UAS and smartphone integration at wildfire management in Aotearoa New Zealand

Background: From 2016, wildfire emergency response used Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) also known as Uninhabited or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Systems (UAS) or “drones” (hereafter UAS), smartphones and smartphone applications (apps) on-site, for the first time at scale in Aotearoa New Zealand (hereafter New Zealand). This study outlines the deployment and use of this new technology in monitoring at wildfires in New Zealand from 2016, and the conveyance of fire response information to operational personnel. Methods: A quantitative and qualitative questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews were used to gather feedback on the use of this emerging technology from wildfire management personnel. The results were analysed to determine perception change over time, using retrospective analysis. The issues presented, and the uptake by fire management and personnel for the incorporation of such technology at wildfires in New Zealand are discussed. Findings: The integration of UAS and visual, infrared/infrared-thermal (IR/TIR) sensors has been used at over ten wildfire management response incidents throughout New Zealand since 2016. The quantitative perception of use and benefit of information technology in wildfire management response improved from the initial viewpoints, from indifferent to strongly supportive, and supportive to strongly supportive for UAS and smartphone use, respectively. Qualitative analysis showed that both positive views on the new technology increased, and indifferent and negative views diminished substantially following exposure to its operational integration into wildfire management. Conclusions: The use of technology such as UAS has gained support and currently offers the potential to increase safety and reduce suppression and mop-up costs. A reduction in the time taken for hotspot detection and management, combined with the ability to redeploy heavy-lift aircraft away from such tasks would lead to efficiencies in cost and resource utilisation. UAS as platforms for remote-sensing devices (such as cameras and laser scanners), and smartphone apps are now considered important tools for deployment at New Zealand wildfires by operational and Incident Management personnel. The adoption of any new systems or technology requires flexibility, especially in terms of management support, in which regular information, training and instruction should be considered crucial. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science Christensen et al. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science (2021) 51:10 https://doi.org/10.33494/nzjfs512021x127x


Introduction
The ecological understanding of wildfire management and impacts is steadily growing, with progress on a range of topics including plant flammability (Alam et al. 2020), the use of green firebreaks (Curran et al. 2018), and spatial burn extent probability on offshore islands Keywords: applications (apps); "Drones"; smartphones; UAV; wildfire response with 38 fatalities and 68 serious harm injuries during the last 100 years (Baynes 2019). Estimates put the direct and indirect cost of these wildfires as being over $110m NZD per year (Wu et al. 2009;Christensen 2014). There have been recent large and complex fires in New Zealand, such as the Port Hills Fire Complex 2017, the Pigeon Valley (Nelson, Tasman) Fire 2019, and the Middlemarch Tussock Fire 2019. These fires have affected multiple values, such as residential and rural property, production forest of Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Douglas-fir (Pinus nigra) and Corsican pine (Pinus nigra), Eucalyptus spp. woodlots and plantations, rural production grasslands, and conservation shrublands and tussock grasslands. Summaries of events such as the 2017 Port Hills Fire, outlining the impact and cost, in this case over $30m NZD, are given in Montgomery (2018), Langer et al. (2018), and Pearce (2018). Multiple factors and risks are present at these fires, including people, property, infrastructure and vegetation-types. It is highly important that situational and environmental information is available to fire fighters on the fire ground and fire response managers.
Research has shown that small-scale UAS could be used in monitoring wildfires, and that technological innovation of this kind can offer substantial cost minimisation for wildfire management response (Ambrosia et al. 2003;Christensen 2014;Christensen 2015a). Advances in small-scale UAS technology, especially over the last 10 years, has resolved some technical issues relating to correct geo-location, data quality and usefulness of information for the near real-time monitoring of wildfires, enabling operational incorporation into wildfire management (Parker 2018). In New Zealand, the operation of all UAS falls under regulation of the NZ Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), specifically CAA Civil Aviation Rule (CAR) Part 101. In order to operate UAS at wildfire events, a higher tier of certification (CAA CAR Part 102) is required, enabling an organisation and its pilots to be able to perform operations that are prohibited under Part 101, such as night flying or flying above 400' (approx. 100 m) AGL. From 2016, Interpine Innovation (Interpine) were certified as a Part 102 organisation, allowing greater flexibility in operationalising this new technology. UAS have since been used by Interpine and are deployed by Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) since 2017 for wildfire monitoring (Figure 1). FENZ has three UAS Teams (with resources spread across five locations) nationally, connected with their Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) capability, and are active in a range of incident responses, including wildfire management (Jeff Maunder, FENZ, pers comm. June 2020).
The uptake and incorporation of new technology in wildfire management is not just a technical issue (Groen and Walsh 2013;Christensen 2015b). Human perceptions, understanding and uptake of new information tools and technology can be problematic (Dillon & Morris 1996). This is especially a concern in an emergency response (McCormick 2016). We were interested in whether the perception of such tools changed following exposure to UAS use. The objective of this study was to describe the use and to capture insights of UAS and smartphone technology at recent wildfires in New Zealand, and to identify future wildfire research information needs. A mixed method approach was taken to gather data for this research.

Wildfires
Wildfires where UAS were first operationally deployed in New Zealand are listed in Table 1, with examples depicted in Figure 2. The wildfires occurred in several land uses (such as rural land, plantation forestry, rural-urban interface, rural-industrial interface and wildland). Personal property, business, and public (such as Recreational and Scenic Reserves) values were damaged or in some cases destroyed in these wildfires (Pearce 2018).

Specialist (expert elicitation) viewpoints
An expert elicitation method with a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used to retrieve and synthesise the opinions of professional fire management responders who were present at the fires, sourced from incident communication lists from FENZ. The responders came from the following organisations: Department of Conservation (DOC), the National Rural Fire Authority (NRFA), FENZ, Nelson Forests, the New Zealand Army of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), Timberlands, and Wildfire Management New Zealand. Advice was sought and received from DOC social science advisors on the methods and questionnaire, as DOC did not have a human ethics committee. We adhered to the standards of integrity and conduct code issued by the State Services Commissioner under Section 57 of the State Sector Act 1988. Only those individuals who potentially were involved with the new technology were invited to participate in the survey, though not the UAS pilots or UAS team members, nor the authors of this study. The participants included Incident Management Team members such as Incident Controllers and Planning Managers, and Operational Fire Responders such as Air Attack Supervisors and Fire Crew Leaders. An email from the primary author was blind carbon copied to all (47) potential survey participants during 2018, with options for face-to-face, Skype or phone conversations. One phone conversation interview was requested, with the primary author conducting this interview and transcribing the participant's answers. Eight questions were asked, with the first six using a five-value Likert scale (e.g. 5 -strongly support, 4 -support, 3 -neutral, 2 -unsupportive, 1 -strongly unsupportive), as described by Allen and Seaman (2007), including an option for additional feedback: • Question 1: What was your opinion of UAS use and tablet/smart phone use for fires before the 2017 Canterbury and Port Hills Fires? • Question 2: How would you describe your level of tablets/smart phones use prior to the 2017 Canterbury and Port Hills Fires?
• Question 3: What was your opinion of UAS use and tablet/smart phone use for fires after the 2017 Canterbury and Port Hills Fires (or later fires)? • Question 4a: Do you think the UAS, maps and tablet use made your work?: (5 -very safe, 4 -safe, 3 -neither safe nor unsafe, 2 -unsafe, 1 -very unsafe) • Question 4b: Do you think the UAS, maps and tablet use made your work?: (5 -very easy, 4 -easy, 3 -neither difficult nor easy, 2 -difficult, 1 -very difficult) • Question 4c: Do you think the UAS, maps and tablet use made your work?: (5 -very fast, 4 -fast, 3 -neither fast nor slow, 2 -slow, 1 -very slow) • Question 5: Any comments on the use of new technology?
• Question 6: Feedback on questions, open discussion and any questions you may have?
Follow-up emails were sent to non-responders during 2018 and early 2019, with five additional participants completing the survey. Of the 47 potential participants to the questionnaire, we had 26 responders, with six nonresponders removed due to email addresses being no longer active, giving a final response rate of 63%. All bar one of the responders chose to respond directly via the request email. The raw data for the first six questions was transformed into percentiles of answer density, with a continuity correction factor added to a Wilcoxon rank-sum test for any difference between the participants' responses. All analyses and graphing were performed using the statistical programme R version 3.2.5 (R Core Team 2016). showing triple-level GPS receiver system (white circular components) building in redundancy for locational accuracy, 5.5-6kg weight max payload weight, and a total max take-off weight of 15.1kg, DJI Zenmuse XTR 640x512 30hz (FLIR Tau 2) IR thermal sensor. The UAS team brought the kit to the staging area as part of the information given to fire-fighters, and to increase uptake of the mapping apps. Image credit M. Cook, Pumicelands Rural Fire Authority (prior to Fire and Emergency New Zealand establishment in July 2017  . Rural and semi-urban wildfire. Mixed fuels: multiple vegetation types; commercial plantation forest of mixed ages (including shelter belts); scrub (gorse, and native); cured grass (including farmland pasture); tussock; residential and out-buildings and property.
Public and conservation values (Scenic and Recreational Reserves) damaged. Pine plantations affected and at least one destroyed.
Extreme fire behaviour observed, with crowning evident in mature trees, 20 m high fire whirl "firenado" witnessed (and photographed).
Likely to have also affected protected reserves, "fire islands". Flame heights exceeding 20 m. Fire size 1660 ha+.
Over 450 households evacuated. Fourteen structures, including nine private residences destroyed. Commercial recreational facilities (chairlift) damaged.
Large-scale complex fire for NZ. Multi-agency integration.
Widespread up-take of mapping apps. for fire crews and fire observers, after exposure and once instructed. Incorporation of multiple (3) Interpine UAS teams sequentially over one week, enabling greater fire ground coverage, and minimising safety risks. Incorporation of one dedicated Geospatial (GS) analyst, for UAS data-information processing and mapping. Split-shift running of UAS teams at dusk/early evening (1900 hrs), and before dawn/early morning (end 0500 hrs), for map preparation for morning briefing (0700 hrs).
First time UAS and habited (heavy-lift) aircraft used in same airspace at same time, and managed through NZ airspace control. Piloted (fourteen helicopters, with equipped with monsoon buckets and three fixed wing aircraft) and remotely piloted flight (three DJI M600 Pro units, see Fig. 1) integration using Interpine model (Fig. 4). Initiation of research on end-user engagement regarding technology use and uptake (this article).
Hurunui (   Qualitative analysis for all questions, and especially the final two questions consisted of (1) coding all the comments emerging from the questionnaire, (2) identifying any key issues and insights for the participants, (3) comparatively reviewing these, especially where apparent contradictions were present, and (4) selecting the most descriptive, representative and useful quotations. This analysis strategy was broadly similar to the elicitation of themes in describing the adaptive capacity of New Zealand communities to wildfire (Jakes & Langer 2014). These comments were also used to further elicit insights and future training needs. We also reviewed official documents such as Incident Action Plans (IAPs) and Fire Incident Reviews, as well as newspaper articles related to the fires. These were key in identifying specific characteristics of the wildfires and the management response. The comments were also analysed using a basic quantitative method, with the numbers of comment codes averaged for both before and after experiences, with percentage change determined to get an approximate scale of perception transformation, based on the responders' narratives. The comments were considered as an individual sample unit, and thus were not averaged for each participant.

Results
The insights and progression over the first three years trialling and developing an integrated UAS wildfire and hot-spot tracking system in New Zealand are given in Table 1. From the very first trial at a supervised pine slash burn in 2016, emergent and extreme fire behaviour such as fire whirls was visually observed through thick smoke, using UAS as a platform with IR/TIR sensors. By 2017 improved airspace coordination approaches enabled both heavy-lift aircraft and UAS to be used safely in the same airspace at the same time, with ground personnel present at active wildfires. Within three years, by 2019, a complete modular UAS fire (and fire hotspot) monitoring system was developed, including quick (if not rapid) response and deployment across mainland Aotearoa New Zealand. 5.0 respectively. There was an initial level of reservation in using the UAS as the median "before" value was 3.0 (indifferent). The "after" value medians were 5.0 (strongly support), with only safety being slightly lower at 4.75 than the other "after" values of 5.0 for "ease of use" and 5.0 for "efficiency" though these were not statistically significantly different from each other.
The responders' narratives following their involvement in the Port Hills Fire Complex 2017, Hurunui Fire 2017, Tiwai Point Fire 2018, and Burnside Fire 2018 are quoted in Additional File 1, with two representative and descriptive examples given here: "I saw how the infra-red camera was used and the mapping data from that, and then how the drones and IR cameras could zoom in on areas, [to] produce maps of the hot spots and then how users the next FIGURE 3: Survey participants' percentile preference scores on the six key questions. Lower case alpha-numerals indicate a statistically significant difference between the questions using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test with continuity correction. Shape of columns or "beans" indicate responders' answer density, bars (medians), and whiskers (25% lower, and 75% upper quartiles). The respondents also provided a range of insights and concerns, that could be broadly grouped into three categories: (1) Training in use of this technology and its outputs (48% of all comments), (2) Development of rules for operational capability and safety (45%), and (3) Specific technology outputs such as real-time monitoring of the fire and resources, integration of different resolution and scale of imagery, and remote tracking of resources (7%).

Discussion
After initial field trialling early in 2016, the progression of UAS use and knowledge has developed into standard operational activities at wildfire management response in New Zealand. Methodological testing, including proof of concept was done at the Taupo supervised burn 2016 and the Ohaaki fire 2016. At the Port Hills fire complex 2017, fire hotspot-tagging and data management were operationally trialled for the first time in New Zealand at a large-scale fire (Parker 2018). At the Port Hills fire complex 2017, substantial increase in technology awareness occurred for fire-fighters, and also provided insights for fire response managers. At this fire, hotspots were GPS-tagged, with maps created overnight which fire-fighters were given at the following morning briefings. Fire-fighters had the option of hard copy maps and/or digital copies using Quick Response (QR) codes printed on the incident management plan via their smartphones using mapping apps (AvenzaMaps, Avenza Systems Inc. Toronto, and FireMapper, Fire Front Solutions, Sydney), see Table 1. At the Port Hills fire complex 2017, the UAS pilots were in continuous contact with the local Air Traffic Control and the fire command structure so that the location of the UAS was known at all times, the UAS was flown predominately at night and very early morning, when the ground was coldest, thus giving the greatest contrast with hotspots, and this also diminished the risk of collision with other aircraft flying at night such as fixed wing or rescue helicopters (Parker 2018). It is important to document such technical procedures, though it is also just as important for Incident Management to note and accommodate operational needs of UAS teams, such as daily split-shifts (early morning and evening). Depending on the size of the fire and UAS team capacity, individual teams may be flying at multiple times during a 24-hour period. Further development in the use and management occurred over the next two years and five fires, most importantly the integration of multiple UAS teams from different agencies at fires (Table 1.) Following exposure to such technology, a clear willingness and demand was found for UAS and remote sensing capacity at wildfires in New Zealand (see Additional File 1). The incorporation of emerging technology into wildfire management offers substantial benefits, though requires well-considered introduction, engagement and acceptance by fire responders and management. Technical operation and management support of such tools remain highly specialised roles which require specific skill sets that are generally not currently present in emergency staff (for instance, pilots of the FENZ and Interpine UAS teams are fully accredited UAS pilots with New Zealand CAA 1.02 certification). We found a substantial positive change in perception of the new technology (UAS, smartphones and associated apps) following their introduction into operational wildfire management response since 2016 ( Figure  3 and Additional File 1). The ubiquitous presence of smartphones allows a new and vast degree of data access and transfer between operational personnel, management and technical specialists. New Zealand wildfire responders and management were generally sceptical about new technology and require direct exposure with such prior to operational integration and support.

Management implications
The integration of such technology in emergency incident management such as wildfire response was performed under a Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS). This set of systems has been utilised by most New Zealand emergency response agencies. An initial model for UAS integration was developed by the Interpine Innovation UAS team, and was managed under Operations, Air Command through a separate unit to piloted aircraft (see Figure 4). In this model, the Situation Unit (within Planning), determines the priority aerial tasks in concert with Air Operations to go into future IAPs. Data from the UAS teams and piloted aircraft is retrieved and forwarded to the Situation Unit for analysis and interpretation for current IAPs. With the introduction of data-heavy UAS technology (in terms of wildfire response management) with digital sensors such as gimbal-mounted TIR cameras, data transfer and management to the Planning and Intelligence sections may require dedicated personnel. This is a relatively simple example of a systems analysis approach for the application of new (technology) components to a wildfire management system in order to improve the system's performance .
Financial concerns are crucial in the incorporation of new technology such as UAS use in wildfire management (Christensen 2015b). Currently, the most advantageous use of UAS-mounted IR cameras is the potential time and costs saved in the support of "mopping-up" tasks at smaller fires where no helicopter support with IR/TIR sensing is present (Christensen 2015b). As technology improves and increases in both scale and applicability, some aspects of such management systems will necessitate system redesign. Additional improved efficiency could be gained through some of the following innovations: real-time monitoring of wildfires, semiautomation of the IAP and resource request systems, and remote tracking of personnel and resources. Further development and integration of the wildfire response management systems through the use of increased information technology may result in the downsizing of logistics and management support roles in particular. This in turn would enable the redeployment of intellectual and physical resources to operational fire response, or other planning needs. We found that there are key human and social aspects of integrating new technology, primarily on-site operational exposure. For the optimal uptake of this technology within the wildfire management community, we recommend regular on-site operational instruction, updating of information, and training pertaining to the use of new technologies including UAS, data transfer, information flow requirements, and applications.

Conclusions
New technology such as UAS and smartphone apps have gained solid support in New Zealand wildfire management response. As our applied scientific investigation focused on technology integration and incorporation, a multidisciplinary, mixed methods research approach was taken, integrating quantitative and qualitative data (Feilzer 2010). We found that the incorporation of new technology in active wildfire management incidents requires consideration and flexibility, with regular provision of information, training and instruction. The utilisation of ongoing feedback from personnel as any new technology is incorporated into operations has a direct benefit for wildfire management. These insights can be directly integrated into trialling systems, such as the new UAS management system.
The use and development of remote sensing for monitoring wildfires holds high importance to wildfire response managers (Christensen 2014;Christensen 2015a;Yuan et al. 2015). Similarly, as ecologists, foresters, forestry scientists and wildfire managers, we see UAS and remote sensing technology as important to address key long-term research needs, such as post-fire highresolution terrain mapping, to determine fire severity impact. There remain key research and developmental needs specific to wildfire response using such technology. This study has demonstrated the benefits of pairing research closely with innovation, and that tracking the ongoing development of UAS operational capability at fires is important for practitioner and organisational learning. Future research and innovation in wildfire management is the real-time monitoring of fires and tracking of resources. Furthermore, the quantification of cost efficiencies that these technologies can bring to wildfire management would be highly beneficial.
Mixed methods research takes a pragmatic approach to the integration quantitative and qualitative investigations (Feilzer 2010). As a multidisciplinary team, we took a mixed-methods approach for this research, specifically as we were interested in systems improvements for the integration of UAS technology into operational wildfire response management. Planning and procedures are critical for effective and efficient wildfire response management, as they can improve risk-informed decision making . The incorporation of emerging technology into wildfire response management should include reviews of existing systems, including response plans and operational procedures (Thompson & Calkin 2011). The assimilation of UAS command and data transfer/ information flow process into the existing air support operations has attempted to incorporate these steps. It is noted that there is a lag time associated with the incorporation of new technology and systems into the established wildfire management response approaches. Examples of impeding factors for the uptake of new technology can include, though are not limited to, participant awareness, acceptance and learning. It remains important to acknowledge the reluctance of some practitioners to new developments and may therefore require direct engagement and exposure to new technology. In addition, we note the success of concurrent review, testing and incorporation of these new technologies into wildfire response management.
A key to successful assimilation of new systems and technology is the incorporation of a feedback system for trialling, testing and review.
Zealand. FENZ also supplied fire incident data that was used for Table 1. Matt Cook supplied the photograph of Interpine DJI M600 UAS unit. Three of the authors were active wildfire responders and incident management personnel for some of these wildfires including the Port Hills Fire Complex 2017 and were well supported and accommodated by the above agencies during this time, specifically: FENZ and NZDF. We thank the FENZ staff: Craig Cottrill, Darrin Woods and Nicole Wilson for the provision of IAPs and associated information; and Jeff Maunder for discussion on USAR UAS capability, technical issues and management. This work was improved by useful comments, suggestions, and contextual support by Jeff Maunder, Veronica Clifford, Tim Mitchell, Eckehard Brockerhoff, and two anonymous reviewers.

Abbreviations
CAA -Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand CIMS -Coordinated Incident Management System DOC -Department of Conservation EOC -Emergency Operations Centre FENZ -Fire and Emergency New Zealand FF -Fire-fighter FLIR -Forward Looking Infrared GPS -Global Positioning System GS -Geospatial HA -Habited or Heavy-lift Aircraft IAP -Incident Action Plan IC -Incident Controller IR -Infrared IR/TIR -Infrared/Thermal-Infrared NRFA -National Rural Fire Authority NZDF -New Zealand Defence Force NZFS -New Zealand Fire Service NZUSAR -New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue QEII -Queen Elizabeth II National Trust QR -Quick Response code RF -Radio frequency RPAS -Remotely Piloted Aerial or Aircraft Systems RT -Radio-Telephone TIR -Thermal/Infrared UAS -Uninhabited or Unmanned Aerial or Aircraft Systems UAV -Uninhabited or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional Files
Additional File 1 Participant responses.

Funding
The authors' host agencies: the New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC), Interpine Innovation, and Scion supported the development of this investigation and its publication.