Many regions on Earth are experiencing simultaneous changes in climate and land use leading to the occurrence of high large and severe wildfires in the last decades (e.g., Kirchmeier-Young et al. 2019, Duane et al. 2021, Collins et al. 2022). Firstly, rural abandonment leads to forest and shrub encroachment, which increases fuel load both at local and landscape scales (Viedma et al. 2015, Li & Li 2017). Secondly, the probability of fire ignition and spread over large areas covered by dry fuels also increases with raising temperatures and decreased precipitation (Barbero et al. 2015, Abatzoglou & Williams 2016). In addition, the long-term application of successful fire suppression policies further exacerbates the problem by reducing the area of small-scale fires that could otherwise maintain pyrodiverse landscape mosaics less prone to large and extreme fires (Collins et al. 2013, Fernandes et al. 2020). As a result, wildfires of unprecedented size are increasingly frequent despite the huge amount of resources allocated to their suppression in developed countries (Rego et al. 2018, Grünig et al. 2022).
Wildfire has been defined as a “wicked problem” due to essential difficulties for its conceptualisation, high complexity and interdependency of different dimensions of the fire management, which in turn lead to lack of consensus between actors on the operational arena (Carroll et al. 2007, Chapin et al. 2008). Furthermore, solutions to high severe wildfires are likely to be site-specific due to the influence of local biophysical conditions, land use, traditional fire culture, population density, attitudes and skills on the design and implementation of fire resilient landscapes. Former conceptual and operational frameworks based on the fire suppression models are now being questioned, not only in view of the limited success of this approach, but also due to the exacerbation of the wildfire problem known as the ‘firefighting trap’ or the ‘fire paradox’ (Collins et al. 2013, Fernandes et al. 2020, Xanthopoulos et al. 2020). Authors claiming for a paradigm shift recommend that policy and expenditures be rebalanced between suppression and mitigation and that the effectiveness of fire management policies be measured based on the damage and losses avoided in socio-ecological systems, rather than the burned area (Moreira et al. 2020). In parallel, new approaches considering the social-ecological context and stakeholder engagement to create more resilient landscapes are gaining acceptance (Fischer et al. 2016, Vigna et al. 2021). To overcome de ´fear trap' (defensive strategies based only on the known risks), Castellnou et al. (2019) proposed a proactive approach that integrated, not only the uncertainty in decision-making processes, but also the cost of opportunity taking into account firefighting safety and socio-ecological resilience and values. Campos et al. (2021) highlighted rewilding opportunities that can be undertaken through the use of fire or a more flexible fire suppression policy ('let it burn low intensity fires') where the agricultural policies has failed to support High Nature Value farmlands. According to Fernandes (2020), moving from fire suppression-centered policies to sustainable fire management, among other requirements, demands integrative governance, adaptive approaches and cooperative planning guided by landscape management strategies (see, for example, the collaborative Landscape Strategy Making process proposed by Primdahl et al. (2020) in another context).
What are Fire-Smart Territories? A broadened definition
Novel fire regimes are characterized by high-intensity wildfires that spread above the suppression capacity as a result of increasing risk factors, making silvicultural treatments and fire containment infrastructures increasingly ineffective in stopping fire growth and reduce fire severity (Duane et al. 2021). In this context, the use of preventive (smart) measures modifying the fuelscapes to reduce fire hazard results in Fire Smart Management (FSM). FSM was initially applied to achieve sustainable forest management in fire-prone ecosystems. It involved forest management practices aimed at reducing the area burned and the risk associated with the use of prescribed fires (Hirsch et al. 2001, Fernandes 2013, Corona et al. 2015, Pais et al. 2020, Iglesias et al. 2022). However, many fire-prone territories are made of forest patches intermixed with grazing and agricultural lands, notably in the Mediterranean Region. For such heterogeneous scenarios, smart criteria need to be applied to any silvicultural or farming practice, in such a way that the whole territory (and not only forests) is managed coherently (e.g., Hobbs et al., 2014). Thus, the concept of Fire-Smart Territory (FST) has been recently proposed as “a territory with a shared governance model, in which empowered communities with high levels of knowledge and skills are able to decide and manage wildfire risk to keep it very low, through economic and social activities that not only can contain (in the end eliminate) wildfire hazard but promote the benefits of fire use” (Tedim et al. 2016, Leone et al. 2020). The main pillars of this concept are: (1) the social basis of the solution; (2) the interaction between institutions and local communities; (3) the coexistence of multiple land uses allowing fuel reduction; and (4) the communication among agents for an adaptive management of the solution, including regulatory changes and incentives (Tedim et al. 2016). The concept of FST remains elusive to date due to the practical complexity of the approach and the absence of tailored policy measures for cross-sectoral and multi-actor initiatives (Wunder et al. 2021). Here we develop a practical framework and report the initial stages of a real-world example of implementation of an FST. To make the concept operational, we consider FST a territory in which a combination of indirect prevention measures based on forestry, agricultural and livestock practices performed by local actors and direct prevention measures (fuel management by fire agencies) are jointly implemented.
Combining direct and indirect interventions in a Fire-Smart Territory
Fuel reduction can be attained through both direct, strategic interventions funded by public bodies, and indirect, non-strategic interventions whose expected economic returns justify investments by local land managers with or without public support (e.g., grazing, cropping or wood harvesting). Table 1 summarizes the main relevant traits of both approaches. Briefly, the main advantages of direct interventions are related to their strategic location with respect to expected fire behaviour and their rather immediate implementation once they have been officially designed (Oliveira et al. 2016, Salis et al. 2018). However, the high costs and short service life of these fuel management actions usually preclude their application in vast regions. In a study conducted by Davim et al. (2021) in Portugal mainland, the authors concluded that survival of prescribed burning treatments to wildfires decreases with time since treatment (being higher for fuel ages of less than 3 years) and increases with treatment size, and that the encounter rates between prescribed fire patches and wildfires are very high and occur mostly up 4 years after the treatment. By contrast, indirect interventions implemented by local land managers (LLMs) are long-lasting and can cover large areas at no or reduced cost to the public purse (Wunder et al. 2021). They also generate economic returns and promote stakeholder engagement in the territory. Unlike targeted measures, indirect intervention may generate a diffuse effect over larger areas, which has proven effective in reducing wildfire size or severity. Thus, fuzzy agroforestry landscapes are less affected by large and severe wildfire events than forests, shrublands or grasslands, providing evidence of their large-scale potential to reduce fire hazard and increase fire suppression capacity (Damianidis et al. 2020, Ascoli et al. 2021, Lasanta et al. 2022). Public institutions can further support indirect measures through ad hoc regulations and a variety of incentives such as payments for preventive grazing or supportive infrastructures for shepherds (Varela et al. 2018, Ascoli et al. 2022).
Table 1
Main attributes of direct and indirect approaches for fire prevention in the Mosaico territory.
Attribute | Direct prevention | Indirect prevention |
Funding | Public | Mostly private |
Land ownership | Mostly public | Mostly private |
Location | Linked to fire behaviour | Independent on fire behaviour |
Public cost | High | None or low |
Useful life | Short | Long |
Governance | Simple | Complex |
Products generated | Seldom | Frequently |
Social engagement | Seldom | Relevant |
Deterrence | No | Relevant |
The strategic value of an area devoted to fuel management can be determined by previous experience, fire history and/or through fire simulations (Oliveira et al. 2016, Salis et al. 2018, Benali et al. 2021). Once it is spatially located, fuel management operations rely on a continued public investment that keeps fuel load under a reasonable threshold. For this reason, a FST based only on direct interventions could in theory be advisable in relatively small public forests where indirect interventions may be undesirable for reasons related to forest conservation. And even in this extreme situation, indirect measures such as prescribed grazing may generate important benefits through fuel reduction and increased surveillance (Varela et al. 2018).
Mediterranean forestlands are usually made up of public forests managed by public agencies and private forests managed by land owners. Thus, any risk reduction plan must necessarily address this duality and allocate resources to both direct (public) and indirect (private) measures. Large and high severe fires are inherently linked to rural abandonment since the mid-twentieth century, which has resulted in an extremely fast forest transition over a traditionally farmed landscape (Viedma et al. 2015, Oliveira et al. 2017, Iriarte & Ayuda 2018). The loss of agroforestry mosaics results in the coalescence of forest patches and increased fuel continuity, pushing many wildfires beyond suppression capacity (San Miguel et al. 2013) and resilience thresholds (Guiomar et al. 2015). Reversal of such processes in extremely depopulated areas is unlikely to occur without a certain degree of public intervention (Wunder et al. 2021). This is the reason why we assume that any given FST depends on a site-specific combination of direct and indirect measures.
The Mosaico approach
The approach illustrated in this study was developed to address a specific problem after a large fire occurred in August 2015 in Sierra de Gata (central Spain). This fire affected 7800 hectares (mainly of shrublands and pine forests) and caused severe losses in local economies (livestock husbandry, orchards and agrotourism). After this event there was a general consensus concerning the drivers of such wildfire (Bertomeu et al. 2022): rural abandonment, loss of traditional farming practices and the subsequent spread of woody vegetation. Accordingly, our research team from Universidad de Extremadura (UEX) proposed a participatory initiative (project Mosaico) aimed to gradually reverse the trend by promoting agroforestry practices of preventive value. The proposal was approved and it has been funded by the regional government of Extremadura for five years (October 2016- September 2021), with risk reduction through participatory landscape change as the main goal. Mosaico meets the main attributes of an Integrated Landscape Initiative: acts at a landscape scale, involves inter-sectorial coordination, develops and supports multi-stakeholder processes, and it is highly participatory (García-Martín et al. 2016). The project relies on five main pillars (Wolpert et al. 2022): (1) active search and engagement of LLMs, defined as individuals or groups exploiting a portion of the territory in a way that can reduce fuel load and the probability of fire propagation; (2) interaction among institutional actors, including regional and local agencies and academia; (3) enhancement of cooperation between LLMs by promoting the establishment of formal associations; (4) continued technical support to LLMs offered by centres of knowledge; and (5) periodical evaluation of changes in risk reduction and subsequent adaptation by allocating effort to more cost-effective interventions.
Mosaico is a large-scale, long-term project aimed to gradually generate a FST by engaging all types of LLMs from the agricultural, livestock and forestry sectors. The impact on fuel load of these practices may vary as a function of area exploited and fraction of fuel removed. Also, the impact on fire spread depends on the spatial arrangement of the managed patches (Oliveira et al. 2016, Salis et al. 2018, Ager et al. 2021). Besides these factors, the rate of landscape change depends on the number of LLMs joining the project, which is a function of population density, attitudes, skills, and external support (Wolpert et al. 2022). Therefore, the region-specific rates of landscape change and risk reduction can only be estimated through experience, and it must be improved through adaptive project management. In this paper we aim:
(1) to analyse the response and success of LLMs when invited to participate in an integrated fire prevention initiative;
(2) to describe, qualitatively and quantitatively, the interventions performed by LLMs as compared to public measures;
(3) to compare the effect of different types of interventions on fuel models;
(4) to assess the impact of induced landscape changes on simulated fire spread under different governance scenarios.
By addressing these goals we aim to illustrate and refine the FST concept as well as to suggest practical guidelines for replication and adaptive management in multiple target territories.