbell J, Townsley PP. Poverty and reefs. DFID– IMM–IOC/UNESCO; 2003. 260 pp

Evolution. 1994;**9**:267-270

2002;**44**:1177-1183

Lanka Press

hdr2002/

[42] Jameson SC, Tupper MH, Ridley JM. The three screen doors: Can marine "protected" areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin.

legis/wildlife/wildlife1.html

[44] Fauna & Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 as amended 1993. Sri Lanka: Government of Sri

[34] Nybakken JW. Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach. 3rd ed. New York:

[36] EUBBP (European Union Business and Biodiversity Platform). Tourism Sector and Biodiversity Conservation, Best Practice Benchmarking. Outcome of a workshop by the European Union Business and Biodiversity Platform;

[37] Wong PP, editor. Tourism vs. Environment: The Case for Coastal Areas. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

[38] Wabnitz C, Taylor M, Green E, Razak T. From Ocean to Aquarium. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC; 2003

Graham TR, McGilvray F, Muldoon GJ, Phillips MJ, et al. While Stocks Last: The Live Reef Food Fish Trade. Manila,

[40] Murray SN, Teri GD, Janine SK, Jayson RS. Human visitation and the frequency and potential effects of collecting on rocky intertidal population in Southern California Marine Reserves.

[39] Sadovy YJ, Donaldson TJ,

Philippines: ADB S; 2003

CalCOFl Reports. 1999;**40**

1995;**2007**(14):236

*Human Impacts on Coral Reef Ecosystem DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88841*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; 2014.

[25] Forbes E. Coral Reefs and the Crown-of-Thorns Starfi sh. 2006. Available from: http://jrscience. wcp.muohio.edu/fieldcourses06/ PapersMarineEcologyArticles/ CoralReefsandtheCrown-of-.html

[26] IUCN. Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species. Gland: Switzerland:

[27] ten Hallers-Tjabbes C. Marine Biodiversity threatened by ballast water transported by ships; curbing the threat. In subtheme, Coping with Aliens. In: Proceedings of Biodiversity loss and species extinctions, managing risk in a changing world. A global synthesis workshop convened at the IUCN World Conservation Forum 18-20 November 2004. Bangkok, Thailand; 2004

[28] Available from: http://www.iucn. org/themes/wcpa/newsbulletins/ webstories/guimarassep2006htm.htm

[29] Jackson JB et al. Historical over-fishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science. 2001;**293**(5530):629-637

[30] Donaldson TJ, Graham TR,

summary.pdf; 2003

McGilvray GJ, Phillips MJ, Rimmer MA, Sadovy YJ, et al. While Stocks Last: The Live Reef Food Fish Trade. Asian Development Bank. Available from: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ Live\_Reef\_Food\_Fish\_Trade/62289\_

[31] Baillie J, Groombridge B (Compilers

and Editors). IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2007.

pp. 1655-1731

IUCN; 2000. p. 21

[17] Hughes TP, Baird AH, Card M, Connolly SR, Folke C, Grosberg R, et al. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science.

[18] Dalton SJ, Smith DA. Coral disease dynamics at a subtropical location, Solitary Islands Marine Park, Eastern Australia. Coral Reefs. 2006;**25**:37-45

[19] Beeden R, Willis BL, Raymundo LJ, Page CA, Weil E. Underwater Cards for Assessing Coral Health on Indo-Pacific Reefs. Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management

[20] Kleypas JA, Yates KK. Coral reefs and ocean acidification. Oceanography.

[21] NOAA "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration". NOAA declares third ever global coral bleaching event. 2015. Available from: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/ stories2015/100815-noaa-declaresthird-coral-bleaching-event.html

[22] IPCC "International Panel on Climate Change". The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Stocker TF, et al., ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge

University Press; 2013. 1535 p

[23] Jackson JBC, Donovan MK,

[24] Hoegh-Guldberg O, Cai R,

Cramer KL, Lam VV. Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012. Gland, Switzerland: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IUCN; 2014.

Poloczanska ES, Brewer PG, Sundby S, Hilmi K, et al. The ocean. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional

Program. Melbourne: Currie Communications; 2008 22pp

2009;**22**(4):108-117

2003;**301**:929-933

**106**

304 pp

[32] Brown BE, Dunne RP, Scofi TP. Coral rock extraction in the Maldives, central Indian Ocean– limiting the damage. Coral Reefs. 1995;**2007**(14):236

[33] Rajasuriya A, Zahri H, Venkataraman K, Islam Z Tamelander J. Status of coral reefs in South Asia: Bangladesh, Chagos, India, Maldives and Sri Lanka. In: Souter D, Linden O, editors. Coral reef degradation in the Indian Ocean Status Report. Sweden: CORDIO; 2004. pp. 213-233

[34] Nybakken JW. Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach. 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1993. 579 pp

[35] Hilmi N, Safa A, Reynaud S, Allemand D. Coral reefs and tourism in Egypt's Red Sea. Topics in Middle Eastern and African Economies. 2012;**1**:416-434

[36] EUBBP (European Union Business and Biodiversity Platform). Tourism Sector and Biodiversity Conservation, Best Practice Benchmarking. Outcome of a workshop by the European Union Business and Biodiversity Platform; 2010. 25 p

[37] Wong PP, editor. Tourism vs. Environment: The Case for Coastal Areas. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993

[38] Wabnitz C, Taylor M, Green E, Razak T. From Ocean to Aquarium. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC; 2003

[39] Sadovy YJ, Donaldson TJ, Graham TR, McGilvray F, Muldoon GJ, Phillips MJ, et al. While Stocks Last: The Live Reef Food Fish Trade. Manila, Philippines: ADB S; 2003

[40] Murray SN, Teri GD, Janine SK, Jayson RS. Human visitation and the frequency and potential effects of collecting on rocky intertidal population in Southern California Marine Reserves. CalCOFl Reports. 1999;**40**

[41] Agardy MT. Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 1994;**9**:267-270

[42] Jameson SC, Tupper MH, Ridley JM. The three screen doors: Can marine "protected" areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2002;**44**:1177-1183

[43] Wlidlife Protection Act India. 1972. Available from: http://envfor.nic.in/ legis/wildlife/wildlife1.html

[44] Fauna & Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 as amended 1993. Sri Lanka: Government of Sri Lanka Press

[45] UNDP. Human Development Report 2002. United Nations Development Programme. 2002. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/ hdr2002/

[46] Whittingham E, Campbell J, Townsley PP. Poverty and reefs. DFID– IMM–IOC/UNESCO; 2003. 260 pp

**109**

**Chapter 6**

**Abstract**

*Fiona J. Campbell*

Human Factors: The Impact on

Industry and the Environment

environment as a result of the rapidly changing technology.

control room design, control room operator

**1. Introduction**

**Keywords:** human factors, human error, control room environment,

If we look at the generally accepted definition of the word environment as the natural world, and industry as the processing of raw materials from this natural world, then the link between the human impact on industry and the environment can be easily understood. Industry is a man-made function developed specifically to maximize the value of raw materials. The next logical step is to examine how human error can be directly related to negative environmental impact and how this could be mitigated, if not prevented. If we look back in history at the evolution of industry, we can see a pattern emerge as industry began and continues to be more driven by technology. With Industry 4.0 focusing on the latest and greatest technology, the concern is that the human involved in developing, implementing and monitoring this technology will be overshadowed by technology itself. No matter how quickly technology advances, industry will always ultimately be controlled by humans. The risk of human error must be mitigated—one mistake can result in huge and in some cases irreversible environmental damage. The increasing need for a focus on the psycho-social work environment must be considered. How has this critical element been downplayed to a point that it is almost non-existent when it comes

New technology is evolving rapidly, creating new environmental and industrial challenges that must be considered. Technology continues to focus on the demands of industry to increase efficiency and production output. At the same time, industry must quickly adapt to new technologies in order to compete and grow and also face the increased awareness for the need to evaluate and mitigate environmental impact. Recent studies indicate that the use of automation in the workplace will nearly double in the next few years. If we look at the control room as being the core of the industrial environment, the focus was previously on the physical and automated components. Little focus has been on the humans that control this rapidly evolving technology, and there is still not enough focus on the most critical component that can not only impact production and output but also create a negative impact on the environment as a result of human error that could have been avoided. It is time to take a step back and look at what impact the humans are having on the

#### **Chapter 6**

## Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment

*Fiona J. Campbell*

#### **Abstract**

New technology is evolving rapidly, creating new environmental and industrial challenges that must be considered. Technology continues to focus on the demands of industry to increase efficiency and production output. At the same time, industry must quickly adapt to new technologies in order to compete and grow and also face the increased awareness for the need to evaluate and mitigate environmental impact. Recent studies indicate that the use of automation in the workplace will nearly double in the next few years. If we look at the control room as being the core of the industrial environment, the focus was previously on the physical and automated components. Little focus has been on the humans that control this rapidly evolving technology, and there is still not enough focus on the most critical component that can not only impact production and output but also create a negative impact on the environment as a result of human error that could have been avoided. It is time to take a step back and look at what impact the humans are having on the environment as a result of the rapidly changing technology.

**Keywords:** human factors, human error, control room environment, control room design, control room operator

#### **1. Introduction**

If we look at the generally accepted definition of the word environment as the natural world, and industry as the processing of raw materials from this natural world, then the link between the human impact on industry and the environment can be easily understood. Industry is a man-made function developed specifically to maximize the value of raw materials. The next logical step is to examine how human error can be directly related to negative environmental impact and how this could be mitigated, if not prevented. If we look back in history at the evolution of industry, we can see a pattern emerge as industry began and continues to be more driven by technology. With Industry 4.0 focusing on the latest and greatest technology, the concern is that the human involved in developing, implementing and monitoring this technology will be overshadowed by technology itself. No matter how quickly technology advances, industry will always ultimately be controlled by humans. The risk of human error must be mitigated—one mistake can result in huge and in some cases irreversible environmental damage. The increasing need for a focus on the psycho-social work environment must be considered. How has this critical element been downplayed to a point that it is almost non-existent when it comes

to evaluating environmental risk? The purpose of this chapter is to take a step back and identify some key considerations that should be a baseline when analyzing the impact of industry on the environment.

#### **2. Industry 4.0—how did we get here?**

Industry is driven by technology which can be traced back to the beginning of the first industrial revolution in the eighteenth century. This is commonly understood as the transformation from an agrarian economy to one that was transformed by industry and machine manufacturing. The technological changes involved the use of iron and steel, new energy sources including fuel and coal, and the invention of new machines to process these sources to increase production which then led to the development of factories to house the machines [1].

This was followed by the second industrial revolution, which led to the development of automated factories, and an expansion into the use of additional resources such as different metals, as well as the start of production of other products (plastics and chemicals for example) that required the further development of automation and factories as well as the start of mass production. The third industrial revolution, brought semiconductors, computing and later on the internet—this is known as the Digital Revolution [2]. Now it is generally accepted that we are now into the fourth industrial revolution, or Industry 4.0 which can be defined as "a new era that builds and extends the impact of digitalization in new and unanticipated ways" [3]. The result is even further and quicker development of technologies, automation and factories that are developing more rapidly than we thought possible.

If we look at the advancement of industry through each of these periods, there are two key elements that need to be considered as critical, especially as they relate to human factors and the potential impact on the environment. First, as factories became more automated, the processes also became more streamlined—over time it became possible to control multiple actions within an industrial setting from one centralized area: the control room. Second, as automated and advanced these processes became (and continue to become), the human was, and today still is, involved. No matter how advanced the technology, there is always a human either watching the process or controlling the process and, in many cases, it is both. As much as technology facilitates industrial automation, it also creates new challenges. Smart and intuitive technology and the resulting requirement for increased employee expertise will have a major impact on how these new technologies are both implemented and at the same time controlled.

The control room is the core of all industrial production facilities—this is where technology is monitored, analyzed and where all processes that are taking place as part of production are operated. The humans that work in a control room are commonly referred to as operators, and for the purposes of this discussion, the term "operator" unless otherwise specified, will refer to the human who is working in the control room. Operators today are overloaded, and unless we consider all aspects to mitigate the stress of the environment in the control room, it will affect not only production but also safety and has the potential to lead to both positive and negative impact on the environment as a whole.

#### **3. Major industrial disasters reported to be caused by human error**

If we look at a few well-known major disasters that had major impact on the environment, we can see where and how human error was identified as the cause.

**111**

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment*

Take for example Union Carbide in Bhopal, India in 1984. The analysis of that accident determined two out of three safety systems in place were shut down or broken—operators were so used to hearing alarms go off, for other reasons, they did not pay attention to the one that was critical resulting in 40 tons of toxic gas and chemicals released into the environment [4]. Which raises the question of how could this have been avoided? Why was there no system in place to prevent this? It would suggest that had the safety systems been updated, repaired or at the very

A few years later there was Chernobyl in 1986. In that case, control room operators ran the plant at very low power, without adequate safety precautions and without properly coordinating or communicating the proper procedures with other personnel, the end result being the meltdown of one of the nuclear reactors [5]. It led to the mass release of radiation that is estimated to have traveled across nearly 8000 square miles (over 20,000 square km) of Europe [6]. With both of these disasters, there is still no definitive estimate of the resulting impact on the environment; however, it is undoubtably substantial and ongoing. Many studies of both examples have been done, and many questions asked about technology and physical and mechanical failure. Yet ultimately, both were traced back to the control room

In 1989, there was the Exxon Valdez disaster, which arguably was one of the largest environmental disasters, and was seen as the worst oil spill in US history: "The impact on local wildlife was devastating: An estimated 250,000 sea birds died in the months after the spill, and 14 members of the 36 local Prince William Sound killer whale pod had disappeared by 1990. The so-called carcass count also tallied, among other creatures, 1000 dead sea otters as well as 151 dead bald eagles…" [7]. There have been many articles and analyses of this very well-known disaster, but the common underlying theme in these studies ultimately also points back to the key cause of this disaster: human error. The inquiry that followed the disaster identified "… drinking, exhaustion of depleted crews, unqualified pilots on the bridge, violations of basic sailing rules, lax Coast Guard monitoring and a blind reliance on new technology all figured in the grounding on March 24 of the Exxon Valdez" [8]. In this case, it was multiple events all leading back to the human that resulted in the

With the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in 2010, the analysis of the cause was multifaceted. It was a combination of years of cutting corners while moving forward with technology and advances, not one careless mistake that was to blame—however, one key point in this case was that despite all the experience of the crew on the rig, combined with the technology, the operators did not see the sign of trouble until it was too late, and did not act quickly enough to contain it, in fact did not know how to [9]. Environmental impact in this case was substantial: the oil was toxic to a wide range of organisms, including fish, birds, and sea mammals such as dolphins and sea turtles, not to mention corals as well as other ecosystems [10]. The final report on the Deepwater explosion concluded that it was not mechanical failure, but human error that was the root cause of the explosion [11]. It was also stated that "… regulators, however, failed to keep pace with the industrial expansion and new technology" [11]. Not only was the actual disaster caused by an error from the operator controlling the technology, we can see that it was human error on multiple levels which led to the disaster—regulators, management focusing on cutting costs with the expectation to increase financial results, all the way down

the chain to the operator who failed to react correctly in a critical situation.

In 2011, there was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear explosion in Japan. Where the initial thought was that the blame for this incident could be directly related to an earthquake and the tsunami that followed, reality is that this disaster was also the

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

least maintained, this might have been avoided.

and the operator—human error.

disaster. Could this have been avoided?

#### *Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

impact of industry on the environment.

**2. Industry 4.0—how did we get here?**

the development of factories to house the machines [1].

both implemented and at the same time controlled.

impact on the environment as a whole.

factories that are developing more rapidly than we thought possible.

to evaluating environmental risk? The purpose of this chapter is to take a step back and identify some key considerations that should be a baseline when analyzing the

Industry is driven by technology which can be traced back to the beginning of the first industrial revolution in the eighteenth century. This is commonly understood as the transformation from an agrarian economy to one that was transformed by industry and machine manufacturing. The technological changes involved the use of iron and steel, new energy sources including fuel and coal, and the invention of new machines to process these sources to increase production which then led to

This was followed by the second industrial revolution, which led to the development of automated factories, and an expansion into the use of additional resources such as different metals, as well as the start of production of other products (plastics and chemicals for example) that required the further development of automation and factories as well as the start of mass production. The third industrial revolution, brought semiconductors, computing and later on the internet—this is known as the Digital Revolution [2]. Now it is generally accepted that we are now into the fourth industrial revolution, or Industry 4.0 which can be defined as "a new era that builds and extends the impact of digitalization in new and unanticipated ways" [3]. The result is even further and quicker development of technologies, automation and

If we look at the advancement of industry through each of these periods, there are two key elements that need to be considered as critical, especially as they relate to human factors and the potential impact on the environment. First, as factories became more automated, the processes also became more streamlined—over time it became possible to control multiple actions within an industrial setting from one centralized area: the control room. Second, as automated and advanced these processes became (and continue to become), the human was, and today still is, involved. No matter how advanced the technology, there is always a human either watching the process or controlling the process and, in many cases, it is both. As much as technology facilitates industrial automation, it also creates new challenges. Smart and intuitive technology and the resulting requirement for increased employee expertise will have a major impact on how these new technologies are

The control room is the core of all industrial production facilities—this is where technology is monitored, analyzed and where all processes that are taking place as part of production are operated. The humans that work in a control room are commonly referred to as operators, and for the purposes of this discussion, the term "operator" unless otherwise specified, will refer to the human who is working in the control room. Operators today are overloaded, and unless we consider all aspects to mitigate the stress of the environment in the control room, it will affect not only production but also safety and has the potential to lead to both positive and negative

**3. Major industrial disasters reported to be caused by human error**

If we look at a few well-known major disasters that had major impact on the environment, we can see where and how human error was identified as the cause.

**110**

Take for example Union Carbide in Bhopal, India in 1984. The analysis of that accident determined two out of three safety systems in place were shut down or broken—operators were so used to hearing alarms go off, for other reasons, they did not pay attention to the one that was critical resulting in 40 tons of toxic gas and chemicals released into the environment [4]. Which raises the question of how could this have been avoided? Why was there no system in place to prevent this? It would suggest that had the safety systems been updated, repaired or at the very least maintained, this might have been avoided.

A few years later there was Chernobyl in 1986. In that case, control room operators ran the plant at very low power, without adequate safety precautions and without properly coordinating or communicating the proper procedures with other personnel, the end result being the meltdown of one of the nuclear reactors [5]. It led to the mass release of radiation that is estimated to have traveled across nearly 8000 square miles (over 20,000 square km) of Europe [6]. With both of these disasters, there is still no definitive estimate of the resulting impact on the environment; however, it is undoubtably substantial and ongoing. Many studies of both examples have been done, and many questions asked about technology and physical and mechanical failure. Yet ultimately, both were traced back to the control room and the operator—human error.

In 1989, there was the Exxon Valdez disaster, which arguably was one of the largest environmental disasters, and was seen as the worst oil spill in US history: "The impact on local wildlife was devastating: An estimated 250,000 sea birds died in the months after the spill, and 14 members of the 36 local Prince William Sound killer whale pod had disappeared by 1990. The so-called carcass count also tallied, among other creatures, 1000 dead sea otters as well as 151 dead bald eagles…" [7]. There have been many articles and analyses of this very well-known disaster, but the common underlying theme in these studies ultimately also points back to the key cause of this disaster: human error. The inquiry that followed the disaster identified "… drinking, exhaustion of depleted crews, unqualified pilots on the bridge, violations of basic sailing rules, lax Coast Guard monitoring and a blind reliance on new technology all figured in the grounding on March 24 of the Exxon Valdez" [8]. In this case, it was multiple events all leading back to the human that resulted in the disaster. Could this have been avoided?

With the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in 2010, the analysis of the cause was multifaceted. It was a combination of years of cutting corners while moving forward with technology and advances, not one careless mistake that was to blame—however, one key point in this case was that despite all the experience of the crew on the rig, combined with the technology, the operators did not see the sign of trouble until it was too late, and did not act quickly enough to contain it, in fact did not know how to [9]. Environmental impact in this case was substantial: the oil was toxic to a wide range of organisms, including fish, birds, and sea mammals such as dolphins and sea turtles, not to mention corals as well as other ecosystems [10]. The final report on the Deepwater explosion concluded that it was not mechanical failure, but human error that was the root cause of the explosion [11]. It was also stated that "… regulators, however, failed to keep pace with the industrial expansion and new technology" [11]. Not only was the actual disaster caused by an error from the operator controlling the technology, we can see that it was human error on multiple levels which led to the disaster—regulators, management focusing on cutting costs with the expectation to increase financial results, all the way down the chain to the operator who failed to react correctly in a critical situation.

In 2011, there was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear explosion in Japan. Where the initial thought was that the blame for this incident could be directly related to an earthquake and the tsunami that followed, reality is that this disaster was also the

result of human error. An independent panel that was commissioned by the government of Japan to analyze the disaster determined that the meltdowns of reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had "…less to do with the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan … and more to do with the plant owners' and government's failure to anticipate and prepare for emergencies on such an epic scale" [12]. Furthermore, the report to the Japanese government was that it was human error: "The crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant was "a profoundly man-made disaster" [13]. Once again, a major disaster with ongoing effect on the environment that is still having an impact today. And once again, a multifaceted case of human error on more than one level.

A more recent example was the Columbia Gas explosions in Massachusetts in 2018. According to US Federal investigators preliminary report, customers received gas from a low-pressure distribution network, which in turn was fed from high pressure main pipeline. At the time, workers were replacing some of the piping but due to faulty procedures, faulty work orders and lack of proper communication, full pressure from the main pipeline fed into the local distribution network, which then lead to a chain reaction resulting in multiple explosions [14]. Once again, a largescale disaster caused directly by human error. Some of the dangers of natural gas are obvious such as pollution, and the resulting impact on public health, and some are not so obvious, including but not limited to the impact on mental health as a result of major incidents such as the one in noted above as well as the fear of potential similar incidents occurring in the future. Considering that there are thousands of miles of outdated infrastructure, and no real way of predicting when the next explosion might occur [15], the concerns are very real. The outdated infrastructure not only applies to the gas industry, but undoubtably in every major industry worldwide. This not only is a concern due to the potential loss of life caused by these accidents, but also the resulting potential effects on the environment as a whole.

The above-mentioned cases further serve to highlight the fact that the human is often forgotten when major environmental disasters occur. In 1998 it was noted that "So much attention is devoted to the cost of industrial disasters in financial terms and to the technologies that fail at times, that it is possible to lose sight of the fact that disasters involve people, individually and in societal groups. Although awareness and concern about the human factor in industrial disaster has grown considerably over the last 15–20 years, many continue to see human error in a very narrow perspective" [16]. It is important to note that it is now 2019, and the risk of human error is still viewed as an afterthought. A key point to consider is that as we are now in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution, the focus is arguably even more on increasing production, combined with continuing to advance technology to aid in this goal. Yet the role of the human as an integral part of this is still being underestimated, not the least of which is the lack of focus of the direct effect of the human on the environment, and conversely, the effect of the industrial control room environment on the human.

#### **4. Focus on the environment**

As environmental impact is becoming more of a worldwide concern on a large scale, the actual physical environment where the human is monitoring and effectively tasked with preventing a major incident must also become a priority. With the ongoing and increasing demand for governments to react to increasing concerns of the effect of industry on the environment and climate change, the pressure is increasing even more on industry to actively focus on ways to contribute to the solution. The Paris Accord of 2015 states that the "… central aim is to strengthen the

**113**

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment*

global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C" [17]. So what does this mean for

With the push on efficiency leading to the development of even more advanced technology, the impact of this on the human as well as the role of the operator seems to be falling to the wayside. It is not simply a question of updating dated infrastructure and adding extra screens for the operator in the control room to monitor. No matter how advanced technology becomes, it will always be designed and operated by the human. The key factor being that it is the humans who are the one who will ultimately push or not push the button to prevent a future large-scale disaster. As we can see all frequently, major industrial disasters are still taking place. At what point will industry take a step back and realize that the operational environment can have a direct impact on the natural environment? As technology and automation continue to rapidly evolve, the focus of industry must now shift from not only increasing production, maximizing efficiency, and reducing environmental impact through cutting emissions among other key factors, but also analyzing the humans who are controlling the technology to achieve this, and specifically, the environ-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

ment in which this technology is centered.

it is apparent that changes need to be made.

**5. The control room environment: design is critical**

As stated previously, the control room is the centralized location where all technology is monitored. It has been argued that the control room environment is effectively the heart of a production facility—it is viewed as the core of the operations, where technology is centered and the intent is to be able to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year [18]. The main goal of an effective control room is to ensure production is continual, uninterrupted and efficient, with as minimal downtime as possible. Creating a control room that considers the human element is one of the most challenging yet also arguably the most critical factor when contemplating not only how to optimize production, but also how to prevent serious environmental impact. The technology needs to be effective, but the human machine interface (HMI) must also be a key focus. What has been neglected previously must now be considered—the control room needs to factor in as many points as technology does when it advances. The psycho-social aspect of the control room environment and the human involvement can no longer be ignored. With up to 90% of accidents that can be attributable to human error [19], and with accidents still continuing to occur,

There have been many papers written about specific elements of a control room, more often than not looking at ways to increase efficiency, production, and updating technology; however, the focus on the operator in this environment is still a secondary element that is not often considered when evaluating industrial advancement. There is so much technology out there today we are still learning what it does—the amount of information that is instantly available at the touch of a button is unprecedented. Another key point is that 1 week's worth of information in the news today provides more information than an average person in the seventeenth century encountered in their lifetime [20]. If you consider this within the environment of an industrial control room, the amount of information that is monitoring every aspect of production (and subsequently immediately provided to the operator) can be overwhelming to the average person. The operators are having to process massive amounts of information quickly, accurately, and safely. Unfortunately, this is not easy, and there are many challenges which are continuing to grow as fast as the advances.

industry?

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

more than one level.

result of human error. An independent panel that was commissioned by the government of Japan to analyze the disaster determined that the meltdowns of reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had "…less to do with the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan … and more to do with the plant owners' and government's failure to anticipate and prepare for emergencies on such an epic scale" [12]. Furthermore, the report to the Japanese government was that it was human error: "The crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant was "a profoundly man-made disaster" [13]. Once again, a major disaster with ongoing effect on the environment that is still having an impact today. And once again, a multifaceted case of human error on

A more recent example was the Columbia Gas explosions in Massachusetts in 2018. According to US Federal investigators preliminary report, customers received gas from a low-pressure distribution network, which in turn was fed from high pressure main pipeline. At the time, workers were replacing some of the piping but due to faulty procedures, faulty work orders and lack of proper communication, full pressure from the main pipeline fed into the local distribution network, which then lead to a chain reaction resulting in multiple explosions [14]. Once again, a largescale disaster caused directly by human error. Some of the dangers of natural gas are obvious such as pollution, and the resulting impact on public health, and some are not so obvious, including but not limited to the impact on mental health as a result of major incidents such as the one in noted above as well as the fear of potential similar incidents occurring in the future. Considering that there are thousands of miles of outdated infrastructure, and no real way of predicting when the next explosion might occur [15], the concerns are very real. The outdated infrastructure not only applies to the gas industry, but undoubtably in every major industry worldwide. This not only is a concern due to the potential loss of life caused by these accidents,

but also the resulting potential effects on the environment as a whole.

The above-mentioned cases further serve to highlight the fact that the human is often forgotten when major environmental disasters occur. In 1998 it was noted that "So much attention is devoted to the cost of industrial disasters in financial terms and to the technologies that fail at times, that it is possible to lose sight of the fact that disasters involve people, individually and in societal groups. Although awareness and concern about the human factor in industrial disaster has grown considerably over the last 15–20 years, many continue to see human error in a very narrow perspective" [16]. It is important to note that it is now 2019, and the risk of human error is still viewed as an afterthought. A key point to consider is that as we are now in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution, the focus is arguably even more on increasing production, combined with continuing to advance technology to aid in this goal. Yet the role of the human as an integral part of this is still being underestimated, not the least of which is the lack of focus of the direct effect of the human on the environment, and conversely, the effect of the industrial control

As environmental impact is becoming more of a worldwide concern on a large scale, the actual physical environment where the human is monitoring and effectively tasked with preventing a major incident must also become a priority. With the ongoing and increasing demand for governments to react to increasing concerns of the effect of industry on the environment and climate change, the pressure is increasing even more on industry to actively focus on ways to contribute to the solution. The Paris Accord of 2015 states that the "… central aim is to strengthen the

**112**

room environment on the human.

**4. Focus on the environment**

global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C" [17]. So what does this mean for industry?

With the push on efficiency leading to the development of even more advanced technology, the impact of this on the human as well as the role of the operator seems to be falling to the wayside. It is not simply a question of updating dated infrastructure and adding extra screens for the operator in the control room to monitor. No matter how advanced technology becomes, it will always be designed and operated by the human. The key factor being that it is the humans who are the one who will ultimately push or not push the button to prevent a future large-scale disaster. As we can see all frequently, major industrial disasters are still taking place. At what point will industry take a step back and realize that the operational environment can have a direct impact on the natural environment? As technology and automation continue to rapidly evolve, the focus of industry must now shift from not only increasing production, maximizing efficiency, and reducing environmental impact through cutting emissions among other key factors, but also analyzing the humans who are controlling the technology to achieve this, and specifically, the environment in which this technology is centered.

#### **5. The control room environment: design is critical**

As stated previously, the control room is the centralized location where all technology is monitored. It has been argued that the control room environment is effectively the heart of a production facility—it is viewed as the core of the operations, where technology is centered and the intent is to be able to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year [18]. The main goal of an effective control room is to ensure production is continual, uninterrupted and efficient, with as minimal downtime as possible. Creating a control room that considers the human element is one of the most challenging yet also arguably the most critical factor when contemplating not only how to optimize production, but also how to prevent serious environmental impact. The technology needs to be effective, but the human machine interface (HMI) must also be a key focus. What has been neglected previously must now be considered—the control room needs to factor in as many points as technology does when it advances. The psycho-social aspect of the control room environment and the human involvement can no longer be ignored. With up to 90% of accidents that can be attributable to human error [19], and with accidents still continuing to occur, it is apparent that changes need to be made.

There have been many papers written about specific elements of a control room, more often than not looking at ways to increase efficiency, production, and updating technology; however, the focus on the operator in this environment is still a secondary element that is not often considered when evaluating industrial advancement. There is so much technology out there today we are still learning what it does—the amount of information that is instantly available at the touch of a button is unprecedented. Another key point is that 1 week's worth of information in the news today provides more information than an average person in the seventeenth century encountered in their lifetime [20]. If you consider this within the environment of an industrial control room, the amount of information that is monitoring every aspect of production (and subsequently immediately provided to the operator) can be overwhelming to the average person. The operators are having to process massive amounts of information quickly, accurately, and safely. Unfortunately, this is not easy, and there are many challenges which are continuing to grow as fast as the advances.

There are many challenges industry is facing when considering the control room environment. When speaking to companies across various industrial environments today, there are multiple concerns that surface almost immediately. When speaking in depth with operations management, the initial conversations usually start with "management wants us to increase our production output, so we need to look at upgrading our technology". As the discussion continues, often we find out that in actual fact, the technology is causing more problems than previously thought. Referring back to the Union Carbide disaster, it was noted that there were so many alarms going off in the control room that the operators chose to ignore the one that was truly critical. What is concerning is that this is still occurring today.

Recent discussions with an oil company led to the operation manager stating that the operators in the control room were dealing with 86,000 alarms a day, which meant each operator was dealing with approximately 60 alarms per minute, or one alarm going off every second. It simply is not humanly possible for an operator to be able to process and react to that kind of situation. In this case, the alarms simply become white noise, or background noise, and are ignored as way for the operator to be able to cope with the constant barrage of notifications.

A similar situation was noted in an amino acid producing company, where the operations supervisor stated that the operators had been experiencing so many alarms, that they had simply decided to turn them all off to try to reduce the operator stress. When asked how they were monitoring to ensure there were no major indicators of serious problems, the response was they were watching the screens. When asked how many screens they had, it was determined they had more than a dozen monitors requiring constant observation. Once again, how is it possible for the operator to be able to observe and react to the critical situations when there is a massive amount of information that constantly needs to be processed?

These are only two examples of existing situations relating specifically to alarms—there are many more. However, the key underlying point in both these cases is how will it be possible for the operator to react to an actual alarm? In the first case, there are so many alarms that the operator simply cannot be capable of quickly determining which one is critical. In the second case, with no audible alarms, the operator is expected to react based on visual monitoring, requiring constant focus. And if they need to walk away from a screen, what happens if that is the moment when a critical situation occurs?

These conversations usually lead to the identification of yet another recurring theme: the ability to attract and retain operators in a control room environment. Notable comments include: "we are finding it hard to fill operator positions, I'm not sure when we will be able to find the staffing to keep up with the demands for increased production", as well as "our experienced operators are starting to retire, and taking their experience with them, how do we transfer the knowledge if we can't even fill the positions?". Add to this common comments from operators themselves: "I haven't had the time to really be trained on the new system, so I'm just doing what I can to maintain production as best as I can", along with "I have brought up concerns several times but nothing ever changes, so its getting more stressful every shift". Another common comment "I'm trying to get management to let us have a coffee machine in the control room, but so far they won't agree. I can't take the risk to go down the hall to get a coffee in case I miss something on the screen, and with the long shifts, I really need the coffee to help me stay alert." All these comments are red flags that are unfortunately too common.

The human challenge in today's industrial control room, is not only with finding more technologically advanced operators, but is also in creating workplaces that retain those skilled employees. This in and of itself presents its own challenges. How will industry attract and keep the operators required to keep up with the fast paced,

**115**

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment*

technology-driven new operational environment? Difficulties in retaining good employees needs to also be factored into industrial planning. Understanding the challenges and being aware of the obstacles from the employee/employer standpoint is of paramount importance for the workforces of the future. This increasing need for a focus on the psycho-social work environment is critical—unfortunately, this has not been the focus to date. There are solutions that are not immediately apparent, that can be applied to all industry sectors, but a start must be made to address the human factors that can affect industry and as a result, the environment.

Industry is now at a point where it must consider the control room as the starting point in terms of preventing industrial disasters and the resulting environmental impact. Updating technology is only one component of that. In the examples listed previously with regards to alarms, there are solutions to reduce alarms to a manageable and acceptable level which can then help reduce the stress of the operator. It must be noted that the example of alarms is, however, only one concern. We have briefly touched on alarms, however there is also the topic of cybersecurity and the risks that can be found as a result of improper system design, and again can be directly related to the control room operator. Cybersecurity itself is a topic that can be discussed in great depth as it relates to the control room and needs to be

A quick example of how critical this is can be observed when looking at the attack on the power grid in the Ukraine in December 2015. In that case, hackers were able to get into the control system being used and take the power system offline and all the operator could do was watch it happen: "The operator grabbed his mouse and tried desperately to seize control of the cursor, but it was unresponsive. Then as the cursor moved in the direction of another breaker, the machine suddenly logged him out of the control panel. Although he tried frantically to log back in, the attackers had changed his password preventing him from gaining re-entry. All he could do was stare helplessly at his screen while the ghosts in the machine clicked open one breaker after another, eventually taking about 30 substations offline. The attackers didn't stop there, however. They also struck two other power distribution centers at the same time, nearly doubling the number of substations taken offline and leaving more than 230,000 residents in the dark." [21]. What would happen if this had been a chemical company? Or oil company? Or nuclear reactor? The possibilities are frightening in terms of what could have happened. Although this specific example did not lead to an environmental disaster, it is an important point to consider as part of the human factor discussion, especially as it relates to control rooms. Another factor which will not be touched on in this discussion is the potential effect of a disgruntled employee. Yet another topic that can have a direct impact on the environment, and at the same time can be the result of the industrial environment. The increased pressure for production, cost cutting, government pressure on industry in order to be able to meet environmental obligations can all take a toll.

There are other key factors that need to be analyzed as well, such as lighting, air quality, communication, workflow analysis, traffic patterns, operator health all of which can contribute to operator fatigue and stress if not properly considered. Each one of these are topics that have been analyzed in depth and offer solid research that can directly relate to the control room. Which is why proper design of the control room must be completely evaluated. The benefits of a well-designed control room environment include increased operator awareness, alertness and quicker reaction

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

**6. Human factors in the control room**

Unfortunately, this is not something that is considered.

considered.

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

There are many challenges industry is facing when considering the control room environment. When speaking to companies across various industrial environments today, there are multiple concerns that surface almost immediately. When speaking in depth with operations management, the initial conversations usually start with "management wants us to increase our production output, so we need to look at upgrading our technology". As the discussion continues, often we find out that in actual fact, the technology is causing more problems than previously thought. Referring back to the Union Carbide disaster, it was noted that there were so many alarms going off in the control room that the operators chose to ignore the one that

was truly critical. What is concerning is that this is still occurring today.

massive amount of information that constantly needs to be processed?

these comments are red flags that are unfortunately too common.

These are only two examples of existing situations relating specifically to alarms—there are many more. However, the key underlying point in both these cases is how will it be possible for the operator to react to an actual alarm? In the first case, there are so many alarms that the operator simply cannot be capable of quickly determining which one is critical. In the second case, with no audible alarms, the operator is expected to react based on visual monitoring, requiring constant focus. And if they need to walk away from a screen, what happens if that is

These conversations usually lead to the identification of yet another recurring theme: the ability to attract and retain operators in a control room environment. Notable comments include: "we are finding it hard to fill operator positions, I'm not sure when we will be able to find the staffing to keep up with the demands for increased production", as well as "our experienced operators are starting to retire, and taking their experience with them, how do we transfer the knowledge if we can't even fill the positions?". Add to this common comments from operators themselves: "I haven't had the time to really be trained on the new system, so I'm just doing what I can to maintain production as best as I can", along with "I have brought up concerns several times but nothing ever changes, so its getting more stressful every shift". Another common comment "I'm trying to get management to let us have a coffee machine in the control room, but so far they won't agree. I can't take the risk to go down the hall to get a coffee in case I miss something on the screen, and with the long shifts, I really need the coffee to help me stay alert." All

The human challenge in today's industrial control room, is not only with finding more technologically advanced operators, but is also in creating workplaces that retain those skilled employees. This in and of itself presents its own challenges. How will industry attract and keep the operators required to keep up with the fast paced,

to be able to cope with the constant barrage of notifications.

the moment when a critical situation occurs?

Recent discussions with an oil company led to the operation manager stating that the operators in the control room were dealing with 86,000 alarms a day, which meant each operator was dealing with approximately 60 alarms per minute, or one alarm going off every second. It simply is not humanly possible for an operator to be able to process and react to that kind of situation. In this case, the alarms simply become white noise, or background noise, and are ignored as way for the operator

A similar situation was noted in an amino acid producing company, where the operations supervisor stated that the operators had been experiencing so many alarms, that they had simply decided to turn them all off to try to reduce the operator stress. When asked how they were monitoring to ensure there were no major indicators of serious problems, the response was they were watching the screens. When asked how many screens they had, it was determined they had more than a dozen monitors requiring constant observation. Once again, how is it possible for the operator to be able to observe and react to the critical situations when there is a

**114**

technology-driven new operational environment? Difficulties in retaining good employees needs to also be factored into industrial planning. Understanding the challenges and being aware of the obstacles from the employee/employer standpoint is of paramount importance for the workforces of the future. This increasing need for a focus on the psycho-social work environment is critical—unfortunately, this has not been the focus to date. There are solutions that are not immediately apparent, that can be applied to all industry sectors, but a start must be made to address the human factors that can affect industry and as a result, the environment.

#### **6. Human factors in the control room**

Industry is now at a point where it must consider the control room as the starting point in terms of preventing industrial disasters and the resulting environmental impact. Updating technology is only one component of that. In the examples listed previously with regards to alarms, there are solutions to reduce alarms to a manageable and acceptable level which can then help reduce the stress of the operator. It must be noted that the example of alarms is, however, only one concern. We have briefly touched on alarms, however there is also the topic of cybersecurity and the risks that can be found as a result of improper system design, and again can be directly related to the control room operator. Cybersecurity itself is a topic that can be discussed in great depth as it relates to the control room and needs to be considered.

A quick example of how critical this is can be observed when looking at the attack on the power grid in the Ukraine in December 2015. In that case, hackers were able to get into the control system being used and take the power system offline and all the operator could do was watch it happen: "The operator grabbed his mouse and tried desperately to seize control of the cursor, but it was unresponsive. Then as the cursor moved in the direction of another breaker, the machine suddenly logged him out of the control panel. Although he tried frantically to log back in, the attackers had changed his password preventing him from gaining re-entry. All he could do was stare helplessly at his screen while the ghosts in the machine clicked open one breaker after another, eventually taking about 30 substations offline. The attackers didn't stop there, however. They also struck two other power distribution centers at the same time, nearly doubling the number of substations taken offline and leaving more than 230,000 residents in the dark." [21]. What would happen if this had been a chemical company? Or oil company? Or nuclear reactor? The possibilities are frightening in terms of what could have happened. Although this specific example did not lead to an environmental disaster, it is an important point to consider as part of the human factor discussion, especially as it relates to control rooms. Another factor which will not be touched on in this discussion is the potential effect of a disgruntled employee. Yet another topic that can have a direct impact on the environment, and at the same time can be the result of the industrial environment. The increased pressure for production, cost cutting, government pressure on industry in order to be able to meet environmental obligations can all take a toll. Unfortunately, this is not something that is considered.

There are other key factors that need to be analyzed as well, such as lighting, air quality, communication, workflow analysis, traffic patterns, operator health all of which can contribute to operator fatigue and stress if not properly considered. Each one of these are topics that have been analyzed in depth and offer solid research that can directly relate to the control room. Which is why proper design of the control room must be completely evaluated. The benefits of a well-designed control room environment include increased operator awareness, alertness and quicker reaction

times in a critical situation. It can increase safety and establish more efficient operations, create a sense of unity and teamwork, and can improve data integrity and data availability by making sure the correct data is being provided as required. It also allows for the ability to expand more easily in the future. Most importantly? It can create a relaxed, safe environment where employees want to work.

If we look a little more closely at the operator which is the key focus for the purposes of this chapter, more automated systems require less but more highly educated operators that are more analytical and have the ability to quickly react when needed. This in itself requires industry to fully understand the new generation that is coming into the workforce. The new generation has a completely different set of requirements and demands that are a direct result of being brought up in the digital age. There are many surveys and statistics available that help pinpoint the requirements and demands of this new generation as well all of which need to be referred to when considering the control room environment. The start point is the human. The environment of the control room can have a major impact on how the operator is able to react in a critical situation. Keeping in mind that these rooms run 24 hours a day, and are staffed during this time, operator fatigue is a yet another concern. A recent study notes that: "All kinds of industries are finding a link between fatigue and work-related injuries: the risk of errors, accidents and injuries—especially in high-risk, safety-critical environments—jumps when workers are tired and cannot function at their peak level" [22]. So what does this mean? As noted previously, industry is finding it harder to attract operators to the control room environment. Staffing is becoming an issue, and as a result, existing operators in some cases are being required to work longer shifts.

If we examine the issues identified above, the effect of the control room environment on the human can be linked to operator error. And as a result, operator error, identified as being the cause of major industrial disasters, can then be directly related to human impact on the environment. The increase in the demand for production leads to operators having to work more efficiently and in some cases with longer hours to meet demand. Coupled with advancing technology, the operator is now facing new challenges as part of their day to day operations, as they are expected to learn these new technologies and apply them. If this technology is applied on top of existing systems, we can see that it is not necessarily making it easier for the operator to monitor (think of the alarm example), and in fact is increasing their stress. For more experienced operators, it can be a challenge to learn the technology; for the new generation, the technology itself might easier to learn, however the environment of the control room is not always suited to their expectations. With a world that is being driven by technology, what is the attraction to work in a 24/7 environment, especially the night shift, if an opportunity can be found in another market segment for similar pay? Let us take for example a large industrial production company that is based in a small town. When meeting with them to discuss their control room concerns, they mentioned several of these issues yet they could not understand why they were having so many problems attracting operators. Their experienced operators were retiring and they were concerned about how they would replace them. They were finding that they were able to hire, but within a few weeks of working in the control room, the new hires were leaving, citing the control room environment as being an unappealing work environment.

A similar situation was echoed by another large production facility—in their case, they were located in an even smaller town with access to a smaller pool of technologically qualified operators who would be able to operate the system that they had recently upgraded. To counter this, they decided the best course of action was to hire operators and train them. What they found out is that it was taking them 6–12 months to train the new operators—but often before the end of the training,

**117**

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment*

the operators were taking other positions in different market segments, citing the lack of desire to work in a very high stress environment. The remaining operators were tasked with taking on extra shifts to ensure the production output goals set by management were met. The operations manager in that example was exhausted, and had no idea how to deal with the situation or even where to start. The comment from the manager was "our system needs to be updated, the training time on the technology is limited, its so advanced that we are barely touching the surface, operators are leaving, we can't find replacements and yet we must continue to meet the production output and learn new ways to reduce our emissions as mandated by

If we add in the pressure to reduce environmental impact, this is leading industry to find ways of cutting corners in order to meet the requirements. The additional pressure is flowing down directly into the control room, to those who are the ones who control production. So now not only is there the pressure that was experienced previously, there are additional elements added to the list and the demand on the human is increasing even further. As noted previously, the major industrial disasters that have occurred in the past were caused by human error. As much as technology develops, the risk of another major disaster is not necessarily going to diminish unless industry is able to realize that the human will always be involved. It

The importance of human factors cannot be underestimated. "It has been found,

It would appear that there has been no real consistently implemented plan developed to ensure that the human is considered as part of the rapid developments in industry. Despite the fact there are repeated common occurrences across all different types of industry, it would seem that the combined impact of the human on the environment and the impact of the environment on the human have still not become the focus. There are however, some arguments that can be put forth that can perhaps help with the creation of a more human focused approach. If we accept that it is the human who is creating the technology that is driving the changes in industry, then we must also accept the fact that these changes in technology are also impacting the human. Yet not all of these changes are necessarily positive. As we have noted, as much as production is increasing, and information is becoming available at lightning speed, this is also leading to increased stress, fatigue, and at times lack of communi-

cation that can then lead to the potential for even more risk of human error.

If we are able to take a step back and look at the processes that require technology, the best start point would perhaps be to look at the human who is controlling the technology. Even as industry becomes more automated and artificial intelligence is becoming more prevalent in this process, ultimately the human will always be involved. Many of the processes have become easier, allowing the human to take a step back and let technology take over. But there is a risk in assuming that all new technology will run itself with no human involvement and will be free from error. As we noted in recent conversations with control room operators, there are other elements that are not being considered. The best information will always come from

after countless accidents and incidents, some including fatalities, that it is the actions (or sometimes the lack of action) of the system users who more often than not are the actual pre-cursors to the events actually occurring… As such the "Human Factor" element is an extremely important aspect…" [23]. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the focus in many industrial environments. Although it is often discussed, it is more often ignored or relegated to a lower level on a priority list.

**7. Human factors: we need to focus on the human**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

upper management—where do we start?"

must become a priority.

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

being required to work longer shifts.

times in a critical situation. It can increase safety and establish more efficient operations, create a sense of unity and teamwork, and can improve data integrity and data availability by making sure the correct data is being provided as required. It also allows for the ability to expand more easily in the future. Most importantly?

If we look a little more closely at the operator which is the key focus for the purposes of this chapter, more automated systems require less but more highly educated operators that are more analytical and have the ability to quickly react when needed. This in itself requires industry to fully understand the new generation that is coming into the workforce. The new generation has a completely different set of requirements and demands that are a direct result of being brought up in the digital age. There are many surveys and statistics available that help pinpoint the requirements and demands of this new generation as well all of which need to be referred to when considering the control room environment. The start point is the human. The environment of the control room can have a major impact on how the operator is able to react in a critical situation. Keeping in mind that these rooms run 24 hours a day, and are staffed during this time, operator fatigue is a yet another concern. A recent study notes that: "All kinds of industries are finding a link between fatigue and work-related injuries: the risk of errors, accidents and injuries—especially in high-risk, safety-critical environments—jumps when workers are tired and cannot function at their peak level" [22]. So what does this mean? As noted previously, industry is finding it harder to attract operators to the control room environment. Staffing is becoming an issue, and as a result, existing operators in some cases are

If we examine the issues identified above, the effect of the control room environment on the human can be linked to operator error. And as a result, operator error, identified as being the cause of major industrial disasters, can then be directly related to human impact on the environment. The increase in the demand for production leads to operators having to work more efficiently and in some cases with longer hours to meet demand. Coupled with advancing technology, the operator is now facing new challenges as part of their day to day operations, as they are expected to learn these new technologies and apply them. If this technology is applied on top of existing systems, we can see that it is not necessarily making it easier for the operator to monitor (think of the alarm example), and in fact is increasing their stress. For more experienced operators, it can be a challenge to learn the technology; for the new generation, the technology itself might easier to learn, however the environment of the control room is not always suited to their expectations. With a world that is being driven by technology, what is the attraction to work in a 24/7 environment, especially the night shift, if an opportunity can be found in another market segment for similar pay? Let us take for example a large industrial production company that is based in a small town. When meeting with them to discuss their control room concerns, they mentioned several of these issues yet they could not understand why they were having so many problems attracting operators. Their experienced operators were retiring and they were concerned about how they would replace them. They were finding that they were able to hire, but within a few weeks of working in the control room, the new hires were leaving, citing the control room environment as being an unappealing work environment. A similar situation was echoed by another large production facility—in their case, they were located in an even smaller town with access to a smaller pool of technologically qualified operators who would be able to operate the system that they had recently upgraded. To counter this, they decided the best course of action was to hire operators and train them. What they found out is that it was taking them 6–12 months to train the new operators—but often before the end of the training,

It can create a relaxed, safe environment where employees want to work.

**116**

the operators were taking other positions in different market segments, citing the lack of desire to work in a very high stress environment. The remaining operators were tasked with taking on extra shifts to ensure the production output goals set by management were met. The operations manager in that example was exhausted, and had no idea how to deal with the situation or even where to start. The comment from the manager was "our system needs to be updated, the training time on the technology is limited, its so advanced that we are barely touching the surface, operators are leaving, we can't find replacements and yet we must continue to meet the production output and learn new ways to reduce our emissions as mandated by upper management—where do we start?"

If we add in the pressure to reduce environmental impact, this is leading industry to find ways of cutting corners in order to meet the requirements. The additional pressure is flowing down directly into the control room, to those who are the ones who control production. So now not only is there the pressure that was experienced previously, there are additional elements added to the list and the demand on the human is increasing even further. As noted previously, the major industrial disasters that have occurred in the past were caused by human error. As much as technology develops, the risk of another major disaster is not necessarily going to diminish unless industry is able to realize that the human will always be involved. It must become a priority.

The importance of human factors cannot be underestimated. "It has been found, after countless accidents and incidents, some including fatalities, that it is the actions (or sometimes the lack of action) of the system users who more often than not are the actual pre-cursors to the events actually occurring… As such the "Human Factor" element is an extremely important aspect…" [23]. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the focus in many industrial environments. Although it is often discussed, it is more often ignored or relegated to a lower level on a priority list.

#### **7. Human factors: we need to focus on the human**

It would appear that there has been no real consistently implemented plan developed to ensure that the human is considered as part of the rapid developments in industry. Despite the fact there are repeated common occurrences across all different types of industry, it would seem that the combined impact of the human on the environment and the impact of the environment on the human have still not become the focus. There are however, some arguments that can be put forth that can perhaps help with the creation of a more human focused approach. If we accept that it is the human who is creating the technology that is driving the changes in industry, then we must also accept the fact that these changes in technology are also impacting the human. Yet not all of these changes are necessarily positive. As we have noted, as much as production is increasing, and information is becoming available at lightning speed, this is also leading to increased stress, fatigue, and at times lack of communication that can then lead to the potential for even more risk of human error.

If we are able to take a step back and look at the processes that require technology, the best start point would perhaps be to look at the human who is controlling the technology. Even as industry becomes more automated and artificial intelligence is becoming more prevalent in this process, ultimately the human will always be involved. Many of the processes have become easier, allowing the human to take a step back and let technology take over. But there is a risk in assuming that all new technology will run itself with no human involvement and will be free from error. As we noted in recent conversations with control room operators, there are other elements that are not being considered. The best information will always come from the human. Considering that technology is developed based on production needs that are identified and for problems that need to be solved, a good start point would be to begin with the human.

When looking specifically at the control room as it relates to upgrades that are required, the best start always involves operator input. Why? Because as much as management identifies production goals that must be met, and engineering can identify and provide solutions for technical challenges, and information technology is able to create programming solutions to tie all the technology together, the operator can provide the best feedback on what is working, what is not working and what needs to change in the control room. Where the operator feedback at times can have the appearance of being unimportant, in actual fact it can help identify issues that can potentially lead to serious consequences if not properly addressed. This does not necessarily need to be an obvious technical requirement.

Take for example the comment noted earlier from an operator requesting a coffee maker be in closer proximity. That seems like a fairly innocuous request that has no direct impact on production. Or does it? Why would they ask for this? First of all, the operator currently has to walk out of the control room and down a hall to get a coffee. This means they are walking away from the screens and the alarms and should something come up that would need a quick reaction, they might not be able to respond quickly enough. Second, if the operator is specifically requesting coffee that would indicate that perhaps they need the caffeine to stay awake and fight off fatigue. Delving a bit deeper, it turns out that these two points were indeed the reasons for the request. The operator was not comfortable with leaving the system to run without being constantly monitored, even for a few minutes. At the same time, having to monitor every aspect of the technology running the production very closely was causing the operator to become fatigued. However, it also identified a few other points that were not immediately apparent—the technology was dated and was not running optimally, there was too much information coming in that required constant monitoring, and the operator was becoming even more stressed and fatigued as a result. All factors that as we have noted previously, have the potential to increase the risk of human error, and a major disaster.

This example is only one of many that can come from taking the time to speak with all involved in the production process, and specifically the humans who are tasked not only with creating the technology but also with operating it. It helps to fully understand every aspect that goes into running an efficient and smooth process with the aim of minimizing potential risks that could lead to a major disaster. With the rapid advances today outpacing our ability to keep up, this is becoming even more critical. Taking a step back, gathering the information, and coming up with a plan is the best start point. Unfortunately there are many situations where this is seen as wasting time because it is assumed that technology will be able to handle everything. Or will it?

When industry is able to realize the importance of putting the human back into the equation, they find that many issues can be identified and solved early on. Not only can it solve production challenges, but it can also help with other challenges that can directly impact both output and bottom line. When presented in terms of impact on financials, management has a clearer view of the priorities as well as the requirements to maximize efficiency. This then becomes a win-win situation from the human factor standpoint as well because the operator environment is improved, production and safety are improved and there is the chance that major impact on the environment can be mitigated as a direct result of proper planning. Technology may be able to solve some of the challenges, but no matter how quickly it develops, it will never be able to fully consider the human aspects that are as impactful on the environment as the technology itself.

**119**

**Author details**

Fiona J. Campbell

fionapersonal@gmail.com

provided the original work is properly cited.

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment*

In looking at the major disasters that have occurred in the past, all of which have had a direct impact on the environment, it is evident that there are recurring elements that are still of concern today. Fatigue, lack of communication, stress, outdated infrastructure, cost cutting measures, lack of training, underestimated understanding of technology all can be related directly back to the impact on operators in industrial environment. Coupled with increased pressure to produce more which is leading to cutting corners to maximize output and income in an attempt to stay ahead of technology or at least maintain the ability to keep up. At the same time, to produce more, technology needs to become more advanced. Advanced technology then leads to the inability to keep up with the changes. The result? Both human factors and human error can be directly related to environmental impact. It is time to take a step back and put the human back into focus. Humans are the ones who are creating the technology that is driving us to a more automated industrial process. The reality is that in many control room situations the number of alarms and the speed with which they occur is such that no human operator can keep up. In such circumstances artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially help especially with key factors. Here intelligent design can potentially help the human operator with the challenges that rapid technological change brings. However, in order to do so, the human must be consulted. But at the same time, what is being lost in the rapid changes we are facing in this newest phase of the industrial revolution, is the impact of the environment on the human and the resulting impact of the human on the environment. It is time to make a change in the way we currently think before

another major disaster occurs that might change the world as we know it.

Control Room Design and Human Factors, ABB AB, London, Ontario, Canada

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: fiona.campbell@sympatico.ca;

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

**8. Conclusion**

### **8. Conclusion**

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

necessarily need to be an obvious technical requirement.

potential to increase the risk of human error, and a major disaster.

This example is only one of many that can come from taking the time to speak with all involved in the production process, and specifically the humans who are tasked not only with creating the technology but also with operating it. It helps to fully understand every aspect that goes into running an efficient and smooth process with the aim of minimizing potential risks that could lead to a major disaster. With the rapid advances today outpacing our ability to keep up, this is becoming even more critical. Taking a step back, gathering the information, and coming up with a plan is the best start point. Unfortunately there are many situations where this is seen as wasting time because it is assumed that technology will be able to

When industry is able to realize the importance of putting the human back into the equation, they find that many issues can be identified and solved early on. Not only can it solve production challenges, but it can also help with other challenges that can directly impact both output and bottom line. When presented in terms of impact on financials, management has a clearer view of the priorities as well as the requirements to maximize efficiency. This then becomes a win-win situation from the human factor standpoint as well because the operator environment is improved, production and safety are improved and there is the chance that major impact on the environment can be mitigated as a direct result of proper planning. Technology may be able to solve some of the challenges, but no matter how quickly it develops, it will never be able to fully consider the human aspects that are as impactful on the

be to begin with the human.

the human. Considering that technology is developed based on production needs that are identified and for problems that need to be solved, a good start point would

When looking specifically at the control room as it relates to upgrades that are required, the best start always involves operator input. Why? Because as much as management identifies production goals that must be met, and engineering can identify and provide solutions for technical challenges, and information technology is able to create programming solutions to tie all the technology together, the operator can provide the best feedback on what is working, what is not working and what needs to change in the control room. Where the operator feedback at times can have the appearance of being unimportant, in actual fact it can help identify issues that can potentially lead to serious consequences if not properly addressed. This does not

Take for example the comment noted earlier from an operator requesting a coffee maker be in closer proximity. That seems like a fairly innocuous request that has no direct impact on production. Or does it? Why would they ask for this? First of all, the operator currently has to walk out of the control room and down a hall to get a coffee. This means they are walking away from the screens and the alarms and should something come up that would need a quick reaction, they might not be able to respond quickly enough. Second, if the operator is specifically requesting coffee that would indicate that perhaps they need the caffeine to stay awake and fight off fatigue. Delving a bit deeper, it turns out that these two points were indeed the reasons for the request. The operator was not comfortable with leaving the system to run without being constantly monitored, even for a few minutes. At the same time, having to monitor every aspect of the technology running the production very closely was causing the operator to become fatigued. However, it also identified a few other points that were not immediately apparent—the technology was dated and was not running optimally, there was too much information coming in that required constant monitoring, and the operator was becoming even more stressed and fatigued as a result. All factors that as we have noted previously, have the

**118**

handle everything. Or will it?

environment as the technology itself.

In looking at the major disasters that have occurred in the past, all of which have had a direct impact on the environment, it is evident that there are recurring elements that are still of concern today. Fatigue, lack of communication, stress, outdated infrastructure, cost cutting measures, lack of training, underestimated understanding of technology all can be related directly back to the impact on operators in industrial environment. Coupled with increased pressure to produce more which is leading to cutting corners to maximize output and income in an attempt to stay ahead of technology or at least maintain the ability to keep up. At the same time, to produce more, technology needs to become more advanced. Advanced technology then leads to the inability to keep up with the changes. The result? Both human factors and human error can be directly related to environmental impact. It is time to take a step back and put the human back into focus. Humans are the ones who are creating the technology that is driving us to a more automated industrial process. The reality is that in many control room situations the number of alarms and the speed with which they occur is such that no human operator can keep up. In such circumstances artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially help especially with key factors. Here intelligent design can potentially help the human operator with the challenges that rapid technological change brings. However, in order to do so, the human must be consulted. But at the same time, what is being lost in the rapid changes we are facing in this newest phase of the industrial revolution, is the impact of the environment on the human and the resulting impact of the human on the environment. It is time to make a change in the way we currently think before another major disaster occurs that might change the world as we know it.

### **Author details**

Fiona J. Campbell Control Room Design and Human Factors, ABB AB, London, Ontario, Canada

\*Address all correspondence to: fiona.campbell@sympatico.ca; fionapersonal@gmail.com

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Encylopedia Brittanica: Industrial Revolution [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/ event/Industrial-Revolution [Accessed: September 23, 2019]

[2] Meet the Three Industrial Revolutions [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://trailhead.salesforce.com/ en/content/learn/modules/learn-aboutthe-fourth-industrial-revolution/ meet-the-three-industrial-revolutions [Accessed: September 23, 2019]

[3] Davis N. What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution [Internet] 2016. Available from: https://www.weforum. org/agenda/2016/01/what-is-thefourth-industrial-revolution/ [Accessed: September 27, 2019]

[4] Mandavilli A The World's Worst Industrial Disaster is Still Unfolding [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/ science/archive/2018/07/the-worldsworst-industrial-disaster-is-stillunfolding/560726/ [Accessed: September 28, 2019]

[5] Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences [Internet] 2019. Available from: https://www.nei.org/resources/ fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-itsconsequences [Accessed: September 29, 2019]

[6] Hopps K. Chernobyl Radiation Map: How Far Did Radiation from Chernobyl Travel—Did it Affect UK? [Internet] 2019. Available from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/ world/1144581/chernobyl-radiationmap-how-far-radiation-travel-did-Chernobyl-affect-Britain [Accessed: September 30, 2019]

[7] Hadhazy A. 20 Years After the Exxon Valdez: Preventing—and Preparing for—the Next Oil Spill Disaster [Internet] 2009. Available from: https://

www.scientificamerican.com/article/ exxon-valdez-20-years-later-oil-spillprevention/[Accessed: September 30, 2019]

[8] Egan T. Elements of Tanker Disaster: Drinking, Fatigue, Complacency [Internet] 1989. Available from: https:// www.nytimes.com/1989/05/22/us/ elements-of-tanker-disaster-drinkingfatique-complacency.html [Accessed: September 30, 2019]

[9] Miegs, J. Blame BP for Deepwater Horizon. But Direct Your Outrage to the Actual Mistake [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https:// slate.com/technology/2016/09/ bp-is-to-blame-for-deepwaterhorizon-but-its-mistake-wasactually-years-of-small-mistakes.html [Accessed: September 30, 2019]

[10] Environmental Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: A Review [Internet] 2017. Available from: https://www.niva.no/en/publications/ environmental-effects-of-thedeepwater-horizon-oil-spill [Accessed: September 30, 2019]

[11] Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling. Report to the President [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://www.iadc.org/ archived-2014-osc-report/documents/ DEEPWATER\_ReporttothePresident\_ FINAL.pdf [Accessed: September 30, 2019]

[12] Human Error Blamed for Fukushima Meltdown [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www.newscientist.com/ article/mg21528753-800-humanerror-blamed-for-fukushimameltdown/#ixzz63OkDWqfQ [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[13] Japan Panel; Fukushima Nuclear Disaster 'Man-Made' [Internet] 2012. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/

**121**

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment*

nytimes.com/2011/03/23/too-muchinformation-about-information/ [Accessed: October 10, 2019]

[21] Zetter K Inside the Cunning,

[22] Fatigue is the New 'F' Word [Internet] 2018. Available from: http:// www.energysafetycanada.com/blog/ fatigue-is-the-new-f-word/ [Accessed:

[23] Hollender M. Smart Ergonomic Control Room Workplaces Engage Generation "G"—Part 1 [Internet] 2014. Available from: http:// www.processautomationinsights. com/martin-hollender/operatoreffectiveness/2014/06/30/ smart-ergonomic-control-roomworkplaces-engage-generation-g-- part-1 [Accessed: October 23, 2019]

October 22, 2019]

Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine's Power Grid. 2016. Available from: https://www. wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunningunprecedented-hack-ukraines-powergrid/ [Accessed: October 22, 2019]

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

news/world-asia-18718057 [Accessed:

[15] Raymond-Read A. Merrimack Gas Explosions: A Tragic Byproduct of Natural Gas [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.clf.org/blog/ merrimack-explosions-natural-gas/ [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[16] Granot H. The Human Factor in Industrial Disaster [Internet]. 1998. Available from: https://www. emerald.com/insight/content/ doi/10.1108/09653569810216315/full/ html [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[17] Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://nca2018.globalchange. gov/chapter/29/ [Accessed: October 05,

[18] Campbell F. A modern control room—Human factors and their impact on plant safety and optimization. In: Proceedings of the XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 2016); 11-15 September 2016. Quebec City: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum; 2016. ISBN:

[19] Brindley F. Human Factors in Accident Investigation [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://www.hse. gov.uk/chemicals/workshop/humanfactors-09/accident-investigationlessons.pdf [Accessed: October 07, 2019]

[20] Schuessler J. Too Much Information About 'Information' [Internet] 2011. Available from: https://artsbeat.blogs.

[14] Preliminary Report Pipeline: Over-pressure of a Columba Gas of Massachusetts Low-pressure Natural Gas Distribution System [Internet] 2019. Available from: https://www.ntsb. gov/investigations/AccidentReports/ Pages/PLD18MR003-preliminaryreport.aspx [Accessed: October 01,

October 01, 2019]

2019]

2019]

978-1-926872-29-2

*Human Factors: The Impact on Industry and the Environment DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90419*

news/world-asia-18718057 [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[14] Preliminary Report Pipeline: Over-pressure of a Columba Gas of Massachusetts Low-pressure Natural Gas Distribution System [Internet] 2019. Available from: https://www.ntsb. gov/investigations/AccidentReports/ Pages/PLD18MR003-preliminaryreport.aspx [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[15] Raymond-Read A. Merrimack Gas Explosions: A Tragic Byproduct of Natural Gas [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.clf.org/blog/ merrimack-explosions-natural-gas/ [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[16] Granot H. The Human Factor in Industrial Disaster [Internet]. 1998. Available from: https://www. emerald.com/insight/content/ doi/10.1108/09653569810216315/full/ html [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[17] Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://nca2018.globalchange. gov/chapter/29/ [Accessed: October 05, 2019]

[18] Campbell F. A modern control room—Human factors and their impact on plant safety and optimization. In: Proceedings of the XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 2016); 11-15 September 2016. Quebec City: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum; 2016. ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

[19] Brindley F. Human Factors in Accident Investigation [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://www.hse. gov.uk/chemicals/workshop/humanfactors-09/accident-investigationlessons.pdf [Accessed: October 07, 2019]

[20] Schuessler J. Too Much Information About 'Information' [Internet] 2011. Available from: https://artsbeat.blogs.

nytimes.com/2011/03/23/too-muchinformation-about-information/ [Accessed: October 10, 2019]

[21] Zetter K Inside the Cunning, Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine's Power Grid. 2016. Available from: https://www. wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunningunprecedented-hack-ukraines-powergrid/ [Accessed: October 22, 2019]

[22] Fatigue is the New 'F' Word [Internet] 2018. Available from: http:// www.energysafetycanada.com/blog/ fatigue-is-the-new-f-word/ [Accessed: October 22, 2019]

[23] Hollender M. Smart Ergonomic Control Room Workplaces Engage Generation "G"—Part 1 [Internet] 2014. Available from: http:// www.processautomationinsights. com/martin-hollender/operatoreffectiveness/2014/06/30/ smart-ergonomic-control-roomworkplaces-engage-generation-g-- part-1 [Accessed: October 23, 2019]

**120**

2019]

*Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences*

www.scientificamerican.com/article/ exxon-valdez-20-years-later-oil-spillprevention/[Accessed: September 30,

[8] Egan T. Elements of Tanker Disaster: Drinking, Fatigue, Complacency [Internet] 1989. Available from: https:// www.nytimes.com/1989/05/22/us/ elements-of-tanker-disaster-drinkingfatique-complacency.html [Accessed:

[9] Miegs, J. Blame BP for Deepwater Horizon. But Direct Your Outrage to the Actual Mistake [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https:// slate.com/technology/2016/09/ bp-is-to-blame-for-deepwaterhorizon-but-its-mistake-was-

actually-years-of-small-mistakes.html [Accessed: September 30, 2019]

deepwater-horizon-oil-spill [Accessed:

[11] Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling. Report to the President [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://www.iadc.org/ archived-2014-osc-report/documents/ DEEPWATER\_ReporttothePresident\_ FINAL.pdf [Accessed: September 30,

[12] Human Error Blamed for Fukushima Meltdown [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www.newscientist.com/ article/mg21528753-800-humanerror-blamed-for-fukushimameltdown/#ixzz63OkDWqfQ [Accessed: October 01, 2019]

[13] Japan Panel; Fukushima Nuclear Disaster 'Man-Made' [Internet] 2012. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/

[10] Environmental Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: A Review

[Internet] 2017. Available from: https://www.niva.no/en/publications/

environmental-effects-of-the-

September 30, 2019]

2019]

2019]

September 30, 2019]

[1] Encylopedia Brittanica: Industrial Revolution [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/ event/Industrial-Revolution [Accessed:

Revolutions [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://trailhead.salesforce.com/ en/content/learn/modules/learn-aboutthe-fourth-industrial-revolution/ meet-the-three-industrial-revolutions [Accessed: September 23, 2019]

September 23, 2019]

**References**

[2] Meet the Three Industrial

[3] Davis N. What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution [Internet] 2016. Available from: https://www.weforum. org/agenda/2016/01/what-is-the-

September 27, 2019]

September 28, 2019]

September 30, 2019]

[5] Chernobyl Accident and Its

[6] Hopps K. Chernobyl Radiation Map: How Far Did Radiation from Chernobyl Travel—Did it Affect UK? [Internet] 2019. Available from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/ world/1144581/chernobyl-radiationmap-how-far-radiation-travel-did-Chernobyl-affect-Britain [Accessed:

[7] Hadhazy A. 20 Years After the Exxon Valdez: Preventing—and Preparing for—the Next Oil Spill Disaster

[Internet] 2009. Available from: https://

Consequences [Internet] 2019. Available from: https://www.nei.org/resources/ fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-itsconsequences [Accessed: September 29,

fourth-industrial-revolution/ [Accessed:

[4] Mandavilli A The World's Worst Industrial Disaster is Still Unfolding [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/ science/archive/2018/07/the-worldsworst-industrial-disaster-is-stillunfolding/560726/ [Accessed:

**123**

Section 3

Soil, Water and Waste

Management

### Section 3
