Evaluating AlphaEarth Foundations Embeddings for Wildfire Susceptibility Mapping
Authors: Yuan Zhuang, Sanaa Hobeichi, Peng Shi, Fei Huang
Organizations: 1UNSW Sydney, School of Risk and Actuarial Studies, New South Wales, Australia · 2ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Australia · 3Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia · 4UNSW AI Institute, New South Wales, Australia · Department of Risk and Insurance, Wisconsin School of Business, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
Wildfire susceptibility mapping typically relies on physical variables assembled from multiple remote-sensing, climate, and geospatial products. AlphaEarth Foundations (AEF) provides analysis-ready geospatial embeddings that may reduce this dependence on heavy harmonisation and task-specific feature engineering, but their value for wildfire susceptibility mapping has not been systematically evaluated. Using Victoria, Australia (2017-2025), as a case study, we show that AEF embeddings can reconstruct commonly used variables in wildfire susceptibility analysis with high accuracy. In downstream susceptibility models trained on satellite-derived fire occurrence data, embedding-based susceptibility models achieve ROC-AUC values above 0.92 and consistently identify high wildfire susceptibility across eastern Victoria, particularly Gippsland and the north-eastern uplands, with additional localized hotspots in central and northwestern Victoria. A key feature of AEF embeddings is their strong near-region transferability within climatically similar regions. When embedding-based models trained in Victoria are applied to Canberra and Western Sydney-Blue Mountains, ROC-AUC improves by around 4% at Canberra and declines by around 2% at Western Sydney-Blue Mountains, compared with a mean decrease of approximately 25% for physical-variable models. These findings provide practical guidance for using AEF embeddings and lay a foundation for scalable wildfire susceptibility mapping workflows for downstream users such as government agencies and (re)insurers.
Data-driven landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) typically relies on landslide conditioning factors (LCFs), whose availability, heterogeneity, and preprocessing-related uncertainties can constrain mapping reliability. Recently, Google AlphaEarth (AE) embeddings, derived from multi-source geospatial observations, have emerged as a unified representation of Earth surface conditions. This study evaluated the potential of AE embeddings as alternative predictors for LSM. Two AE representations, including retained principal components and the full set of 64 embedding bands, were systematically compared with conventional LCFs across three study areas (Nantou County, Taiwan; Hong Kong; and part of Emilia-Romagna, Italy) using three deep learning models (CNN1D, CNN2D, and Vision Transformer). Performance was assessed using multiple evaluation metrics, ROC-AUC analysis, error statistics, and spatial pattern assessment. Results showed that AE-based models consistently outperformed LCFs across all regions and models, yielding higher F1-scores, AUC values, and more stable error distributions. Such improvement was most pronounced when using the full 64-band AE representation, with F1-score improvements of approximately 4% to 15% and AUC increased ranging from 0.04 to 0.11, depending on the study area and model. AE-based susceptibility maps also exhibited clearer spatial correspondence with observed landslide occurrences and enhanced sensitivity to localised landslide-prone conditions. Performance improvements were more evident in Nantou and Emilia than in Hong Kong. SHAP analysis further revealed regional variability in the contribution of individual AE bands, while several bands showed consistently high importance across all three study areas. These findings highlight the strong potential of AE embeddings as a standardised and information-rich alternative to conventional LCFs for LSM.
Wildfire burned-area mapping is essential for damage assessment, emissions modeling, and understanding fire-climate interactions across diverse ecological regions. Recent geospatial foundation models provide strong general-purpose representations for satellite imagery, yet there is still no clear understanding of how to efficiently adapt these models for downstream Earth observation tasks, particularly under geographic and temporal domain shift. This study evaluates three state-of-the-art Geospatial Foundation Models (GFMs) - Terramind, DINOv3, and Prithvi-v2 - for burned-area mapping across the United States and Canada using Sentinel-2 data. Leveraging 3,820 wildfire events from 2017-2023, we conduct spatial and temporal generalization tests across diverse biomes. We systematically compare full fine-tuning, decoder-only fine-tuning, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) for adapting each model. Across all experiments, LoRA provides the strongest cross-domain generalization while updating less than 1% of parameters, demonstrating a favorable trade-off between accuracy and efficiency. Prithvi-v2 with LoRA achieves the highest overall accuracy and the largest improvement compared to full fine-tuning. These findings indicate that geospatial foundation models, when adapted using lightweight parameter-efficient methods such as LoRA, offer a robust and scalable solution for large-scale burned-area mapping. Code is available at https://github.com/alishibli97/wildfire-lora-gfm.
Wildfire prediction is important for early warning and resource allocation, yet existing Earth foundation models (Earth FMs) are pretrained for general atmospheric and geophysical objectives rather than wildfire forecasting. To address this gap, we introduce WILDFIRE-FM, the first foundation model pretrained specifically for wildfire prediction using weather, active-fire observations, topography, vegetation, and static environmental data. However, introducing a domain-specific backbone alone does not solve the evaluation problem: wildfire events are sparse in space and time, making transfer conclusions highly sensitive to matching rules and evaluation settings. To address this problem, we introduce a fixed-contract evaluation framework with two controlled checks: a fixed-output check for matching-rule effects and a fixed-feature check for head-selection effects. Under matched contracts, we compare WILDFIRE-FM with ten Earth-FM baselines across occupancy, spread, retrieval, and regression tasks. Our results show that wildfire transfer conclusions depend strongly on evaluation design and task formulation. We hope this framework and WILDFIRE-FM provide a foundation for future wildfire-specific Earth-FM research and benchmarking. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Wildfire-fm-evaluation-contracts-5AE9/.