ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Fuel management for wildfire risk prevention generally lacks economic sustainability. In marginal areas of southern Europe, this limits fuel treatment programs from reaching the critical mass of required treated area to modify landscape flammability, the fire regime and its impacts. This study investigates key fuel management initiatives for wildfire risk prevention in southern EU countries. We compared local approaches through a bottom-up selection of 38 initiatives, which we analyzed systematically through a set of fire-smart criteria: sustainability, cost-benefit ratio, synergies and inter-sectoral cooperation, integration between strategic prevention planning and multiple land governance goals (e.g., rural development, biodiversity conservation, energy supply), innovation and knowledge transfer, and adaptive management. We summarized lessons learned from the most innovative initiatives, by identifying solutions and functional approaches for building sustainable fuel management at the landscape scale, under fire-smart management principles. These make synergistic use of private, public and European resources to activate value chains that valorize the products, by-products and services generated by fuel management activities and their positive externalities on ecosystem services. The multiple mechanisms include fire-marketing, Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes, specific taxes, or environmental compensatory measures. These mechanisms catalyze the interest of multiple stakeholders (economic actors, private owners, land and fire management agencies) improving the cost-efficiency of landscape fuel management. We contend that the EU Green Deal offers the political backing and framework (mainstreaming of EU strategies and funding opportunities) to enable the replication of documented fire-smart models and functional approaches to wildfire risk prevention. A documentary to deepen some of the fire-smart solutions is available at the following link: https://vimeo.com/809222543?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=5088637
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
Available online 28 April 2023
2212-4209/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Fire-smart solutions for sustainable wildre risk prevention:
Bottom-up initiatives meet top-down policies under EU green deal
Davide Ascoli
a
, Eduard Plana
b
, Silvio Daniele Oggioni
c
,
*
, Antonio Tomao
d
,
e
,
f
,
Mario Colonico
d
, Piermaria Corona
d
,
e
, Francesco Giannino
g
, Mauro Moreno
g
,
Gavriil Xanthopoulos
h
, Konstantinos Kaoukis
h
, Miltiadis Athanasiou
h
,
Maria Conceiç˜
ao Colaço
i
, Francisco Rego
i
, Ana Catarina Sequeira
i
, Vanda Ac´
acio
i
,
Marta Serra
b
, Anna Barbati
d
a
Department of Agriculture, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095, Grugliasco, Italy
b
Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia, Crta. Sant Llorenç de Morunys, km 2, 25280 Solsona, Lleida, Spain
c
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Giovanni Celoria 2, 20133, Milano, Italy
d
Department for Innovation in Biological Agro-Food and Forestry System, University of Tuscia, Via San Camillo De Lellis, SNC, 01100, Viterbo, Italy
e
CREA Research Centre for Forestry and Wood, Viale Santa Margherita 80, 52100, Arezzo, Italy
f
Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, Via Delle Scienze 206, 33100, Udine, Italy
g
Department of Agriculture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Universit`
a 100, 80055, Portici, Napoli, Italy
h
Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems, Hellenic Agricultural Organization Dimitra, Terma Alkmanos, 11528, Athens, Greece
i
Centre for Applied Ecology ‘Prof. Baeta Neves (CEABN-InBIO), School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1349-017, Lisbon, Portugal
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Wildre risk prevention
Fire resistant and resilient landscapes
Fire smart
Fuel management
EU Green deal
Bioeconomy
ABSTRACT
Fuel management for wildre risk prevention generally lacks economic sustainability. In marginal
areas of southern Europe, this limits fuel treatment programs from reaching the critical mass of
required treated area to modify landscape ammability, the re regime and its impacts.
This study investigates key fuel management initiatives for wildre risk prevention in southern
EU countries. We compared local approaches through a bottom-up selection of 38 initiatives,
which we analyzed systematically through a set of re-smart criteria: sustainability, cost-benet
ratio, synergies and inter-sectoral cooperation, integration between strategic prevention planning
and multiple land governance goals (e.g., rural development, biodiversity conservation, energy
supply), innovation and knowledge transfer, and adaptive management.
We summarized lessons learned from the most innovative initiatives, by identifying solutions
and functional approaches for building sustainable fuel management at the landscape scale, under
re-smart management principles. These make synergistic use of private, public and European
resources to activate value chains that valorize the products, by-products and services generated
by fuel management activities and their positive externalities on ecosystem services. The multiple
mechanisms include re-marketing, Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes, specic taxes, or
environmental compensatory measures. These mechanisms catalyze the interest of multiple
stakeholders (economic actors, private owners, land and re management agencies) improving
the cost-efciency of landscape fuel management.
We contend that the EU Green Deal offers the political backing and framework (mainstreaming
of EU strategies and funding opportunities) to enable the replication of documented re-smart
models and functional approaches to wildre risk prevention.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: silvio.oggioni@gmail.com (S.D. Oggioni).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103715
Received 24 March 2022; Received in revised form 8 April 2023; Accepted 23 April 2023
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
2
1. Introduction
In Europe, there is general agreement for a wildre risk management change towards cause-oriented policies [1,2], with a
particular focus on those drivers behind the increased ammability at the landscape scale, such as land-use abandonment [3,4]. As a
consequence, a major goal of European policies is to foster re-smart territories [1,5] in which land use activities (e.g., agro-forestry,
nature conservation) concur with planned fuel treatments (e.g., fuel breaks) in regulating the spatial distribution of re and its impacts
[6,7], improving re suppression effectiveness [8] while obtaining benets for ecosystem services and local economic development [9,
10].
The European Commission is currently pursuing multiple policies with enormous implications for wildre risk prevention and the
capacity to build re-smart territories (FSTs). The Bioeconomy strategy [11] aims to make production chains sustainable by greening
industrial productions and enhancing the role of forests [12,13]. Wildre risk prevention might greatly benet from this strategy,
thanks to incentives for sustainable wood and non-wood products mobilization and active land management in high re risk areas [14,
15]. The EU Bioeconomy strategy is framed within the EU Green Deal objectives, which set out the roadmap for making the EU
economy sustainable and climate-neutral by 2050 [16]. The EU Green Deal acts as a container for other EU strategies, i.e., Biodiversity
Strategy [17], LIFE program,
1
Green Infrastructure [18], Farm to Fork Strategy [19], EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change
[20], and the Forest Strategy [21], which can be implemented in synergy with wildre risk prevention. Europe also provides incentives
for land management, which are useful in the territorial planning of wildre risk mitigation. Rural Development Programs (RDPs)
2
include several measures directly connected to wildre risk management, such as sub-measures 8.3 (prevention of damage from
wildres) and 8.4 (restoration after wildres), or indirectly connected such as 4.3 (modernization of agriculture and forestry), and 8.5
(investments for forest resilience) of the RDP plan 20142020. These European strategies, together with investments for research and
innovation, such as Horizon 2020,
3
are the tools for achieving the EU Green Deal objectives and emerge as important repositories of
resources for building FSTs [7].
Although European policies embody great potential for the transition towards FSTs [22], which was already shown by simulation
analyses of landscape dynamics under alternative policy scenarios [6,23,24], there are many difculties to implement them at local
level [5]. Indeed, local policies often encounter constraints and limitations in adopting a cross-sectoral and multilevel vision, which
complicates a transdisciplinary approach to wildre risk management that maximizes synergies and optimizes EU resources. Major
limitations include the fragmentation of abilities and responsibilities across multiple land and re management agencies [25], which
limits nding trade-offs and synergies in land development goals, e.g., rewilding policies vs. re hazard abatement [9,26,27], and
within wildre risk management sectors, e.g. prevention vs. response [2]. Moreover, the complexity of landscape governance in rural
areas due to ownership (i.e., different land tenure rights in private and public lands, ownership fragmentation), limits the engagement
of private owners in large-scale fuel management programs [28]. All these constraints hinder the necessary landscape-level man-
agement, and fuel reduction programs often do not reach the economy of scale that is needed to be economically sustainable over time
[6,29,30].
Despite these constraints, noteworthy local initiatives have been emerging in re-prone landscapes of southern Europe, with the
ability to create synergies among bottom-up needs and top-down policies and implement sustainable fuel management programs based
on re-smart principles [1,10,3134]. These initiatives uncover opportunities to make the best use of funding and multi-actor pri-
vate/public cooperation necessary to build FSTs. Hence, we identied the need to mainstream these innovative local approaches
through bottom-up selection. In this study, we research and select relevant fuel management programs for wildre risk prevention in
southern EU countries according to a set of criteria, which are key elements for building FSTs [1]. We further analyze, extract and
summarize lessons learned from the best and most innovative initiatives. Finally, we identify solutions and functional approaches to
build sustainable fuel management programs at the landscape scale, which enhance co-benets between re risk mitigation and
multiple land management goals, based on a synergistic use of private, public, and European resources.
2. Methods
2.1. Key criteria to select re-smart initiatives for wildre risk prevention
To select and analyze initiatives for wildre risk prevention based on re-smart principles, we identied ve criteria, and nine sub-
criteria, which have been highlighted by several authors as key elements to build FSTs (Fernandes et al., 2013a [1,28]; Bacciu et al.,
2020; [24]. These criteria include (i) sustainability, (ii) cost-efciency in risk reduction, (iii) synergies and cooperation, (iv) knowledge
exchange and transfer, and (v) adaptive management (Table 1). These criteria were considered essential as they include multiple needs
addressed in the above-mentioned European strategies (e.g., Bioeconomy, Biodiversity, Forest), while simultaneously meeting wildre
prevention requirements.
2.2. Identication of wildre prevention initiatives
The initiatives search started by identifying national and regional agencies responsible for wildre risk prevention in Greece, Italy,
Portugal, and Spain, i.e., among EU countries most exposed to wildre impacts [2], and where many diversied fuel management
programs are in place (e.g., [10,33,34]. The responsibilities of wildre prevention lie with different organizations in each country
1
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.getProjects&themeID=49&projectList.
2
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-sheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/rural-development_en.
3
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/lc-gd-1-1-2020.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
3
based on national legislation and regional governance structures [35]. Accordingly, we conducted a survey of the public agencies
involved in re prevention in each country based on the best available knowledge. In total, we contacted 67 agencies (Table A1).
Through a rened consultation process of agenciespersonnel, we identied relevant fuel management programs implemented at the
local level and key responsible persons. Fuel management programs are hereafter named as initiatives.
In order to identify re-smart attributes of each fuel management initiative (according to the criteria listed in Table 1) and
harmonize the data collection we designed a common survey template to interview responsible persons in charge of each initiative.
The survey covered a wide spectrum of information: initiative promoters, activities implemented according to the Disaster Risk
Management (DRM) cycle (prevention, preparedness, response, recovery) [36], funds supporting fuel management (private in-
vestments, local/regional funds or EU funding scheme, e.g., Life +Program, RDPs), and mechanisms to sustain fuel management costs
(e.g., value chain characteristics, wood valorization, payment for ecosystem services, marketing activities, associated ownership). The
survey investigated the level of integration between fuel treatments strategically planned with the intent to mitigate re risk [8], such
as fuel breaks to support re-ghting (here after direct prevention), and those land use activities (e.g., agro-forestry, grazing) that
display a re regulation capacity [6] with the side-effect of mitigating wildre risk at the landscape level (here after indirect pre-
vention). The survey included a section with a set of open-ended questions about the type of fuel management techniques (e.g.,
pyrosilviculture, prescribed burning), performance indicators to assess and monitor prevention effectiveness, major limitations and
needs of improvement for efcient wildre risk reduction, and additional details. The format of the survey, and all compiled forms, are
available on the website of the Prevail project,
4
which has been funded by the EU Civil Protection Mechanism Program for demon-
strating the close link between fuel management, preparedness and response to wildre.
2.3. Survey analyses
Survey interviews were analyzed to assess to what extent selected initiatives fullled the above-mentioned re-smart criteria and
sub-criteria (Table 1) and highlight the best and most innovative solutions for creating FSTs. For each initiative, the representation of
each criterion was evaluated using a score from Not at all represented(0) to Totally represented (4). This assessment showed to
what extent an initiative might fulll most of the criteria or be strong in some of them. By evidencing the most represented criteria and
the implemented actions in each initiative, we assessed its readiness level, regarding its potential for broad implementation in
sustainable wildre risk management.
Finally, we used a SWOT analysis to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats on a subsample of initiatives. A set of
key characteristics were analyzed: economic feasibility, stakeholders involvement, legal frame, and social and environmental
awareness.
3. Results
The survey identied 38 initiatives planning and implementing fuel management at the landscape scale (Fig. 1) and fullling at
least one or more key re-smart criteria (Table 1). Initiatives covered a wide range of southern European landscapes and re regimes,
from the Alpine region with a continental climate, where wildres typically occur during autumn-winter (from October to March)
[37], to the Mediterranean region, characterized by prolonged dry periods and res concentrated in summer [2]. Some initiatives in
Atlantic and Continental biogeographical regions were also examined. The survey included coastal and inland areas, to be as
comprehensive as possible of the contexts where wildre risk reduction is applied. We identied 17 initiatives in Spain (45% of total
initiatives), 11 in Portugal (29%), 7 in Italy (18%), and 3 in Greece (8%) (Table A.2).
More than half of initiatives (60%) were carried out by public agencies, and 40% by private ones (Fig. 2). Public actors were
predominant in Italian and Spanish initiatives, whereas private agencies in Portuguese and Greek initiatives. In terms of funding
programs, initiatives have been nanced by regional, national, and European funds, mainly from the Life and RDPs, and other forms of
funding related to private investments (Fig. 3a). Concerning the Disaster Risk Management phases, direct prevention (85%), indirect
prevention (80% overall, see Table A.3) and preparedness (50%) were the dominant phases of implemented activities across initia-
tives. The most represented indirect prevention activities were those dedicated to maintaining the landscape mosaic, including
agriculture, grazing and forestry production. On the other hand, response activities were the least represented (only present in 4
initiatives), followed by recovery activities (7 initiatives) (Fig. 3b).
The selected initiatives were analyzed according to the average score (from 0 to 4) assigned to each of the six evaluation criteria
Table 1). As summarized in Fig. 4, most criteria received an average score between 2.2 and 2.4 points. The cost-efciency ratio showed
lower values (1.4 points on average) while the Adaptive Management was the lowest (0.4 on average). The surveys and individual
sheets of each initiative are available on the PREVAIL project website.
5
The overall ranking and the specic scores assigned to each
criteria are available in Table A.3.
Table 2 shows information on the highly ranked initiatives, including their name, the Environmental Zones ([38], [39], the
K¨
oppen-Geiger climate classication according to Ref. [40]; description of the fuel management activities that contribute to wildre
risk reduction, social and environmental services provided, actors involved and performance metrics. Management of vegetative fuels
includes several fuel management techniques such as prescribed grazing with bovine, goat and sheep [41], pyrosilvicultural treatments
(e.g., variable retention harvest, selective thinning, prescribed burning), and mechanical clearings [42]. Fuel management strategies
4
https://www.prevailforestres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.2.pdf.
5
PREVAIL project Deliverable 4.2, https://www.prevailforestres.eu/project/dissemination/.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
4
are determined by re prevention plans outlined at different scales, ranging from municipalities to regions [8]. Strategic areas may be:
(i) fuel break networks planned to support reghting according to the expected behavior of recurrent large-res [43]; (ii) forest
blocks where the need to increase the resistance and resilience of ecosystem services to re disturbance is prioritized (e.g., direct
protection of infrastructures exposed to rock falls, recreational use) [8,44]; and (iii) wildland-urban interface areas to protect sensitive
residential, service or production areas [45].
Table 3 reports the results of the SWOT analysis, which summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the
application of the selected wildre risk prevention initiatives.
Table 1
Fire-smart criteria and sub-criteria adopted to select and analyze wildre prevention initiatives.
Criteria Sub-criteria Description
Sustainability Circularity Resource-efcient valorization of agro-forestry products (biomass, wood, livestock, etc.)
resulting from fuel management in integrated and multi-output production chains, sustaining
re hazard reduction while beneting the local economy, involving multiple sectors under a
re management strategy, and producing positive self-feeding cycles.
Short supply chain Local supply chains and valorization of primary and secondary products resulting from fuel
management programs by means of agro-food marketing, certication and payments for
ecosystem services delivered by the wildre risk reduction.
Biodiversity conservation and re
ecology restoration
Coherence with environmental conservation under the EU Biodiversity strategy (e.g., Natura
2000 sites), enhancing the maintenance of ecosystem services. The selection of fuel
management techniques and their spatio-temporal planning is based on the ecological
understanding of ecosystem dynamics in current and desirable re regimes.
Social sustainability Fuel management programs with a strong social engagement of local communities in wildre
risk management and valuing community choices in determining key goals. Management
activities derive from local needs and their outcomes produce benets for the community. Local
community information and training in risk management and participatory processes involving
population, authorities and economic sectors to share the responsibility for the ongoing re
prevention efforts.
Cost-Efciency in Risk Reduction Planning processes that optimize limited economic resources to achieve wildre risk reduction
at the landscape scale, by combining diversied fuel management strategies (e.g., pyro-
silviculture, prescribed burning, prescribed grazing) spatially distributed in strategic points to
support response. Initiatives showing cost-benet/efciency criteria both in terms of market
price and/or environmental and social services. Use of funding not directly related to re
management converges on it, optimizing cost-effectiveness. Similarly, agro-forestry activities
exerting a re regulatory capacity are spatially planned to support re risk mitigation goals
contributing to reduce costs of preparedness, response and recovery. Expansion of fuel
managed areas, by clustering public and private land through ownership association, allowing
convergence on common goals and shared intervention strategies between economic, social and
land management actors.
Synergies and
Cooperation
Source of funding Integration between different sectoral policies (e.g., forestry, agriculture, nature conservation,
energy, tourism) within a unied strategy for managing wildre risk. Using multiple funding
sources (both local, European and from the private sector) to sustain fuel management
programs allowing continuous and long-lasting management of re-prone landscapes.
Integrating multiple land
management goals
Multidisciplinary approach and presence of shared land management goals involving different
actors in the wildre risk management program, maximizing efforts and diversifying solutions
in risk management. The inclusion of multiple goals allows for a cross-sectoral and
multidisciplinary approach that generates coordination among different actors and integrates
different strategies into wide-ranging projects.
Participation and good
governance
High level of cooperation at the local level considering the community as a central node.
Exposed population and economic sectors are included in the risk planning process, and a
shared vision about each ones role on risk reduction is achieved, meanwhile risk awareness
and culture are promoted. Communication is maintained with local communities to track long-
term re prevention effects.
Knowledge exchange and transfer Best available knowledge is mobilized and capitalized in cooperation with research and
development institutions, and knowledge transfer to the actors involved in risk reduction
strategies is promoted, empowering them. Implementation of advanced fuel management
techniques, traditional practices and nature-based solutions (e.g., variable retention harvest,
prescribed burning, prescribed grazing, etc.) is promoted.
Adaptive
management
Impact assessment Use of indicators and monitoring programs to evaluate re prevention effectiveness in the
short/mid-term considering both the environmental (re regime change, ecosystem
maintenance) and the socio-economic component (local production, security), assessing these
impacts at the landscape scale.
Lesson learned approach Implementation of a lessons learned approach incorporating best results and failures of action
implementation, making them robust and sensitive to local conditions and regional contexts
that benet from other similar experiences.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
5
Table 2
Description of a selected subset of the most ranked re prevention initiatives.
ID (
Fig. 1)
Initiative
name
Environmental
zone
Climatic
classication
Contribution to
re hazard
reduction
Activated chain
and social/
environmental
services
Cooperation actors Performance metrics
1 Fireghting
training
centre of the
Toscana
Region
Mediterranean
mountains
[Italy]
Temperate,
dry summer,
hot summer
(Csa)
Fuel management
along fuel breaks
in strategic areas
through prescribed
burning,
mastication and
variable retention
harvest.
Training program
in reghting,
prescribed burning
techniques, off-
road driving and
tree felling.
Fuelbreak cleaning
for touristic
activities
(trekking).
Forest land
management
authorities, a
private enterprise,
Professional and
volunteers re
brigades.
Start: 2012
Area: 172 ha
Economic metric:
- 30% of fuel
management costs
are paid with
regional resources
allocated for
training reghters
(response sector)
and fuel treatments
are carried out
during training
activities
2 LIFE
Granatha
Mediterranean
mountains
[Italy]
Temperate,
no dry season,
hot summer
(Cfa)
Biomass and shrub
cover reduction in
scrubland through
mechanical
cutting, prescribed
burning and
grazing in fuel
breaks and blocks.
Production and
marketing of
organic brooms
made of Ericaceae
(the granatha).
Bird species and
habitats (4030)
conservation.
Training of re-
ghting operators
(AIB).
Fire-ghting
operators of
Toscana region
(AIB), local farmers
and producers.
Start: 2017
Area: 150 ha
Economic metric:
- Organic brooms
price is 1.4
/broom of which
17% is the added
value for landscape
maintenance when
compared to
market prices
- 10% of fuel
management costs
are paid with
regional resources
allocated for
training reghters
(response sector)
4 Ramats de
foc (Fire
ocks)
Mediterranean
mountains
[Spain]
Temperate,
no dry season,
warm
summer (Cfb)
Reduction of
herbaceous and
shrub biomass by
grazing (horses,
goats, sheep) in
strategic areas for
wildre
prevention.
Dairy products and
beef, goat and
sheep meat under
the ‘Ramats de
Foclabel (Fig. 5),
which unites local
farmers, butchers
and restaurateurs.
Municipalities,
private landowners,
local farmers, Fire
Service.
Start: 2016
Area: 600 ha
Economic metric:
- Increase in number
of butcheries and
restaurants selling
re ocks label
products: 6
butcheries and 1
restaurant in 2018
to 32 butcheries
and 18 restaurants
in 2022
- Shepherds receive
PES from the
administration:
140
/ha/year in
strategic zones, and
70
/ha/year in
complementary
areas
5 LIFE
Montserrat
Mediterranean
North [Spain]
Temperate,
dry summer,
hot summer
(Csa)
Fuel management
in strategic areas
through grazing
and prescribed
burning.
Ecosystem-based
Supply chain of
dairy, beef, goat
and sheep meat
products under the
‘Can Mim´
olabel.
Biodiversity and
Regional
Government, Forest
Owners association,
a Private
foundation, Natura
2000 sites, Natural
Start: 2014
Area: 32000 ha of
territory beneted,
including 3000 ha
treated for wildre
risk reduction
(continued on next page)
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
6
Table 2 (continued )
ID (
Fig. 1)
Initiative
name
Environmental
zone
Climatic
classication
Contribution to
re hazard
reduction
Activated chain
and social/
environmental
services
Cooperation actors Performance metrics
measures to
increase resilience
and stability of
forests against
res.
habitat
conservation and
improvement.
Creation of a
mosaic landscape
to decrease fuel
connectivity.
Park Board, Fire
Service,
Municipality.
Economic metric:
- Increase in
associated forest
owners for
aggregated land
management: 34
owners in 2014 to
75 owners and
managed in 2019
(>3000 ha added)
- Increase in
associated
shepherd
participating to the
program: from 3 in
2016 to 14 in 2019
(additional 860
animals acting over
1420 ha)
- Restored habitat:
Habitat 9540
(1290 ha) and
Priority Habitat
6220 (181ha)
10 Boscos del
Vall`
es (Valles
Forest)
Mediterranean
North [Spain]
Temperate,
no dry season,
hot summer
(Cfa)
Fuel control
through biomass
reduction,
sustainable forest
management,
wildre
prevention
infrastructures.
Biomass buying-
selling market for
small and big
biomass
consumers
(private, hospital,
university, etc.),
generation of
proximity energy.
Municipalities,
County council,
Forest Defence
Association (ADF),
forest owners,
forest research
centres.
Start: 2012
Area: 29700 ha of
territory beneted
Economic metric:
- Total potential
wood volume:
2386528 m3
- Logistic Centre:
4000 t of wood
720 t of wood chips;
9500 t annual wood
mobilization; 6650 t
wood chips production
- Hospital boiler:
2500 t of wood
chips/year
- University boiler:
352 t of wood
chips/year
- Biomass price:
73,1
/t
19 Grazing
program for
re hazard
abatement
(Landa
Carsica)
Mediterranean
mountains/
Alpine South
[Italy]
Temperate,
no dry season,
hot summer
(Cfa)
Fuel management
in strategic areas
through prescribed
burning and
grazing (sheep).
Restore pastures
productivity.
Land assignment to
local farmers,
value chain of
products from
grazing (meat),
sheep breeding for
didactic ends.
Private landowners,
Landa Carsica
business network of
local farmers.
Start: 2014
Area: 1720 ha
Economic metric:
- Shepherds do not
pay the rent of the
public areas on
which they graze
for their re
prevention service,
saving on average
60 euro/ha/year
21 New Business
Models for
the cork oak
sector
Mediterranean
South [Italy]
Temperate,
dry summer,
hot summer
(Csa)
Biomass and shrub
cover reduction
with mechanical
Production of
semi-processed
products for bio-
building, cork-
Private agencies,
universities, local
cork producers.
Start: 2016
Area: 800 ha
Economic metric:
(continued on next page)
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
7
Table 2 (continued )
ID (
Fig. 1)
Initiative
name
Environmental
zone
Climatic
classication
Contribution to
re hazard
reduction
Activated chain
and social/
environmental
services
Cooperation actors Performance metrics
cutting in Quercus
suber woods.
based panels and
granulates. Use of
the resulting
biomass for factory
heat. Cork forest
restoration
(habitat 9330).
- Cork oak price is 65
/quintal of which
10% is the added
value for landscape
maintenance when
compared to
market prices
27 Rebanhos da
Serra do
Açor-
Rabad˜
ao
Lusitanian
[Portugal]
Temperate,
dry summer,
warm
summer (Csb)
Maintenance of the
primary rebreaks
network and fuel
management
around the local
town through goat
grazing.
Dairy goat
products.
Eucalyptus and
conifers forest
plantations
preservation.
Community
interaction in a
pedagogical
perspective
through visits.
Local farmers,
forestry producers,
Municipality, local
community.
Start 2018
Area: 124 ha
Economic metric:
- Shepherds do not
pay the rent of the
public areas they
graze for their re
prevention service,
saving on average
150 euros/ha/year
- Subsidy to grazing
activities using
ocks of goats for
re prevention
(25
/ha/year)
32 PreFeu Alpine South
[Italy]
Cold, no dry
season, warm
summer (Dfb)
Variable retention
harvest to increase
forest stand
resistance in
priority areas for
ecosystem services
maintenance.
Local supply chain
of wood products
for small to
medium biomass
consumers,
construction
timber, and wood
design products (e.
g., Mompantable
Fig. 5).
Consortium for
management of
public forests in
Upper Susa valley,
municipalities,
private forest
owners, local
forestry enterprises,
architectural
designers.
Start 2018
Area: 500 ha
Economic metric:
- Variable retention
harvest in fuel-
breaks extracts on
average 100 m3/ha
- The Mompantable
price is 600
/table
and the re-
marketing
increased sales 10x
which led to the
production of 150
tables/year since
2018
- 10% of water use
costs paid by
citizens of
downstream cities
are allocated to
forest management
including
pyrosilviculture
35 OMIKRON
Project
Mediterranean
South [Greece]
Temperate,
dry summer,
hot summer
(Csa)
Forest fuel
management
(biomass removal,
pruning, forest
roads) in
fuelbreaks and
initial attack
reghting
interventions is
carried out by
volunteers.
Population
sensitization and
education,
learning-by-
example
procedure, re
prevention patrols.
OMIKRON
Association and
volunteersteam,
Municipality of
Chios, Fire Service,
Forest Service,
Chios region.
Start: 2003
Area: 66 ha
Economic metric:
- Forest Service and
the Municipality of
Chios do not pay
wages to the
volunteers for the
fuel treatments.
Based on an
estimate of 52 man-
days/ha and a daily
cost of 90
/day for
workers, a total
(continued on next page)
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
8
Table 2 (continued )
ID (
Fig. 1)
Initiative
name
Environmental
zone
Climatic
classication
Contribution to
re hazard
reduction
Activated chain
and social/
environmental
services
Cooperation actors Performance metrics
contribution of
308,880
is
estimated
36 RAPCA
Program
Mediterranean
South [Spain]
Temperate,
dry summer,
hot summer
(Csa)
Fuel control and
biomass removal
in fuel breaks
through grazing
(sheep, goat).
Maintenance of
fuel breaks,
payment for
environmental
services (re
prevention) to
local shepherds.
RAPCA staff, local
shepherds,
extensive farms,
forest managers,
local
municipalities,
environmental NGO
representatives,
researchers.
Start: 2003
Area: 6000 ha
Economic metric:
- Shepherds receive
PES from the
administration:
initial bonus of 300
for participating
in the scheme and a
variable share from
42
/ha to 90
/ha
considering the
grazing difculty
37 RaízesIN Lusitanian
[Portugal]
Temperate,
dry summer,
warm
summer (Csb)
Resin extraction in
pine forest stands
(common land
areas), fuel
management and
re detection.
Territorial
enhancement
through fuel
management
(indirect
prevention) and
constant
surveillance
(active prevention)
in the peak of the
re season.
Municipalities,
Commoners,
Universities.
Start: 2012
Area: 300 ha (4
common land
areas: Tresminas,
Revel, Vales, and
Covas)
Economic metric:
- Subsidy to resin
collectors for re
surveillance service
(
55/year per
worker)
38 REN Lusitanian
[Portugal]
Temperate,
dry summer,
hot summer
(Csa) or warm
summer
(Csb)
Vegetation
management and
forest defense
against res in
electricity and gas
easements.
Maintenance of
fuel breaks,
increase
biodiversity,
network of green
infrastructures
through
reforestation with
native species.
Landowners,
commoners.
Start: 2010
Area: 35000 ha
(21000 ha forest
areas, 32700 ha
rural areas).
Economic metric:
- sReduction of 20%
of costs for fuel
management along
power lines due to
vegetation
conversion to
native species,
because of both
lower maintenance
costs (e.g. less
ammable
vegetation, regular
spacing) and
additional
interventions
carried out by land
owners which take
prot from native
species.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
9
4. Discussion
4.1. Towards a re-smart solution model
The selected initiatives are a pool of applications of re-smart criteria (Table 1) in southern Europe. Although this pool is non-
exhaustive, it is useful to extract key elements for sustainable fuel management and provide functional approaches and concrete
solutions to devise a general model. Fig. 6 summarizes the main emerging components characterizing a re-smart solution for wildre
risk prevention. The need for mobilizing multiple resources to achieve the critical mass of fuel treatments at the landscape scale was a
key driver in documented initiatives. Indeed, limited nancial resources are a prominent barrier to wildre prevention in southern
Europe, especially when fuel management is decoupled from the market, and agro-forestry land uses with a re regulatory capacity (i.
e. [6], are not integrated into wildre risk management planning. In the documented initiatives, the achievement of sustainable fuel
Fig. 1. Selected fuel management initiatives in southern European countries fullling one or more key re-smart criteria (Table 1). Stars associated with initiative ID
indicate those programs described in detail in Table 2.
Fig. 2. Promoters (public/private agencies) of the 38 fuel management initiatives.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
10
management followed three types of mechanisms (Fig. 6): (i) economics of market and non-market valuation; (ii) economics of
multi-objective management increasing cost-efciency, and (iii) benets of leveraging existing knowledge, and utilizing adaptive
management approaches.
The rst type of mechanism includes the production of goods with a market value by valuing the biomass extracted with fuel
treatments, and related by-products, and the recognition of positive externalities generated by fuel management at the landscape scale
Fig. 3. Source of funding (a) and DRM cycle phase covered (b) for all 38 fuel management initiatives.
Fig. 4. Average score assigned to the six criteria shown in Table 1, used to rank the 38 fuel management initiatives.
Fig. 5. Fire-marketing products: dairy products from the Ramats de foc project, Catalunya, Spain (a); ‘Vi Fumatwine which served as a fuel break in a 2012 la
Junquera wildre, Catalunya, Spain (b); Mompantableproduced with pine forests affected by high re severity in Val Susa, Italy (c).
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
11
Table 3
SWOT matrix for nature-based smart solutions implementation to achieve FSTs.
Strengths Weaknesses
Convergence towards multiple land management goals
maximizing cost-benets
Increasing recognition of fuel management as a civil
protection tool, protecting strategic buildings and Wildland
Urban Interface areas
Policy demand for integration of the DMR cycle phases
(prevention, preparedness, response) increasing re
management effectiveness (e.g., Sendai framework)
Potential alignment among wildre risk reduction through
direct and indirect prevention and the maintenance and
promotion of existing mosaic landscape and sustainable forest
management
Several fuel reduction options through multiple well-known
techniques (prescribed burning, prescribed grazing, silvicul-
tural treatments)
Diversity of initiatives with a high level of adaptation to the
complexity, cross-sectoral, spatial and temporal extension of
wildre risk management
Existing non-wood and wood production in public and private
forests and forest products value chains in many territories
(bioeconomy and green energy)
Compatible combination of wildre risk management actions
with nature conservation
Recognition in ofcial EC documents the need to have
resilient landscapes to face wildre risk reduction
Segmentation of competencies in wildre management
hampers coordination and the building of a common strategy
Limited budget and lack of human resources to implement the
actions needed
Excess of bureaucracy (legal processes related to some
instruments, plans or actions to be developed)
Non-economic viability of some local activities (e.g., low
market value of products)
Lack of investment capacity in rural areas and poor value
change of forest products
Lack of operational tools and guides adapted to local
conditions
Lack of legal mechanisms to involve beneciaries of
ecosystem services - wildre prevention (private sector, such
as tourism) to its provision (e.g., poor PES development
regarding risk mitigation)
Operational and administrative difculties (legal, data access,
permissions, etc.) in managing fuels according to strategic
planning within private forest ownership
Lack of resources and skills to undertake participatory
processes within wildre risk top-down planning
Opportunities Threats
Cooperation between international partners and local actors,
and within communities under a common goal approach
(protection of lives, protected areas, landscapes and
economies)
Increase of capabilities, training and knowledge of Fire
Service professionals
Contribution of several EU projects provides innovation and
transferability among regions under common challenges
Increased risk awareness (communication actions to society,
environmental education, etc.)
Contribution to decrease land abandonment
Promotion of local economies and development of marginal
territories through either ecotourism, recreational activities,
or new business models
Foster the use of forest, agricultural and grazing products
(promotion of bioeconomy and circularity within EU policies)
Certication of local short supply chain
Increasing awareness and policy support for the necessity of
development and maintenance of wildre prevention
infrastructure (increasing hazardous conditions due to climate
change)
Experimental areas for reforestation after re
Preparation and implementation of annual Forest Fire
Protection Plans
Societal valorization of the green and urban infrastructure
Increasing social understanding of the root causes of wildres
in the Mediterranean
Social valorization of short-value chains and proximity
products
Social worry and attention towards wildre risk
Requirement for climate change adaptation actions according
to sectoral policies (EC adaptation strategy)
Development of Urban Agendas and implementation of risk
reduction to foster resilience to climate change
Aging and lack of generational turnover in rural areas
Limited capacity of engagement involvement of private forest
owners to contribute with their land to extend fuel
management actions and reach an economy of scale
The need to move forward on prevention policies should not
reduce the efforts also needed to maintain a strong
suppression service
Lack of implementation and traceability of wildre
prevention plans and forest management plans
Excess of limitations to conduct fuel management according
to urban planning regulations
Legal impediments to implement prescribed burns
High competition for the limited resources within RDP where
prevention (not linked to the market) is not the priority
Lack of policy support for long-term actions (needed to make
a change at the landscape level)
Potential conicts (real or perceived) between biodiversity
conservation and fuel management
Competences for risk mitigation resources in front of other
natural hazards (e.g., oods) which are also being increased
under a climate change context
Domination of response lobby within the integrated wildre
risk management agenda
Financial and technical capacity of public authorities too
weak to cope with the multi-sectoral challenges of climate
change
Inertia within the public bodies facilitates competences
segmentation and adds difculties to the operational
coordination, which in the end is transferred to the local
actors limiting the motivation of individuals
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
12
(non-market valuation). Several initiatives created a short supply chain under a circular bio-economy perspective, valuing re-
marketing products like wood, agricultural and pasture products under labels highlighting or certifying wildre prevention
(Table 2). For example, the Life Granatha project in the Pratomagno area, central Italy, produces biological brooms with heather
harvested along fuelbreaks and blocks managed for re hazard reduction and habitat conservation [44]. Based on market analysis, the
initiative sells brooms at 1.4
(vs. a market price of 1.2
), i.e., the consumers are willing to pay 17% more than the market price for the
re prevention and habitat conservation services of the broom production chain. Some initiatives based on prescribed grazing as a fuel
management technique activated dairy supply chains or cow-calf lines with interesting examples of products commercialization. The
Fire Flocks initiative in Catalonia registered the Ramats de Foclabel, which is distributed in points of sale and restaurants throughout
the northeast of the region [33,46]. In this initiative, the herds positive effect on re risk management is communicated to the
consumer through a label that certies the fuel management activity (Fig. 5a). Notably, from 2018 to 2022, business establishments
selling the Fire Flocks products have increased seven times (Table 2), creating an economy of scale behind the re prevention activity.
Similarly, the Catalan Priority Protection Plans for Forest Areas initiative promotes wine production in vineyards planted within
rebreaks (Fig. 5b), enhancing all the positive externalities resulting from re prevention in a circular and sustainable economy. The
‘Vi fumat label gives visibility to the contribution of vineyards as fuelbreaks together with the marketing and valorization of the
specic avors due to the effect of smoke on that vintage. In the European Alps, the Mompantero re, the largest stand-replacing re
in Italy during the extreme re season of 2017 [47], has set in motion an initiative to reduce post-re hazardous dead-wood accu-
mulation. The wood mobilized from salvage logging in the wildre affected site is transformed in different products such as the
Mompan-table (Fig. 5c), while product branding is used to draw customers attention to the problem of extreme wildres. This
communication campaign has increased product sales tenfold between 2018 and 2022, when compared to previous years, at a cost of
600 euros/table with a production of 120 tables/year, which sustains the fuel reduction program. Similarly, product sales resulting
from re prevention activities brought additional income to the local producers from the sale of biomass in the Bosco de vall`
es
initiative, or from the sale of secondary products such as resin in the RaízesIN initiative (Table 2).
These are some re-smart solutions in which re prevention nds nancial justication through the creation of added value for
dairy and other products under a green marketing logic. Local, national or international certication of rural activities that prevent
wildres is a possible way to increase the economic viability of local production chains in marginal territories. In this regard, the
creation of re prevention-related marketing is fundamental since it produces positive externalities at a socio-economic level and
creates benets. These initiatives can involve society (consumers) in the solution, who will buy wildre preventionthrough the
shopping basket. By this mechanism, the wildre issue and possible mitigation actions become clearer to the consumer/citizen, as well
as the need to support forest owners, shepherds and farmers for well-being and the provision of ecosystem services that the society
needs. In other words, wildre prevention marketing and labeling can facilitate public education and support of long-term, cross-
sectional policies for wildre risk management.
Fig. 6. Key emerging components that characterize a re-smart solution for wildre risk prevention.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
13
In marginal areas where sustainable supply chains fail because of a lack of commercial opportunities, new mechanisms are needed
to manage fue at the landscape scale. Fire-smart solutions for wildre prevention involve the recognition that in marginal lands, the
response-centered strategy may have limits under current land use and climate change in protecting ecosystem services and the
population from negative wildre effects [2], and that decreasing landscape ammability is a necessary complementary strategy [6,8,
48]. When this is clearly communicated and understood, private and public actors may be more willing to support the cost of securing
the territory from wildres. As an innovative source of income, some documented re-smart solutions proposed wildre prevention as
an ecosystem service that allowed the activation of mechanisms such as the payment for ecosystem services’’ (PES). An example of
PES is implemented in the FireFlocks project, in which shepherds are compensated by the public administration for each hectare
grazed within the initiative, valorizing fuel reduction as an ecosystem service: 140
/ha/year in strategic areas and 70
/ha/year in
complementary areas (Table 2). Similarly, the RAPCA initiative remunerates 200 shepherds for their grazing activity in areas planned
for re risk mitigation, valorizing re prevention as an ecosystem service with payments of a xed initial bonus of 300
for partici-
pating in the PES scheme and a variable share ranging from 42
/ha to 90
/ha depending on grazing difculty [49]. In north-west Italy,
where the PreFeu project takes place (Table 2), 10% of the costs for potable water that citizens of downstream cities pay are used by the
forestry consortium of the Municipalities located upstream to support sustainable forest management and wildre prevention to
protect water catchments [50].
Besides market and non-market valuation, other documented mechanisms include the convergence of multiple interests into
prevention activities, which sets the basis for a unied risk management strategy integrating different sectoral policies (e.g., forestry,
agriculture, nature conservation, energy, tourism) and their related funding schemes (Fig. 6). Documented solutions integrated re
management with other land governance goals, by linking strategic fuel management to the achievement of a resilient landscapein
terms of biodiversity conservation, water and energy provision, landscape aesthetic, and providing civil protection to critical in-
frastructures and economic activities (e.g., tourist sector increasingly vulnerable under worsening wildre risk). For example, several
initiatives have seen the convergence of strategic re prevention planning with the conservation of priority habitats of EU interest.
Notably, interventions to reduce vegetation ammability use nature-based techniques with specic ecological effects such as grazing
(e.g., height and type of cut, trampling, fertilization), closer-to-nature pyrosilviculture (e.g., canopy gaps dynamics, species substi-
tution), or prescribed burning (e.g., stimulation of owering and seed germination, the input of charcoal into the soil, mosaic of burnt
and unburnt islands), which diversify vegetation structure and have positive effects on some habitats (e.g., 4030, 6110, 62A0, 6220*,
6410, 9330, 9540 of the EU Habitat Directive) [8,48,51]. When re prevention and nature conservation targets coincide [9], this
justies the use of resources for biodiversity maintenance (e.g., Natura 2000 sites, National Parks) for re prevention as well. In the
LIFE Montserrat [52] and LIFE Granatha [53] projects, fuel management is complemented by high environmental awareness, fostering
habitat and biodiversity conservation and connectivity between landscape patches, including links to Natura 2000 sites (Table 2). This
also occurs with REN activities in Portugal, by involving landowners in the creation of a national network of green infrastructures using
native species.
In some initiatives, the cooperative and synergistic approach to foster the convergence of wildre management goals, while
optimizing cost-efciency, has been implemented between sectors of the DRM cycle (Fig. 3). Examples are the initiative carried out by
the Fire Management Training Centre of the Tuscany region, in Italy, where prescribed burning activities are integrated into the
training program of re-ghting operators [54]. There, preventive interventions to protect both the Centre and the surrounding forest
area are carried out as part of the regional training programs in re management techniques (e.g., prescribed burning, counterre, use
of equipment, and vehicle driving). The resin extraction carried by RaízesIN promotes not only fuel management of the pine stands, but
also early re detection by the workers who preside over the territory for the extraction of the resin. Such solutions align the needs of
the preparedness and the re prevention sectors, creating synergies that increase the cost-efciency of wildre risk management.
Documented re-smart solutions made optimum use of the best existing knowledge in re prevention, resulting in innovative
projects with a clear social and territorial scope. The Boscos del Vall`
es project [55], or the PreFeu initiative (Table 2), stand out as a
major innovation, working in re prevention through the valorization of biomass and exploitation of its products to power several local
public facilities (e.g., the hospital and sports facilities of the Autonomous University of Barcelona). In addition, these initiatives
contribute to local forest landscape management and engage students in environmental education through risk awareness and
communication actions in schools. Some smart solutions adopted an adaptive management approach, monitoring prevention efforts
and learning from experiences. Among the criteria (Table 2), adaptive management is the least represented (Fig. 4), probably because
of the recent implementation of most initiatives. However, a long-term example is the GEPRIF Project [56], which evaluates the ef-
ciency of post-re forest hydrological restoration, the application of new biodegradable materials to reduce the risk of post-re
erosion, and the cost-effectiveness of prevention, extinction and rehabilitation activities. Likewise, the OMIKRON volunteers group
works according to the lessons-learned approach, and tries to constantly increase the number of members to build up a wide range of
experiences from which to learn, including the rst prescribed burning program in Greece, in cooperation with the World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF) and the Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems of the Hellenic Agricultural Organization [57].
4.2. Prospects for smart solutions replication under the EU green deal
The documented re-smart solutions build synergies between local bottom-up needs and top-down objectives of the European
Green Deal (e.g., adapting to climate change, preserving and restoring biodiversity, farm to fork, circular economy, and supply of clean
energy), and therefore represent concrete functional approaches that are able to integrate policies with wildre risk mitigation with
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
14
consistency. The Open2preserve [58], the PreFEu [50] and the Landscape re
6
fuel management initiatives (and other selected LIFE
projects) perfectly embody this vision, being promoted and nanced by multiple European programs, regional administrations, local
associations, and private foundations, and laying the framework for long-term land management that integrates coherently principles
and goals of multiple policies. This is not a trivial issue since the overall functions of policy integration are to dissolve contradictions,
reduce redundancies, and exploit synergies between policies [59]. For example, the broad-scale reforestation by planting 3 billion
trees, which is promoted by the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the EU Forestry Strategy, requires considering the potential
trade-offs between climate-smart interventions and the rising wildre risk under climate change. Similarly, policies under the
Biodiversity Strategy and agriculture must recognize the key role of open habitats of conservation importance, such as low-intensity
farming systems of high ecological value, and their potential role in increasing biodiversity, mitigating re hazard at the landscape
scale and reducing re suppression costs [27]. Furthermore, interventions targeted at the supply of clean energy such as the instal-
lation of new wind turbines in ammable wooded landscapes under the Just Transition mechanism of the EU Green Deal, should not
overlook the need to protect facilities and to prevent the risk of re ignitions.
The re-smart solutions showcase various routes to address these trade-offs by outlining methods to leverage mutually benecial
projects across climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and re-smart land management priorities. These initiatives
conrm the importance of investing in cross-sectoral policies applied at the local level and, at the same time, to make European funding
strategies more accessible to local entities. Integrating multiple sources of funding at all levels, starting with local and national ini-
tiatives (regional, RDPs, etc.), and extending up to international programs (EU measures and strategies), will increase stability and
continuity of wildre management actions, triggering and supporting private investments. Although Green Deal policies are providing
the enabling framework, i.e., the nurturing environment(mainstreaming of strategies and funding opportunities), it is up to local and
regional level Authorities to take up these recommendations and translate them into governance participatory models, in the
perspective of integrated wildre risk management. Lessons learned from the documented initiatives suggest that the success of a re-
smart solution is often supported by local clusters of institutions and people (public administrations, trade associations and unions,
communities, public at large) rowing in the same direction. Accordingly, a common characteristic emerging from the studied ini-
tiatives is the multi-agency involvement, which underlies the importance of close collaboration and cooperation across the different
sectors involved in DRM (Fig. 3). The type of agencies involved and their cooperation schemes might be very diverse since re
management in southern European countries is highly heterogeneous among regions reecting legacies to the local administrative
structure and policies [35]. The need to adopt transversal and transdisciplinary approaches is not only a theoretical paradigm: it is an
increasing and concrete necessity for sustainable wildre risk management in southern Europe [5].
Reliance on EU funds has sometimes been perceived as difcult, as reported in the SWOT analysis (Table 3). This barrier, in
connection with the segmentation of competencies in wildre management, can be detrimental to structure shared governance. In this
perspective, the concept of multi-actor clusters can be an example, not only to public authorities responsible for wildre management,
but also to other agencies that benet from the creation of FSTs (e.g., public agencies responsible for urban development, civil-
protection, and tourism). These public authorities have a role to play in leveraging the impact of public policies on wildre risk
management, starting from a shared vision of using public funding for wildre prevention. In order to bring substantial improvements
to the current lack of investment capacity in re-prone territories, it is essential to make efcient and coherent use of multiple funding
sources (avoiding redundancies, gaps and conicting goals). It is likewise necessary to ensure that international, European, and na-
tional funding is complementary to the regional funding and that investments are allocated to strategically pre-planned actions ac-
cording to the local/regional re risk mitigation needs.
Some key-components of the re-smart solution model can also be taken up by management authorities when designing the
structure of the call for proposals for accessing EU funding. Several funds under shared management between the European Com-
mission and the Member States (e.g., EU Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, EU Regional Development Fund, EU Territorial
Cooperation) can be deployed by management authorities to prepare their own programs and calls targeting re prevention in re-
prone rural or wildland-urban interface territories. These calls can require projects to apply a cross-sectoral and multi-actor
approach, which are the necessary engines to engage local economies around wildre prevention. In this regard, the EU Green
Deal offers the required political backing and nancial budget to stimulate the development of multi-actor projects targeting the build-
up of FSTs. Specic route for the replication and up-scaling of the re-smart solution model within the framework of the EU Green Deal
is coupling the Farm to Fork strategy to value chains that prevent wildre in high re risk zones (as identied by strategic re pre-
vention plans) or around infrastructures to be protected (e.g., new wind turbines). Likewise, strategic fuel management represents a
nature-based solution for climate change adaptation. Similarly, the establishment of periurban green infrastructures, offering wildre
protection instead of hazard, can be pursued under the New Urban Agenda [60]. Another simple example of fostering coherent policies
for wildre risk mitigation under the EU Green Deal is the development of criteria for afforestation/reforestation initiatives. These
should incorporate the concept of FSTs, select native and less re-prone tree species, restore open woodland vegetation, give priority to
agro-forestry over dense tree plantations, and use understory biomass as a source of bio-energy to reduce fuel accumulation (Moreira
and Peer, 2018; [2,27]. Similarly, targets under the EU Biodiversity Strategy (i.e., 10% of EU land surface under strict nature con-
servation) should account for trade-offs related to wildre risk mitigation [48].
Finally, re-designing the allocation of rural development funds can leverage the impact of this policy on wildre risk mitigation.
Indeed, under past and current RDPs, only specic wildre prevention measures (i.e., measure 2.2.6 in 20072013 RDP, and sub-
measure 8.3 in 20142020 RDP) included eligibility criteria related to wildre risk, as dened by wildre risk management plans.
6
https://life.cimvdl.pt/.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
15
A better way forward is to design calls that join multiple measures to implement integrated land development projects in high wildre
risk areas. This expands the vision from sustaining agriculture and forest management to strengthening the re regulatory role of agro-
forestry in reducing re hazard at the landscape scale (Moreira and Peer, 2018). Such projects can integrate active prevention in-
terventions with other RDP measures supporting indirect prevention, while pushing the economic growth of marginal territories,
through ecotourism, recreational activities or new business models (Colonico et al. in 2022). This would encourage multiple actors to
join forces and apply for calls with long-term projects with clear objectives, including wildre risk mitigation.
5. Conclusions
Extreme wildres are a complex phenomenon that emerges from the interaction between a territorys multiple physical, biological
and socio-economic factors [8,22,61,62]. To mitigate wildre impacts on ecosystem services, it is necessary to implement integrated
solutions that act on key driving factors, in a concrete and sustainable way from an economic, social and environmental point of view
[2,10].
In this study, we document and analyze several initiatives that share a common backbone of key principles, aiming to build re-
smart territories [1]. It must be noted that there is no one-size-ts-all solution and land managers must consider various kinds of
interventions when implementing direct prevention through fuel management [42]. However, our analysis shows how current
re-smart solutions currently implemented through several initiatives in southern Europe follow a similar scheme, involving:
(i) political and economic recognition of wildre prevention as an ecosystem service delivering positive externalities for a circular
and sustainable economy;
(ii) integration between different sectoral policies (e.g., forestry, agriculture, nature conservation, energy, tourism) within a unied
strategy for managing wildre risk, a territorys private investments, product certication agencies, and EU funding programs
(LIFE Program, Rural Development Program);
(iii) a planning process optimize fuel reduction treatments to best allocate limited economic resources, aiming to achieve landscape-
scale wildre risk reduction and leverage economically efcient treatment methods (e.g., silviculture, grazing, agriculture);
(iv) capacity to expand areas treated by fuel management activities, by clustering both public and private land through ownership
associations methods, allowing convergence on common goals and shared intervention strategies between economic, social and
land management actors;
(v) use of diversied types of treatments to reduce hazardous fuels (variable retention pyrosilviculture, commercial and selective
thinning, prescribed burning, rotational grazing) designed on the ecological understanding of the role of re in the ecosystem
and integrating those cultural fuel management practices as nature-based solutions;
(vi) valorization of products generated by fuel management with agro-food marketing and certication (e.g., Ramats de Focand
Vinyes de Contrafocin Catalonia), to reward farmers for the environmental service delivered in mitigating wildre risk;
(vii) strong social engagement of local communities in wildre risk management, through participatory processes involving civil-
ians, authorities and economic sectors to share the responsibility for the ongoing re prevention efforts.
It must be emphasized that the novel wildre risk scenario, featured by extreme re events increasingly expanding into the
wildland-urban interface [2], represents not only an urgent challenge, but also a stimulus to turn wildre risk management into an
opportunity for sustainable and inclusive growth of marginal territories. The re-smart solution model discussed here offers concrete
civil and environmental protection tools. However, the recognition of fuel management as a civil protection strategy requires the
public to recognize that a society exposed to ammable hazardous landscapes is not only more dangerous, but less cost-efcient than
building FSTs planned to protect people, ecosystem services, values and economies from the impact of extreme wildre events.
The uptake and replication of re-smart solutions at the European scale requires a network of the various initiatives and institutions
involved in wildre risk management, in order to create a mutually benecial exchange platform of best practices.
7
In conclusion, if the EU Green Deal provides the strategic vision to mainstream and align local land management initiatives within
sustainable and inclusive growth, the re-smart solutions for wildre risk prevention represent a concrete example of EU Green Deal
implementation on the ground of Disaster Risk Management. It must be emphasized that a successful and shared governance process
for wildre prevention must not only take into account local specicities, but also strengthen the cultural perception of the role of
traditional activities contributing to fuel management, to make visible their cost-efciencyin terms of reducing the cost of direct
prevention and wildres potential impact [63]. In this perspective, we contend that if the future public funding programs are designed
to include, at least some, of the criteria of the re-smart solution model here discussed, private and public actors will be more attracted
to join forces and co-design solutions that are adapted to real needs of marginal territories.
Funding information
The study was supported by the project PREVAIL PREVention Action Increases Large re response preparedness (826400
PREVAIL UCPM-2018-PP-AG), funded by the European Union Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (DG-ECHO) and by Fire
prevention for the wood supply chains (Pre-Feu) Rural Development Program 20142020 - Measure 16.2.1 - Action 1 of the Piemonte
Region. The study was in part supported by the Italian National Centre for the development of new technologies in agriculture
7
Fire-smart solutions analyzed by the PREVAIL Project are hosted in the Lessons on re (https://lessonsonre.relogue.eu/) and GoProFor (https://www.
lifegoprofor-gp.eu/) platforms.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
16
(Agritech) project.
Author statement
Davide Ascoli: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization,
Supervision, Project Administration, Funding acquisition. Silvio Oggioni: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing - Original Draft,
Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization. Anna Barbati: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft,
Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding acquisition. Antonio Tomao: Investigation, Writing - Review
& Editing, Visualization. Mario Colonico: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization. Piermaria Corona: Conceptuali-
zation, Writing - Review & Editing, Funding acquisition. Francesco Giannino: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Project
Administration, Funding acquisition. Mauro Moreno: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing. Gavriil Xanthopoulos: Investigation,
Writing - Review & Editing, Project Administration, Funding acquisition. Konstantinos Kaoukis: Investigation. Miltiadis Athanasiou:
Investigation. Conceiç˜
ao Colaço: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Project Administration, Funding acquisition.
Francisco Rego: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Project Administration, Funding acquisition. Ana Catarina Sequeira:
Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization. Vanda Ac´
acio: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization. Marta
Serra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization. Eduard Plana:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project Adminis-
tration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
inuence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
We have shared some of the data and results in supplementary materials, and the link to the original interviews has been added in
footnotes in the text
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103715.
References
[1] F. Tedim, V. Leone, G. Xanthopoulos, A wildre risk management concept based on a social-ecological approach in the European Union: re Smart Territory, Int.
J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 18 (2016) 138153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.06.005.
[2] F. Moreira, D. Ascoli, H. Safford, M.A. Adams, J.M. Moreno, J.M.C. Pereira, F.X. Catry, J. Armesto, W. Bond, M.E. Gonz´
alez, T. Curt, N. Koutsias, L. McCaw,
O. Price, J.G. Pausas, E. Rigolot, S. Stephens, C. Tavsanoglu, V.R. Vallejo, B.W. Van Wilgen, G. Xanthopoulos, P.M. Fernandes, Wildre management in
Mediterranean-type regions: paradigm change needed, Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 16, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab541e.
[3] F. Rego, E. Rigolot, P. Fernandes, C. Montiel, J.S. Silva, Towards Integrated Fire Management, European Forest Institute, 2010 (EFI) 16, https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-
02823739.
[4] V. Bacciu, C. Sirca, D. Spano, Towards a systemic approach to re risk management, Environ. Sci. Pol. 129 (2022) 3744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2021.12.015.
[5] F.C. Rego, J.M. Moreno, V.R. Vallejo, G. Xanthopoulos, Forest Fires. Sparking resmart policies, in: the EU.N. Faivre (Ed.), European Commission, Directorate-
General for Research and Innovation Climate Action and Resource Efciency, vol. 53, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2777/181450.
[6] ˆ
A. Sil, P.M. Fernandes, A.P. Rodrigues, J.M. Alonso, J.P. Honrado, A. Perera, J.C. Azevedo, Farmland abandonment decreases the re regulation capacity and
the re protection ecosystem service in mountain landscapes, Ecosyst. Serv. 36 (2019) 113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100908.
[7] F. Moreira, G. Peer, Agricultural policy can reduce wildres, Science 359 (6379) (2018) 1001, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat1359, 1001.
[8] P.M. Fernandes, Fire-smart management of forest landscapes in the Mediterranean basin under global change, Landsc. Urban Plann. 110 (2013) 175182,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.014.
[9] A. Regos, V. Hermoso, M. DAmen, A. Guisan, L. Brotons, Trade-offs and synergies between bird conservation and wildre suppression in the face of global
change, J. Appl. Ecol. 55 (5) (2018) 21812192, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13182.
[10] E. Varela, F. Pulido, G. Moreno, M.´
A. Zavala, Targeted policy proposals for managing spontaneous forest expansion in the Mediterranean, J. Appl. Ecol. 57 (12)
(2020) 23732380.
[11] European Commission, Una bioeconomia sostenibile per lEuropa: rafforzare il collegamento tra economia, societ`
a e ambiente, vol. 17, European Commission,
2018.
[12] E.Z. Baskent, J.G. Borges, H. Vacik, K.M. Reynolds, L.C.E. Rodriguez, Management of multiple ecosystem services under climate change, bioeconomy and
participation, Forests 12 (2021) 17. https://doi:10.3390/f12010104.
[13] R. Jonsson, F. Rinaldi, R. Pilli, G. Fiorese, E. Hurmekoski, N. Cazzaniga, N. Robert, A. Camia, Boosting the EU forest-based bioeconomy: market, climate, and
employment impacts, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 163 (2021) 115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120478.
[14] A. Regos, N. Aquilu´
e, I. L´
opez, M. Codina, J. Retana, L. Brotons, Synergies between forest biomass extraction for bioenergy and re suppression in
mediterranean ecosystems: insights from a storyline-and-simulation approach, Ecosystems 19 (2016) 786802, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-9968-z.
[15] P.J. Verkerk, I. Martinez de Arano, M. Palahí, The bio-economy as an opportunity to tackle wildres in Mediterranean forest ecosystems, For. Pol. Econ. 86
(2018) 13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.016.
[16] The European Green Deal, vol. 53, European Commission, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004, 24.
[17] EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 - Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives 16891699, European Commission, 2020.
[18] Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europes Natural Capital, vol. 11, European Commission, 2013.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
17
[19] Farm to Fork Strategy - for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System, European Commission, 2020.
[20] EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, European Commission, 2021. COM/2021/82 Final.
[21] New EU Forest Strategy for 2030, European Commission, 2021. COM/2021/572 Final.
[22] S. Wunder, D.E. Calkin, V. Charlton, S. Feder, I.M. de Arano, P. Moore, F. Rodríguez y Silva, L. Tacconi, C. Vega-García, Resilient landscapes to prevent
catastrophic forest res: socioeconomic insights towards a new paradigm, For. Pol. Econ. 128 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102458.
[23] N. Aquilu´
e, M.J. Fortin, C. Messier, L. Brotons, The potential of agricultural conversion to shape forest re regimes in Mediterranean landscapes, Ecosystems 23
(1) (2020) 3451, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00385-7.
[24] M.C. Iglesias, V. Hermoso, J.C. Campos, C. Carvalho-Santos, P.M. Fernandes, T.R. Freitas, J.P. Honrado, J.A. Santos, A. Sil, A. Regos, J.C. Azevedo, Climate-and
re-smart landscape scenarios call for redesigning protection regimes to achieve multiple management goals, J. Environ. Manag. 322 (2022), 116045, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116045.
[25] P.M. Fernandes, G.M. Delogu, V. Leone, D. Ascoli, Wildre policies contribution to foster extreme wildres, in: Extreme Wildre Events and Disasters, Elsevier,
2020, pp. 187200, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815721-3.00010-2.
[26] M. Kovac, D. Hladnik, L. Kutnar, Biodiversity in (the Natura 2000) forest habitats is not static: its conservation calls for an active management approach, J. Nat.
Conserv. 43 (2018) 250260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.07.004.
[27] V. Hermoso, A. Regos, A. Mor´
an-Ord´
o˜
nez, A. Duane, L. Brotons, Tree planting: a double-edged sword to ght climate change in an era of megares, Global
Change Biol. 27 (13) (2021) 30013003, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15625.
[28] M.J. Canadas, A. Novais, M. Marques, Wildres, forest management and landowners collective action: a comparative approach at the local level, Land Use Pol.
56 (2016) 179188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.035.
[29] J.C. Azevedo, C. Moreira, J.P. Castro, C. Loureiro, Agriculture abandonment, land-use change and re hazard in mountain landscapes in northeastern Portugal,
in: Landscape Ecology in Forest Management and Conservation, 2011. https://doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12754-0.
[30] H.M. Pereira, L.M. Navarro, Rewilding European Landscapes, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12039-3_7.
[31] S. Pais, N. Aquilu´
e, J. Campos, ˆ
A. Sil, B. Marcos, F. Martínez-Freiría, J. Domínguez, L. Brotons, J.P. Honrado, A. Regos, Mountain farmland protection and re-
smart management jointly reduce re hazard and enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration, Ecosyst. Serv. 44 (2020), 101143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2020.101143.
[32] M. Colonico, A. Tomao, D. Ascoli, P. Corona, F. Giannino, J. Moris, R. Romano, L. Salvati, A. Barbati, Rural development funding and wildre prevention:
evidences of spatial mismatches with re activity, Land Use Pol. 117 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106079.
[33] S. Nuss-Girona, E. Soy, G. Canaleta, O. Alay, R. Dom`
enech, N. Prat-Guitart, Fire Flocks: participating farmersperceptions after ve years of development, Land
11 (10) (2022) 1718, https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101718.
[34] M.J. Canadas, M. Leal, F. Soares, A. Novais, P.F. Ribeiro, L. Schmidt, A. Delicado, F. Moreira, R. Bergonse, S. Oliveira, P.M. Madeira, J.L. Santos, Wildre
mitigation and adaptation: two locally independent actions supported by different policy domains, Land Use Pol. 124 (2023), 106444, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landusepol.2022.106444.
[35] J. San-Miguel-Ayanz, T. Durrant, R. Boca, P. Maianti, G. Libert`
a, T. Art´
es-Vivancos, D. Oom, A. Branco, D. de Rigo, D. Ferrari, H. Pfeiffer, R. Grecchi, D. Nuijten,
M. Onida, P. L¨
ofer, Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2020, Publications Ofce of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, https://doi.org/
10.2760/216446.
[36] UNISDR, UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Ofce on Disaster Risk reduction, Geneve, 2009.
[37] E. Valese, M. Conedera, A.C. Held, D. Ascoli, Fire, humans and landscape in the European Alpine region during the Holocene, Anthropocene 6 (2014) 6374,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.06.006.
[38] M.J. Metzger, R.G. Bunce, R.H. Jongman, R. Sayre, A. Trabucco, R. Zomer, A high-resolution bioclimate map of the world: a unifying framework for global
biodiversity research and monitoring, Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 22 (5) (2013) 630638, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12022.
[39] M.J. Metzger, A.D. Shkaruba, R.H.G. Jongman, R.G.H. Bunce, Descriptions of the European Environmental Zones and Strata (No. 2281), Alterra, 2012.
[40] H.E. Beck, N.E. Zimmermann, T.R. McVicar, N. Vergopolan, A. Berg, E.F. Wood, Present and future K¨
oppen-Geiger climate classication maps at 1-km
resolution, Sci. Data 5 (1) (2018) 112, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214.
[41] R. Lovreglio, O. Meddour-Sahar, V. Leone, Goat grazing as a wildre prevention tool: a basic review, IForest 7 (2014) 260268, https://doi.org/10.3832/
ifor1112-007.
[42] P. Corona, D. Ascoli, A. Barbati, G. Bovio, G. Colangelo, M. Elia, V. Garfì, F. Iovino, R. Lafortezza, V. Leone, R. Lovreglio, M. Marchetti, E. Marchi,
G. Menguzzato, S. Nocentini, R. Picchio, L. Portoghesi, N. Puletti, G. Sanesi, F. Chianucci, Integrated forest management to prevent wildres under
Mediterranean environments, Ann. Silvicultural Res. 39 (2015) 122, https://doi.org/10.12899/ASR-946.
[43] P. Costa, M. Castellnou, A. Larra˜
naga, M. Miralles, D. Kraus, Prevention of Large Wildres Using the Fire Types Concept, UT GRAF-Generalitat de Catalunya,
Barcelona, 2011, p. 87.
[44] D. Ascoli, L. Russo, F. Giannino, C. Siettos, F. Moreira, Firebreak and Fuelbreak. Encyclopedia of Wildres and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fires, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp. 19, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51727-8_70-1.
[45] M. Elia, R. Lafortezza, G. Colangelo, G. Sanesi, A streamlined approach for the spatial allocation of fuel removals in wildlandurban interfaces, Landsc. Ecol. 29
(10) (2014) 17711784, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0070-7.
[46] R. Dom`
enech, E. Soy, Girona re Flocks, grazing systems to reduce wildre severity, C 25 Girona, Spain Aims (2020) 499507.
[47] J.V. Moris, R. Berretti, A. Bono, R. Sino, G. Minotta, M. Garbarino, R. Motta, G. Vacchiano, J. Maringer, M. Conedera, D. Ascoli, Resprouting in European beech
confers resilience to high-frequency re, Forestry (2022), https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpac018 cpac018.
[48] J.C. Campos, S. Rodrigues, ˆ
A. Sil, V. Hermoso, T.R. Freitas, J.A. Santos, P.M. Fernandes, J.C. Azevedo, J.P. Honrado, A. Regos, Climate regulation ecosystem
services and biodiversity conservation are enhanced differently by climate-and re-smart landscape management, Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (5) (2022), 054014,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac64b5.
[49] E. Varela, E. G´
orriz-Mifsud, J. Ruiz-Mirazo, F. L´
opez-i-Gelats, Payment for targeted grazing: integrating local shepherds into wildre prevention, Forests 9 (8)
(2018) 464, https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080464.
[50] L. Musio, D. Vecchio, R. Berretti, A. Bono, F. Meloni, R. Motta, D. Ascoli, L. Caffo, C. Accastello, E. Momo, A. Dotta, Prevenzione degli incendi di chioma.
Prescrizioni selvicolturali per boschi montani di conifere, Sherwood 260 (2022) 1316.
[51] D. Ascoli, G. Bovio, Tree encroachment dynamics in heathlands of north-west Italy: the re regime hypothesis, iFor. Biogeosci. For. 3 (5) (2010) 137, https://
doi.org/10.3832/ifor0548-003.
[52] L. Mi˜
nambres, Life Montserrat: ramaderia, prevenci´
o dincendis i gesti´
o dh`
abitats, Agro-Cultura 71 (2018) 1113.
[53] D. Ascoli, R. Berretti, T. Campedelli, G. Londi, M. Miozzo, G. Tellini, Il Progetto LIFE Granatha: coltivazione delle eriche e fuoco prescritto per la conservazione
dellhabitat degli uccelli delle brughiere, Sherwood 230 (2017) 2832.
[54] D. Ascoli, G. Bovio, Prescribed burning in Italy: issues, advances and challenges, iFor. Biogeosci. For. 6 (2) (2013) 79, https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0803-006.
[55] I.G. Renom, Boscos del Vall`
es - prevenci´
o dincendis a partir de la dinamitzaci´
o del mercat de la biomassa forestal, Consell Comarcal Del Vall`
es Occidental 2
(2018) 20.
[56] J.S. Silva, F.C. Rego, P. Fernandes, E. Rigolot, J.S. Silva, F.C. Rego, P. Fernandes, E. Rigolot, T. Integrated, P. Fernandes, Towards Integrated Fire Management.
Outcomes of the European Project Fire Paradox, 2020.
[57] M. Athanasiou, T. Bouchounas, E. Korakaki, E. Tziritis, G. Xanthopoulos, S. Sitara, Introducing the use of re for wildre prevention in Greece pilot application
of prescribed burning in Chios island, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Forest Fire Research, ADAI/CEIF, University of Coimbra, 2022,
pp. 14871494.
[58] R.M.C. Tresserras, L.M. Azpilicueta, L.S.E. Garciandia, M.V.S. Martínez, J.L.S. Istilart, L.E. Echavarren, J.L. Durruty, O.U. Unzue, A.Y. Ar´
ostegui, A.P. de
M. Ortigosa, Open2Preserve: preservaci´
on de espacios abiertos de monta˜
na, Navarra Agraria 231 (2018) 3032.
D. Ascoli et al.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92 (2023) 103715
18
[59] G. Winkel, M. Lovri´
c, B. Muys, P. Katila, T. Lundhede, M. Pecurul, D. Pettenella, N. Pipart, T. Plieninger, I. Prokoeva, C. Parra, H. Pülzl, D. Roitsch, J.L. Roux,
B.J. Thorsen, L. Tyrv¨
ainen, M. Torralba, H. Vacik, G. Weiss, S. Wunder, Governing Europes forests for multiple ecosystem services: opportunities, challenges,
and policy options, For. Pol. Econ. 145 (2022), 102849.
[60] E. Plana, M. Serra, Integrated wildre risk assessment and planning method including stakeholder engagement for resilient communities at local level, in:
E. Plana, M. Serra, C. Sabella, C. Mayer, Y. Hengst-Ehrhart, C. Hartebrodt, C. Franciosi, M. Giambelli, D. Pag`
es, N. Gasulla, G. Martí, C. Garcia, M. Bertran,
G. Canaleta, J. Vendrell, P. Andrecs, K. Hagen, M. Pl¨
orer, A.C. Sequeira, I. Skulska, V. Ac´
acio, M. Ferreira, M.C. Colaço (Eds.), Climate Change Impacts on
Natural Hazards Risk Management and Civil Protection of Wildres, Floods, Storms, Avalanches, Rockfalls and Landslides, vol. 2021, RECIPE project (Grant
Agreement nº 874402), 2021, pp. 4650.
[61] D. Ascoli, J.V. Moris, M. Marchetti, L. Sallustio, Land use change towards forests and wooded land correlates with large and frequent wildres in Italy, Ann.
Silvicultural Res. 46 (2) (2021), https://doi.org/10.12899/asr-2264.
[62] F. Tedim, V. Leone, M. Amraoui, C. Bouillon, M.R. Coughlan, G.M. Delogu, P.M. Fernandes, C. Ferreira, S. McCaffrey, T.K. McGee, J. Parente, D. Paton, M.
G. Pereira, L.M. Ribeiro, D.X. Viegas, G. Xanthopoulos, Dening extreme wildre events: difculties, challenges, and impacts, Fire 1 (2018) 128, https://doi.
org/10.3390/re1010009.
[63] E. Plana, Gestione forestale e prevenzione degli incendi. Analisi economica a scala di paesaggio, Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 166 (2010) 1116.
D. Ascoli et al.
... These landscapes will not only enhance ecosystem services but can also generate socio-economic benefits on a local scale. FST propose productive activities to break up the landscape and reduce fuel loads, hence reducing wildfire risk and vulnerability of nearby communities, while simultaneously offering livelihood opportunities (Ascoli et al., 2023;Leone et al., 2020). We need to learn to co-exist with wildfires but manage the risk by applying climate adaptation and mitigation measures to help reduce the frequency and intensity. ...
... Often, fire and land management is subdivided and spread across various agencies. Additionally, when it comes to the governance of landscapes, land ownership issues complicate the involvement of private owners in big fuel management programs (Ascoli et al., 2023). These are substantial barriers to achieving a transdisciplinary, integrated approach to wildfire risk management and being able to establish synergies and optimally use the resources as made available by the European Commission. ...
... These are substantial barriers to achieving a transdisciplinary, integrated approach to wildfire risk management and being able to establish synergies and optimally use the resources as made available by the European Commission. It is necessary to overcome these constraints in order to achieve landscape-level management and fuel reduction in an economically viable way (Ascoli et al., 2023). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The report aims to investigate how Nature-based Solutions (NbS) can be applied in forested landscapes to reduce wildfire and pest outbreak risks, but also to improve the resilience of forests and support their recovery after such disturbances. It also discusses commonalities and divergences in conditions and strategies for NbS implementation across case studies, and identifies key learning points and remaining challenges.
... Wildfires cause adverse health and economic effects, made worse by climatic instability [1]. Conventional firefighting techniques involve straining existing water sources, toxic foams, or pre-installed countermeasures [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. While non-toxic firefighting foams and techniques have been developed, a low-cost, non-toxic, and portable option was previously overlooked: electrically assisted "ionic wind" fire suppression [9,10]. ...
... One issue was the limitation of a single vortex ring at a time, which may not be able to reliably extinguish larger fires. Another issue was the utilization of only one type of fire, as commercial candles are different than accidental conflagrations and wildfires [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][50][51][52]. Another issue was the lack of comparison with existing fire extinguishers. ...
Article
Full-text available
Conventional firefighting tools and methods can strain water sources, require toxic foams, or rely on pre-installed countermeasures. A low-cost, non-toxic, and portable option was previously overlooked in portable devices: electrically assisted “ionic wind” fire suppression. Conductive aerosols, carried by vortex rings, can potentially extend the length of an electric arc and suppress fires. After the simulation, two prototype vortex ring launchers were compared, one using compressed air and another using an elastic diaphragm. The efficiency of each test case was assessed with a purpose-built automated image analysis system. The compressed air vortex launcher had a significantly higher efficiency than the elastic diaphragm prototype, with a p-value of 0.0006. Regardless of the prototype or the use of conductive aerosols, the device had an effective range of up to 1.98 m. The highest reliability of 90 ± 4.1% was achieved at 1.52 m from the launcher. The observations with compressed air launcher results saw no significant difference regarding the use of the conductive aerosol. Further investigation of the concept requires a systematic examination of other types of fires, electronic optimization, permutations of chemicals and concentrations, other types of vortex generation, and human factors. The computer vision system could also be used to further detect and target active fires. Beyond firefighting, the device can be adapted to applications ranging from manufacturing to aerospace. Regardless of the use of conductive aerosols, handheld vortex ring generators are a versatile, potential firefighting tool.
Preprint
Full-text available
One of the primary focal points is the critical evaluation of the role that prescribed burning plays in temperate and boreal forests. The significance of understanding the intricate interplay between human intervention and natural processes in these ecosystems. While non-intervention strategies are often heralded as the optimal approach for preserving biodiversity, it is crucial to recognize the pivotal role that wildfires, both naturally occurring and prescribed, play in shaping and maintaining the robustness of forest ecosystems. This study a scoping review aims to explore in-depth the intricate and multifaceted relationship between forest wildfire protection and biodiversity conservation strategies, delving into the complexities and nuances that exist within this crucial field. This comprehensive examination draws insights into recent scholarly contributions, encompassing a diverse range of perspectives and methodologies to provide a holistic understanding. Relationship between forest wildfire management and biodiversity conservation, highlighting the necessity for adaptive strategies that incorporate both scientific insights and traditional ecological knowledge. In conclusion, the literature collectively underscores the critical need to re-evaluate current fire management practices to enhance biodiversity outcomes during the climate crisis. The integration of scientific insights with Indigenous fire stewardship presents a promising pathway for fostering resilient forest ecosystems and promoting biodiversity conservation.
Article
Full-text available
This study uses the Fire Weather Index (FWI) from the Canadian Wildfire Hazard Rating System (CFFDRS) to assess the danger of future wildfires in the Zagros Mountains under climate change. We use CanESM5 model data for the SSP245 and SSP585 scenarios to estimate FWI changes in the past (1960–2020), near future (2031 − 2017), and distant future (2061–2090). Statistical analysis at the 95% confidence level verifies significant differences in FWI values, especially in the Northwest. We explore spatial and temporal trends using Emerging Hot Spot Analysis (EHSA). The results show that cold spots are decreasing, and warm spots are increasing over time. The results of this study highlight the continuing dangers of wildfires in the region. The study underscores the significance of implementing preventive fire management strategies that consider the dynamic nature of weather patterns.
Article
Full-text available
This study investigates the role of prescribed grazing as a sustainable fire prevention strategy in Mediterranean ecosystems, with a focus on Sardinia, an area highly susceptible to wildfires. Using FlamMap simulation software, we modeled fire behavior across various grazing and environmental conditions to assess the impact of grazing on fire severity indicators such as flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity. Results demonstrate that grazing can reduce fire severity by decreasing combustible biomass, achieving reductions of 25.9% in fire extent in wet years, 60.9% in median years, and 45.8% in dry years. Grazed areas exhibited significantly lower fire intensity, particularly under high canopy cover. These findings support the integration of grazing into fire management policies, highlighting its efficacy as a nature-based solution. However, the study’s scope is limited to small biomass fuels (1-h fuels); future research should extend to larger fuel classes to enhance the generalizability of prescribed grazing as a fire mitigation tool.
Article
Full-text available
Background Wildfires are increasingly impacting ecosystems worldwide especially in temperate dry habitats, often interplaying with other global changes (e.g., alien plant invasions). Understanding the ecological consequences of wildfires is crucial for effective conservation and management strategies. The aim of this study was to investigate the impacts of wildfire severity on plant community (both the canopy trees and herbaceous layer) and alien plant invasion, combining field observations and remotely sensed data. We conducted an observational study in the Karst forests (North-East Italy) 1 year after the large wildfire which affected the area in 2022. We assessed the impact through 35 field plots (200 m ² each) distributed among different fire severity (i.e., the loss of organic matter) classes assessed using the differenced normalized burn ratio (dNBR) calculated from satellite images. In each plot, tree species, diameter, vitality, resprouting capacity, and seedling density were measured. In addition, herb species richness (taxonomical diversity) was quantified, and plant cover was visually estimated. Functional diversity was also assessed considering six functional traits retrieved from databases. Results Some woody species (e.g., Quercus pubescens ) showed a higher resistance to the fire (i.e., lower mortality rate), while others showed a higher resilience (i.e., recovery after fire through resprouting or seedlings, e.g., Cotinus coggygria ). The transition to a shrub-dominated community (i.e., Cotinus coggygria ) where fire severity was the highest underlines the dynamic nature of the post-fire succession. We detected a significant variation in the herbaceous plant community composition, diversity, and functional identity (i.e., community-weighted mean of trait) along the fire severity gradient. In particular, high-fire severity areas exhibited higher species richness compared to low-severity or unburned areas. Total alien plant cover increased with fire severity, while native cover remained constant. We also found shifts in species that enhance traits related to germination potential and growth strategy. Conclusions Our results highlight the vulnerability of the forest stands to an increase in wildfire severity, resulting in significant mortality and changes in tree community structure. This study contributes to the understanding of ecological processes after wildfires using a novel remote sensing approach in a temperate forest, emphasizing the need for conservation strategies aimed at mitigating high severity wildfires.
Article
Full-text available
There is a broad consensus in the academic and policy communities over the need to shift the focus from fire suppression to fire prevention. To inform policies that effectively promote this shift, we distinguish between prevention actions aimed at more fire-resilient landscapes and those focused on the protection of people, i.e., wildfire mitigation and adaptation (WM&A), respectively. With the goal of discussing the usefulness of this distinction and identifying local factors and external resources that promote each of those preventive actions, we developed an analysis of collective WM&A actions across 116 parishes in a wildfire-prone region in Portugal, using primary and secondary data. Two principal component analyses were used to explore relationships between variables expressing collective WM&A actions. Random forest, a machine learning technique based on multiple decision trees, was used to model how those actions are related to local factors (land use/land cover, population, institutions) and access to policy funding for wildfire prevention. Our results showed that collective mitigation and adaptation responses to wildfire are locally independent, in coherence with their distinct goals, actors involved, and institutional and policy framing. Mitigation through owners’ collaboration proved to be strongly related to policy funding (notably that exclusively addressed at mitigation), local socioeconomic dynamism, and ownership structure, whereas adaptation responses are related with leadership by local governments. Considering these differences, the incipiency of adaptation actions, and the difficulties in expanding owner’s collaboratives beyond the most favourable local conditions, we conclude that mitigation and adaptation actions are currently supported by two distinct policy domains with unequal consolidation but equally underfunded.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper presents the first steps of a 2-year pilot project on prescribed burning (PB) in Greece. To re-introduce the use of fire in wildfire prevention in the country, as an accurate and effective management tool, more research is needed. Hence, we will conduct planned field PB experiments which will provide us sound knowledge about fire behaviour matched with the fire impact on soil properties, the effects on trees and the plant biodiversity. The experimental fires can serve as an excellent training tool, also, for some of the participants (firefighters, land managers and researchers). The first efforts to introduce and utilize the PB in Greece began in the 1970s, when members of the Greek forest scientific community and the Hellenic Forest Service applied PB experimentally, analysed data and drew some preliminary conclusions. They made some steps to document the use of fire and study its impacts before introducing PB as a tool to prevent forest fires. Unfortunately, without constant funding, legal support, logistics, continuous scientific guidance and clear objectives, those sporadic attempts did not tie bonds with the forest and fire management community and the endeavour was soon abandoned. Almost half a century later, fire is still not used in fuel management and fire prevention and there is no institutional framework for the implementation of PB. Inspired by those first efforts in applying PB in Greece and guided by the fire science and the best practices for wildfire prevention, a core team of researchers and practitioners from WWF Greece, the Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems of ELGO "DIMITRA", the Forest Directorate of Chios Island, and the Voluntary Action Team “OMIKRON” started in 2021 a pilot project on the implementation of the PB on the island of Chios. Fire Service of Chios Island and Municipality of Chios support the pilot project by supplying water trucks and personnel during the burns. The Project is sponsored by Procter and Gamble corporation. The project aims to introduce PB as a tool for forest fuel management, increase social– ecological resilience to wildfire and contribute to a climate – resilient future. More specifically, the project is expected: i. to develop the standards and procedures, through applied research, for the use of the prescribed fire in Greece, ii. to be a successful paradigm of fuel management, iii. to strengthen the role of the forest service in fuel management and build the capacity of local stakeholders on potential contribution, iv. to strengthen the horizontal cooperation among agencies, by introducing compatible methods and techniques, v. to build the capacity of the volunteer firefighters’ teams on issues related to the wildfire prevention and fuel management, vi. to increase knowledge and improve experience on the fire behaviour, vii. to further strengthen, improve and expand local alliances in Chios Island viii. to improve landscape resilience and prevent forest fires.
Article
Full-text available
Nell’ambito di due progetti finanziati dal PSR della Regione Piemonte, è stato sviluppato un modello selvicolturale di prevenzione degli incendi di chioma in popolamenti di pino silvestre. In questo contributo si riportano risultati e considerazioni relativi agli interventi in 4 aree pilota realizzati al fine di definire i criteri da applicare nei 30 ha di un viale tagliafuoco.
Article
Full-text available
Europe's forest provide multiple ecosystem services for societies, ranging from provisioning (e.g. wood) and regulating (e.g. climate mitigation and biodiversity) to cultural (e.g. recreation) services. In this paper, we assess the state and prospects of forest ecosystem services provision in Europe, introducing new data from the European collaborative research projects SINCERE, NOBEL and CLEARING HOUSE, and combining it with findings from the literature. We identify six challenges (1 an insufficient alignment of FES supply and demand, 2 lacking policy integration, 3 ambiguous and conflicting regulatory frameworks, 4 a lack of precise information on FES demand and provision, and innovations to align both, 5 an increasing pressure to adapt to climate change, and 6 a striking diversity constraining European level policy solutions) and three opportunities (1 increasingly heterogenous forest owner objectives potentially matching pluralistic societal demands, 2 diversifying forest enterprises levering innovations in regulating and cultural ecosystem services provision, and 3 the potential of forests to mitigate climate change). Subsequently, we introduce four distinct but complimentary policy pathways for European forest policy to better align forest ecosystem services provision and demand: 1 Better monitoring of FES supply and demand, 2 Enhanced policy integration, 3 Payments for ecosystem services, and 4 Bottom-up participation and learning among ecosystem services innovators. We conclude by emphasizing the momentum that the EU Green Deal unfolds for a future European forest policy to incentivise the provision of multiple forest ecosystem services.
Article
Full-text available
Nowadays, extensive livestock farming faces substantial threats in the Mediterranean region , provoking a setback dynamic in the sector. In 2016, the Fire Flocks (FF) project was conceived and implemented as a regional strategy to revert this situation and revalue the sector in Catalonia, in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula. FF promotes forest management through extensive livestock farming, and more specifically silvopastoralism, to reduce vegetation load and wildfire risk. The initiative also works on fire risk awareness with the aim of promoting extensive livestock products through FF label and valorization strategies. Five years after its initial implementation, the project managers detected several weaknesses and potential improvements directly affecting the economic and environmental performance of the participating farms. It was therefore considered necessary to conduct targeted qualitative interviews with the farmers participating in the project in order to gather their opinions on the project's functioning and further steps. To this end, 17 farmers were interviewed with the aid of a qualitative questionnaire. The farmers stated that although FF is not providing them with any direct financial benefits, it does present an opportunity to belong to a group of farmers working on wildfire prevention, thereby lending them a voice as a group, and reaching more social visibility. The qualitative analyses elucidate key elements to be promoted in FF, such as redesign of the operational structure, expansion to a regional scale and action lines to facilitate grazing activity.
Article
Full-text available
Integrated management of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) in heterogeneous landscapes requires considering the potential trade-offs between conflicting objectives. The UNESCO's Biosphere Reserve zoning scheme is a suitable context to address these trade-offs by considering multiple management zones that aim to minimise conflicts between management objectives. Moreover, in Mediterranean ecosystems, management and planning also needs to consider drivers of landscape dynamics such as wildfires and traditional farming and forestry practices that have historically shaped landscapes and the biodiversity they host. In this study, we applied a conservation planning approach to prioritise the allocation of management zones under future landscape and climate scenarios. We tested different landscape management scenarios reflecting the outcomes of climate-smart and fire-smart policies. We projected the expected landscape dynamics and associated changes on the distribution of 207 vertebrate species, 4 ES and fire hazard under each scenario. We used Marxan with Zones to allocate three management zones, replicating the Biosphere Reserves zoning scheme ("Core area", "Buffer zone" and "Transition area") to address the various management objectives within the Biosphere Reserve. Our results show that to promote ES supply and biodiversity conservation, while also minimising fire hazard, the reserve will need to: i) Redefine its zoning, especially regarding Core Areas, which need a considerable expansion to help mitigate changes in biodiversity and accommodate ES supply under expected changes in climate and species distribution. ii) Revisit current management policies that will result in encroached landscapes prone to high intensity, uncontrollable wildfires with the potential to heavily damage ecosystems and compromise the supply of ES. Our results support that both climate-and fire-smart policies in the Meseta Ibérica can help develop multifunctional landscapes that help mitigate and adapt to climate change and ensure the best possible maintenance of biodiversity and ES supply under uncertain future climate conditions.
Article
Full-text available
L’articolo descrive obiettivi e azioni del Progetto Life GRANATHA, che ha iniziato le proprie attività negli scorsi mesi. Attraverso il ripristino degli ambienti di brughiera, in regressione a causa dell’abbandono delle attività agrosilvo-pastorali, il Progetto mira al miglioramento degli habitat adatti ad alcune specie di uccelli legate a questi ambienti, grazie anche alla riattivazione del mercato locale delle scope ricavate dalle eriche.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The report provides a description of the fire season 2020 from the countries perspective and the same type of analysis from the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS)
Article
Full-text available
The implementation of climate-smart policies to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce emissions is being encouraged worldwide to fight climate change. Afforestation practices and rewilding initiatives are climate-smart examples suggested to tackle these issues. In contrast, fire-smart approaches, by stimulating traditional farmland activities or agroforestry practices, could also assist climate regulation while protecting biodiversity. However, there is scarce information concerning the potential impacts of these alternative land management strategies on climate regulation ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. As such, this work simulates future effects of different land management strategies in the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve of Meseta Ibérica (Portugal-Spain). Climate-smart (“Afforestation”, “Rewilding”) and fire-smart (“Farmland recovery”, “Agroforestry recovery”) scenarios were modelled over a period of 60 years (1990–2050), and their impacts on climate regulation services were evaluated. Species distribution models for 207 vertebrates were built and future gains/losses in climate-habitat suitability were quantified. Results suggest climate-smart policies as the best for climate regulation (0.98 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 of mean carbon sequestration increase and 6801.5 M€ of avoided economic losses in 2020-2050 under Afforestation scenarios), while providing the largest habitat gains for threatened species (around 50% for endangered and critically endangered species under Rewilding scenarios). Fire-smart scenarios also benefit carbon regulation services (0.82 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 of mean carbon sequestration increase and 3476.3M€ of avoided economic losses in 2020-2050 under Agroforestry scenarios), benefiting the majority of open-habitat species. This study highlights the main challenges concerning management policies in European rural mountains, while informing decision-makers regarding landscape planning under global change.
Article
European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) can regenerate successfully from seeds after mixed-severity fires with mid-to-long fire return intervals (>60 years). However, if fire return interval is lower than the age of sexual maturity, post-fire seeding will be limited, leaving vegetative resprouting as the only viable option for recovery. This means that the forecasted increase in fire frequency driven by climate change may erode beech forest resilience to fire. Here, we surveyed tree regeneration in a European beech forest affected by two consecutive fires, in 2003 and 2017, and applied experimental clipping of tree saplings to address the following questions: (1) What is the fire resistance and post-fire recovery via resprouting of tree saplings? (2) Which factors drive post-fire resprouting of beech saplings? (3) Does post-fire clipping of tree saplings increase the probability of survival and resprouting vigor? We monitored 2195 beech saplings and 953 saplings of other tree species during three consecutive years, from 2018 to 2020. Almost all beech saplings were top-killed by fire, and two-thirds of them died completely. However, 3 years after the second fire, 30 per cent of beech saplings survived by resprouting from the base. Post-fire resprouting was less likely in small-diameter saplings and in those more injured by fire. Overall, the second fire did not cause a major decline of beech regeneration and consequently did not alter the dominant species composition of post-fire recovery. Given the low specific resistance to fire, post-fire resprouting of saplings is therefore a key component of beech resilience to short-interval fires. The effects of clipping on post-fire survival and resprouting vigor were very limited, suggesting the unsuitability of actively clearing burned beech regeneration as a post-fire management prescription. In conclusion, basal resprouting from beech saplings after fire-induced top-kill led to a higher-than-expected resilience of beech to short-interval fires (i.e. circa 15 years).