Content uploaded by Davide Ascoli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Davide Ascoli on May 08, 2023
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 wildre 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:
Wildre risk prevention
Fire resistant and resilient landscapes
Fire smart
Fuel management
EU Green deal
Bioeconomy
ABSTRACT
Fuel management for wildre 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 wildre 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-benet
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, specic 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-efciency 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 wildre 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 wildre 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 benets for ecosystem services and local economic development [9,
10].
The European Commission is currently pursuing multiple policies with enormous implications for wildre 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]. Wildre risk prevention might greatly benet 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 wildre risk prevention. Europe also provides incentives
for land management, which are useful in the territorial planning of wildre risk mitigation. Rural Development Programs (RDPs)
2
include several measures directly connected to wildre risk management, such as sub-measures 8.3 (prevention of damage from
wildres) and 8.4 (restoration after wildres), or indirectly connected such as 4.3 (modernization of agriculture and forestry), and 8.5
(investments for forest resilience) of the RDP plan 2014–2020. 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 difculties 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 wildre 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 wildre 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 [1,10,31–34]. These initiatives uncover opportunities to make the best use of funding and multi-actor pri-
vate/public cooperation necessary to build FSTs. Hence, we identied the need to mainstream these innovative local approaches
through bottom-up selection. In this study, we research and select relevant fuel management programs for wildre 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-benets 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 wildre risk prevention
To select and analyze initiatives for wildre risk prevention based on re-smart principles, we identied 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-efciency 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 wildre
prevention requirements.
2.2. Identication of wildre prevention initiatives
The initiatives search started by identifying national and regional agencies responsible for wildre risk prevention in Greece, Italy,
Portugal, and Spain, i.e., among EU countries most exposed to wildre impacts [2], and where many diversied fuel management
programs are in place (e.g., [10,33,34]. The responsibilities of wildre 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 rened consultation process of agencies’ personnel, we identied 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 wildre 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 efcient wildre 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 wildre.
2.3. Survey analyses
Survey interviews were analyzed to assess to what extent selected initiatives fullled 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 fulll 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 wildre 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 identied 38 initiatives planning and implementing fuel management at the landscape scale (Fig. 1) and fullling 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 wildres 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 wildre risk reduction is applied. We identied 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-efciency 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 specic 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 classication according to Ref. [40]; description of the fuel management activities that contribute to wildre
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.prevailforestres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.2.pdf.
5
PREVAIL project Deliverable 4.2, https://www.prevailforestres.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 reghting 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 wildre risk prevention initiatives.
Table 1
Fire-smart criteria and sub-criteria adopted to select and analyze wildre prevention initiatives.
Criteria Sub-criteria Description
Sustainability Circularity Resource-efcient 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 beneting 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, certication and payments for
ecosystem services delivered by the wildre 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 wildre
risk management and valuing community choices in determining key goals. Management
activities derive from local needs and their outcomes produce benets 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-Efciency in Risk Reduction Planning processes that optimize limited economic resources to achieve wildre risk reduction
at the landscape scale, by combining diversied fuel management strategies (e.g., pyro-
silviculture, prescribed burning, prescribed grazing) spatially distributed in strategic points to
support response. Initiatives showing cost-benet/efciency 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 unied strategy for managing wildre 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 wildre 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 one’s 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 benet 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
classication
Contribution to
re hazard
reduction
Activated chain
and social/
environmental
services
Cooperation actors Performance metrics
1 Fireghting
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 reghting,
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 reghters
(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 reghters
(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
wildre
prevention.
Dairy products and
beef, goat and
sheep meat under
the ‘Ramats de
Foc’ label (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´
o’ label.
Biodiversity and
Regional
Government, Forest
Owners association,
a Private
foundation, Natura
2000 sites, Natural
•Start: 2014
•Area: 32000 ha of
territory beneted,
including 3000 ha
treated for wildre
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
classication
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,
wildre
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 beneted
•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
classication
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
reghting
interventions is
carried out by
volunteers.
Population
sensitization and
education,
learning-by-
example
procedure, re
prevention patrols.
OMIKRON
Association and
volunteers’ team,
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
classication
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 difculty
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
prot 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 wildre
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 wildre 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 wildre risk management planning. In the documented initiatives, the achievement of sustainable fuel
Fig. 1. Selected fuel management initiatives in southern European countries fullling 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-efciency, and (iii) benets 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 Fumat’ wine which served as a fuel break in a 2012 la
Junquera wildre, Catalunya, Spain (b); “Mompantable” produced 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-benets
▪ 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 wildre 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
wildre 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 wildre risk management actions
with nature conservation
▪ Recognition in ofcial EC documents the need to have
resilient landscapes to face wildre risk reduction
▪ Segmentation of competencies in wildre 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 beneciaries of
ecosystem services - wildre prevention (private sector, such
as tourism) to its provision (e.g., poor PES development
regarding risk mitigation)
▪ Operational and administrative difculties (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 wildre 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)
▪ Certication of local short supply chain
▪ Increasing awareness and policy support for the necessity of
development and maintenance of wildre 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 wildres
in the Mediterranean
▪ Social valorization of short-value chains and proximity
products
▪ Social worry and attention towards wildre 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 wildre
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 conicts (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 wildre
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 difculties 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 wildre 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 Foc” label, 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 certies 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
specic 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 wildre 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 wildres. 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 justication through the creation of added value for
dairy and other products under a green marketing logic. Local, national or international certication of rural activities that prevent
wildres 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 benets. These initiatives can involve society (consumers) in the solution, who will buy “wildre prevention” through the
shopping basket. By this mechanism, the wildre 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, wildre prevention marketing and labeling can facilitate public education and support of long-term, cross-
sectional policies for wildre risk management.
Fig. 6. Key emerging components that characterize a re-smart solution for wildre 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 wildre 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 wildre 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 wildres. As an innovative source of income, some documented re-smart solutions proposed wildre 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 difculty [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 wildre 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 unied 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 landscape” in
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 wildre 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 specic 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
justies 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 wildre management goals, while
optimizing cost-efciency, 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, counterre, 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-efciency of wildre 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 wildre 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 wildre 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 benecial
projects across climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and re-smart land management priorities. These initiatives
conrm 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 wildre 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 wildre 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 reecting 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 wildre risk management in southern Europe [5].
Reliance on EU funds has sometimes been perceived as difcult, as reported in the SWOT analysis (Table 3). This barrier, in
connection with the segmentation of competencies in wildre 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 wildre management,
but also to other agencies that benet 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 wildre risk
management, starting from a shared vision of using public funding for wildre prevention. In order to bring substantial improvements
to the current lack of investment capacity in re-prone territories, it is essential to make efcient and coherent use of multiple funding
sources (avoiding redundancies, gaps and conicting 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 wildre 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. Specic 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 wildre in high re risk zones (as identied 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 wildre
protection instead of hazard, can be pursued under the New Urban Agenda [60]. Another simple example of fostering coherent policies
for wildre 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 Pe’er, 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 wildre risk mitigation [48].
Finally, re-designing the allocation of rural development funds can leverage the impact of this policy on wildre risk mitigation.
Indeed, under past and current RDPs, only specic wildre prevention measures (i.e., measure 2.2.6 in 2007–2013 RDP, and sub-
measure 8.3 in 2014–2020 RDP) included eligibility criteria related to wildre risk, as dened by wildre 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 wildre
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 Pe’er, 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 wildre risk mitigation.
5. Conclusions
Extreme wildres are a complex phenomenon that emerges from the interaction between a territory’s multiple physical, biological
and socio-economic factors [8,22,61,62]. To mitigate wildre 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 wildre 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 unied
strategy for managing wildre risk, a territory’s private investments, product certication 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 wildre risk reduction and leverage economically efcient 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 diversied 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 certication (e.g., “Ramats de Foc” and
“Vinyes de Contrafoc” in Catalonia), to reward farmers for the environmental service delivered in mitigating wildre risk;
(vii) strong social engagement of local communities in wildre 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 wildre 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 wildre 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-efcient than
building FSTs planned to protect people, ecosystem services, values and economies from the impact of extreme wildre events.
The uptake and replication of re-smart solutions at the European scale requires a network of the various initiatives and institutions
involved in wildre risk management, in order to create a mutually benecial 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 wildre 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 wildre prevention must not only take into account local specicities, but also strengthen the cultural perception of the role of
traditional activities contributing to fuel management, to make visible their “cost-efciency” in terms of reducing the cost of direct
prevention and wildres 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 2014–2020 - 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://lessonsonre.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
inuence 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 wildre risk management concept based on a social-ecological approach in the European Union: re Smart Territory, Int.
J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 18 (2016) 138–153, 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, Wildre management in
Mediterranean-type regions: paradigm change needed, Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 1–6, 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) 37–44, 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 Efciency, 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) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100908.
[7] F. Moreira, G. Pe’er, Agricultural policy can reduce wildres, 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) 175–182,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.014.
[9] A. Regos, V. Hermoso, M. D’Amen, A. Guisan, L. Brotons, Trade-offs and synergies between bird conservation and wildre suppression in the face of global
change, J. Appl. Ecol. 55 (5) (2018) 2181–2192, 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) 2373–2380.
[11] European Commission, Una bioeconomia sostenibile per l’Europa: 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) 1–7. 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) 1–15, 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) 786–802, 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 wildres in Mediterranean forest ecosystems, For. Pol. Econ. 86
(2018) 1–3, 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 1689–1699, European Commission, 2020.
[18] Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europe’s 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) 34–51, 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, Wildre policies contribution to foster extreme wildres, in: Extreme Wildre Events and Disasters, Elsevier,
2020, pp. 187–200, 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) 250–260, 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 megares, Global
Change Biol. 27 (13) (2021) 3001–3003, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15625.
[28] M.J. Canadas, A. Novais, M. Marques, Wildres, forest management and landowners collective action: a comparative approach at the local level, Land Use Pol.
56 (2016) 179–188, 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 wildre 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 farmers’ perceptions 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, Wildre
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¨
ofer, Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2020, Publications Ofce of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, https://doi.org/
10.2760/216446.
[36] UNISDR, UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Ofce 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) 63–74,
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) 630–638, 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 classication maps at 1-km
resolution, Sci. Data 5 (1) (2018) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214.
[41] R. Lovreglio, O. Meddour-Sahar, V. Leone, Goat grazing as a wildre prevention tool: a basic review, IForest 7 (2014) 260–268, 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 wildres under
Mediterranean environments, Ann. Silvicultural Res. 39 (2015) 1–22, https://doi.org/10.12899/ASR-946.
[43] P. Costa, M. Castellnou, A. Larra˜
naga, M. Miralles, D. Kraus, Prevention of Large Wildres 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 Wildres and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fires, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp. 1–9, 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 wildland–urban interfaces, Landsc. Ecol. 29
(10) (2014) 1771–1784, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0070-7.
[46] R. Dom`
enech, E. Soy, Girona – re Flocks, grazing systems to reduce wildre severity, C 25 Girona, Spain Aims (2020) 499–507.
[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 wildre 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) 13–16.
[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 d’incendis i gesti´
o d’h`
abitats, Agro-Cultura 71 (2018) 11–13.
[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
dell’habitat degli uccelli delle brughiere, Sherwood 230 (2017) 28–32.
[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 d’incendis 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 wildre 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. 1487–1494.
[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) 30–32.
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. Prokoeva, C. Parra, H. Pülzl, D. Roitsch, J.L. Roux,
B.J. Thorsen, L. Tyrv¨
ainen, M. Torralba, H. Vacik, G. Weiss, S. Wunder, Governing Europe’s forests for multiple ecosystem services: opportunities, challenges,
and policy options, For. Pol. Econ. 145 (2022), 102849.
[60] E. Plana, M. Serra, Integrated wildre 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 Wildres, Floods, Storms, Avalanches, Rockfalls and Landslides, vol. 2021, RECIPE project (Grant
Agreement nº 874402), 2021, pp. 46–50.
[61] D. Ascoli, J.V. Moris, M. Marchetti, L. Sallustio, Land use change towards forests and wooded land correlates with large and frequent wildres 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, Dening extreme wildre events: difculties, challenges, and impacts, Fire 1 (2018) 1–28, 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) 11–16.
D. Ascoli et al.