Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Forest fire causes and prevention strategies in Portugal: Insights from

stakeholder focus groups
Carla Ferreira a , Lígia Costa Pinto b, Marieta Valente b,*
a
Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Portugal
b
NIPE and EEG, Universidade do Minho, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Forest fires are a major socioeconomic and environmental threat across many countries. There is increasing
Forest fires recognition of the need to develop integrated fire management approaches that emphasise the roles and per-
Prevention strategies spectives of all stakeholders. Stakeholders’ perspectives on this complex issue can inform research and policy
Risk factors
development. Furthermore, stakeholders have a right to be involved in issues that affect them, and this
Participatory integrated assessment
Focus groups
involvement, in turn, improves the social acceptance of policies. This study conducts a participatory integrated
assessment through focus groups with three stakeholder groups in Portugal, namely members of the general
public (including from areas with a history of forest fires), local residents, and decision makers. Two main topics
were analysed, i.e. perceived causes of forest fires as well as prevention strategies. Causes identified were mostly
associated with socioeconomic factors and a lack of knowledge and awareness of the risks involved in the use of
fire. Prevention strategies proposed significantly relied on government intervention and a shift in awareness and
responsibility by direct actors and the population in general. A participatory integrated assessment allowed us to
propose a framework of causes and prevention strategies for fire prevention, which can be included in a more
bottom-up policy design that reflects the views of stakeholders.

1. Introduction and the growth of extensive wildland–urban interface areas (Montiel-

Molina, 2013; Rigolot et al., 2015). Therefore, forest management is
Millions of hectares of forests and other types of vegetation burn crucial to minimise the environmental and social damage caused by
every year (Halleux, 2020). Forest fires are a common natural and cul- forest fires, particularly where villages and infrastructure are affected
tural element, but are one of the main risks affecting forests (Montiel- (Bacciu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2021). Additionally, it is expected that
Molina, 2013). It is estimated that more than 500,000 ha of forests are climate change, by promoting hot and dry conditions, will underlie an
burned by fires in Europe each year (European Commission: Joint increase in the occurrence and severity of forest fires (Abatzoglou et al.,
Research Centre et al., 2022). Recent data show that fire concentration is 2019; Barbero et al., 2020; Jia et al., 2019).
becoming predominant in Southern European regions (European Com- Moreover, land use changes have major social and economic impacts
mission: Joint Research Centre et al., 2022), where the annual burnt on the wildland–rural interface as well as the wildland–urban interface,
area has more than doubled since the 1970s (Xanthopoulos et al., 2006). resulting in an increasing amount of biomass and, consequently, higher
Forest fires in recent years have increased in number and severity, an exposure to induced fire (Moreira et al., 2011). Forest fire problems are
example being those registered in Spain and Portugal during 2017 (Alló pronounced in areas in which there is increasing human activity and a
and Loureiro, 2020). change or conversion of land use, and expansion of these areas and their
A significant stream of literature has emerged specifically on interaction with vegetation enhances the impact of forest fires (Chen
Southern European countries’ forest fires. In general, the occurrence of et al., 2021; Radeloff et al., 2018). The growth of the wildland–urban
forest fires worsened in the second half of the 20th century, especially interface is related to uncontrolled urbanisation in wildland areas,
due to changes in land use which aggravated fire hazards and disaster increasing road and trail density, and traffic (Radeloff et al., 2018). In
potential (Meira Castro et al., 2020). These changes include the aban- addition, an increase in electrical infrastructure and transmission lines
donment of rural areas, prolonged protection of forestlands from fire, with the expansion of WUI causes further ignition risk, particularly

* Corresponding author at: Escola de Economia e Gestão, Universidade do Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.
E-mail addresses: carla.c.ferreira@ipleiria.pt (C. Ferreira), pintol@eeg.uminho.pt (L.C. Pinto), mvalente@eeg.uminho.pt (M. Valente).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103330
Received 10 January 2024; Received in revised form 4 September 2024; Accepted 4 September 2024
Available online 17 September 2024
1389-9341/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

under extreme weather conditions (Calkin et al., 2014; Syphard et al., characteristics of residents influenced their knowledge and perceptions
2017). of forest fire risks, as well as their perceptions of self-protection abilities,
Over the last century, forest fire policies have focused on fire sup- their awareness of political and operational instruments, and their
pression or exclusion independently of their contexts, including in Eu- preferences regarding community involvement. These authors argue
ropean countries (Agee and Skinner, 2005; Moreira et al., 2020; Naveh, that there is a need to promote communication between citizens and
1994; Tedim et al., 2020). This is also the case in Portugal (Canadas policymakers on the design of forest fire management and mitigation
et al., 2023; Collins et al., 2013; Davim et al., 2021; Pais et al., 2023). strategies.
However, this approach is widely recognised to be ecologically unten- In this context, an integrative approach is emerging as a long-term,
able and not economically viable (Myers, 2006), as fire is a natural sustainable solution that seeks to better understand the causes of for-
process that promotes the conservation and renovation of forest eco- est fires and, consequently, design better forest fire prevention strategies
systems, e.g. in Mediterranean forests (Naveh, 1994; Pausas and Keeley, (Moore, 2019). In fact, strategies should be based on more than an un-
2019). Fires, depending on the intensity, can have beneficial impacts on derstanding of the natural dynamics that underlie forest fires, but rather
the ecosystems, such as “recycling dead biomass”, helping “the miner- on a clear understanding of the socioeconomic dynamics as well as
alization of vegetation” and providing “nutrients to the soil” (Chuvieco, stakeholder perceptions of the problem and the potential solutions.
2009). There is increasing evidence that “fire is a major ecological and Therefore, understanding how different stakeholders perceive the rela-
evolutionary force that promotes and maintains biodiversity at local, tionship between the causes and prevention of forest fires is important to
regional and global scales (…) Not only is fire a mechanism that con- fine-tune policies and gain public support.
sumes biomass (fuel) and creates environmental heterogeneity that Forest fires constitute the main threat to Mediterranean’s forest, not
drives biodiversity, it also promotes and maintains biodiversity by only causing immediate destruction but also leaving long-lasting
serving as an agent of natural selection in evolution and speciation, and ecological, economic, and social impacts. With the frequency and in-
by regulating nutrient cycles and biotic interactions” (He et al., 2019, p. tensity of fires on the rise, understanding forest management strategies
2002). There is also evidence that fire exclusion promotes the increase of becomes crucial for mitigating the devastating consequences of forest
fuel accumulation, the loss of resilience to fire, and the alteration of fire fires and safeguarding both natural resources and human livelihoods
regimes, leading to significant consequences for forest fires’ magnitude (Mauri et al., 2023). To answer this challenge, the European Forest
and frequency (Chuvieco, 2009; Myers, 2006). Even though focusing on Institute recommended to develop a participatory assessment to adapt a
fire suppression can result in a reduction in the total burned area per governance model tackling the diverse drivers and systemic causes of
year, this technique has the potential to create large forest fire events forest fire risk. Using Portugal as a case study, this paper aims to adopt a
with major disasters for humanity and the environment (Moreira et al., participatory integrated assessment of the problem of forest fires and
2020; Xanthopoulos et al., 2006). propose a framework of analysis based on the perceptions of different
Thus, the adoption of fire suppression as a unique strategy has been types of stakeholders. The mechanism of stakeholder participation is
shown to be an unsuccessful approach highlighting the need for a chosen and focus group sessions are designed with different types of
paradigm shift in fire prevention (Mclauchlan et al. 2020; Moreira et al., stakeholders. The results of the sessions are analysed and supplemented
2020; Pais et al., 2023) and for a multidisciplinary framework of inte- with information from a questionnaire administered to participants of
grated management (Flyvbjerg, 2020; Phillips et al., 2020). Systemic the sessions. This participatory approach allows different stakeholders
issues involve systemic answers such as multidisciplinary knowledge to evaluate the causes of forest fires and the effectiveness of prevention
integration and, perhaps more relevantly, awareness of the interde- strategies. Combining the insights from the different groups of stake-
pendence of multiple factors (Bacciu et al., 2022). Fire prevention policy holders, we are able to propose a framework of analysis for the causes
should consider all aspects of forest fire management with a long-term and prevention of forest fires in Portugal. To the best of our knowledge,
view (Hesseln, 2018), rather than focusing on the short term. The cau- this is the first study to combine local and non-local perceptions of forest
ses and prevention of forest fires are complex issues, even when fire risks and prevention strategies in Portugal, alongside decision
considering only their natural dimensions. However, when we addi- makers. While Oliveira et al. (2020) compared local and non-local
tionally consider the roles and perspectives of the individuals involved, population perceptions through a questionnaire, their aim was to
the degree of complexity surrounding these issues increases (McCaffrey explore risk perceptions and knowledge. Forest management has been
et al., 2012). explored through stakeholder-based methods by Marta-Costa et al.
Forest stakeholders are citizens who have some type of involvement (2016) and Marques et al. (2020b) with decision makers and represen-
with forests (through direct or indirect use) and hold informative views tatives of official forest-related entities, and by Ribeiro et al. (2015) with
of forest issues. Stakeholders will ultimately need to support choices local residents, decision makers and forestry technicians. Using this
made politically regarding fire prevention policies concerning forest method, preferences for ecosystem services of forests were also analysed
fires. Therefore, understanding the perceptions and attitudes of stake- (Cabral et al., 2021; Marques et al., 2020a).
holders is imperative to adequately address the trade-offs in the use of In section 2, a brief outline of the Portuguese case is presented, which
forests and integrate goals related to conservation and sustainable use gives context to the focus group results. In section 3, the adopted
(Marques et al., 2020b). An extensive body of research has investigated methodology is presented. Results from a content analysis of the focus
the role of communities in the sustainable use of forest resources group sessions, as well as from the questionnaires, are presented in
encouraging participatory forest management (Bacciu et al., 2022; section 4. These results are discussed in section 5 alongside relevant
Bruña-García and Marey-Pérez, 2018; De Meo et al., 2013; Savari et al., empirical literature on forests and forest fires. The insights from our
2020). Moreover, Gamboa et al. (2023) applied a participatory approach study serve as the basis for the proposal of a framework of analysis for
to gather information on landscape values to prioritise areas for the causes and prevention of forest fires. Section 6 concludes.
intervention.
Communities comprise different types of actors (e.g. private land- 2. The Portuguese case
owners, public officials, visitors, rural and urban inhabitants, forest
owners) with heterogeneous motivations and perceptions (Górriz-Mif- Forest fires have significantly affected Portugal. Over 15 years,
sud et al., 2019; Oliveira et al., 2020). For example, the level of famil- Portugal lost 5 % of its forested area because of forest fires (Valente
iarity with and, therefore, the perception of forest fires differ between et al., 2015a). In the decade from 2001 to 2010, a yearly average of
rural and urban societies. Indeed, inhabitants of urban areas see fire as 27,974 forest fires were reported in mainland Portugal, followed by an
an enemy to be fought, whereas rural populations use fire for their average of 17,713 in the following decade. Equivalently total burnt are
traditional agricultural activities. Oliveira et al. (2020) investigated how decreased over the same periods (yearly averages of 159,120 and

2
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

130,706). However, the average burnt are per forest fire increased from cooperation between private forest owners and promote sustainable
5.7 ha to 7.4 ha. More specifically, fires over 1000 ha accounted for over forest management practices (Fernandes and Simões, 2024). These
50 % of burnt area (namely 50.2 % and 58.2 %). More recent data from include the creation of legal entities that jointly manage contiguous
2021 to 2023 puts this statistic at 54.2.%.1 forest areas and/or smallholdings. These organisations are a preferred
Average burnt area per forest fire increased from the 2000’s decade land management option according to the National Plan for Integrated
to the 2010’s decade and is more recently decreasing. From 2021 to Rural Fire Management 2020–30 (Portuguese Council of Ministers,
2023 this statistic was 8670 and 57,655 ha. Larger areas are expected to 2020). As for stakeholder participation in the design of forest policy,
burn from 2031 to 2050 in comparison to the period of 1990–2010 (Pais while formally included, “although identified as an important issue in
et al., 2020). In 2023, there were 7260 forest fires analysed by public the most recent documents, stakeholder participation in forest decisions
authorities, who were able to ascertain the causes of 4898 forest fires. in Portugal has been very limited […] and [T]this type of stakeholder
Indeed, 62.1 % were due to accident or negligence, most notably due to engagement has been criticized for being reduced to power holders and
the use of fire for renovation of pastures and burning of forest leftover to those who are more informed, excluding most of the small-scale forest
biomass. Intentional criminal fires accounted for 31 %. Only less than 2 owners.” (Valente et al., 2015b, p. 378).
% of forest fires with known causes were due to natural causes.
Forests in Portugal are characterised by different varieties of oak (36 3. Methodology and implementation
%) and pine trees (28 %), which are mostly autochthonous species, as
well as 26 % of eucalyptus trees. Over the period of 2015–2018, of 3.1. Participatory integrated assessment
burned areas due to forest fires, 46 % concerned eucalyptus areas, 42 %
pine trees, and only 4 % oak trees. However, the tendency of forested Participatory approaches, e.g. participatory integrated assessment
area variation from 2005 to 2015 was for an increase in eucalyptus areas (PIA), have several advantages, particularly when it comes to complex
(8 % increase), while pine trees decreased (7 %) and oak trees increased issues such as forest fire management (Salter et al., 2010; Stirling, 2006).
(about 2 %) (own calculations using data from 2015 in ICNF, 2015 and The design of forest fire prevention and management strategies needs to
ICNF, 2021). include knowledge not only of natural phenomena but also of local,
In a territory in which 53.4 % of land is that of forests and wooded social and political conditions. According to Salter et al. (2010) and
land (Eurostat 2017), forest fire prevention strategies are urgent. It Stirling (Stirling, 2006), there are three types of arguments for stake-
should be noted that in Portugal, 97 % of forests are privately owned, in holder involvement. Firstly, stakeholders have first-hand experience of
contrast to an average share in Europe (EU-28) of 60 % (Eurostat, 2020). the phenomenon under study and can provide information on how in-
Additionally, only 46 % of forested land has a registered owner in the dividuals interact with the natural world. Under this argument, stake-
forest registry, and it is estimated that 20 % of land has no known owner holders act as an additional source of information and enrich the
(ICNF, 2021). While the state has limited direct management possibil- decision-making process. Secondly, the involvement of stakeholders is
ities as a forest owner, it has many responsibilities as a forest custodian legitimised through “normative arguments, which focus on rights to
and in defining forest policies (Fernandes and Simões, 2024). participate and the process of democracy” (Salter et al., 2010, p. 707),
Although there has been no systematic release of data on types of and as such stakeholders have a democratic right to participate. Finally,
property, Feliciano et al. (2015) mention that “most of forest land in that participation also “improves trust and acceptance of subsequent
Portugal is owned by non-industrial private forest owners (NIPFO). decisions”. These three arguments mutually reinforce the case for
Currently, Portugal is one of the countries where this type of ownership stakeholder involvement.
structure is more relevant” (p. 24). Furthermore, the same study, based In this paper, to better understand the causes of forest fires as well as
on the few existing pieces of evidence, describes forest properties as potential prevention strategies that can be applied in Portugal, the PIA
large-scale in the south (more than 100 ha) and mostly “small-scale” in approach was applied. The PIA focuses on multidisciplinary research,
the rest of the country, that is, less than 10 ha. Regarding the case of promoting the direct involvement of stakeholders in the assessment
eucalyptus plantations, it is estimated that only 17.4 % of forests are process. The PIA intends to gather, structure, synthesise and present
managed by pulp paper companies, while the remaining land consists of interdisciplinary knowledge to inform a policy decision. With the in-
private and small properties (Bruni et al., 2024). This fragmented and formation gathered from stakeholders and processed by the research
scattered property structure raises issues when it comes to coordination team, we can construct a coherent framework for the assessment of
amongst small forest owners towards fire prevention (Canadas and causes and prevention strategies. This assessment aggregates informa-
Novais, 2019). tion from the bottom up so that policies can be designed that are more in
The National Plan for Integrated Rural Fire Management 2020–30 line with stakeholders’ views of the world and, thus, are more socially
(Portuguese Council of Ministers, 2020) marks a shift in Portugal in the acceptable. Since this information stems from the experience and per-
fire management policy from a “strong fire suppression policy to one ceptions of the individuals consulted, this framework tells only part of
that emphasizes prevention”, albeit with an initial focus on “the pro- the story and needs to be complemented by knowledge from other
tection of people and property, gradually implementing additional sources within a broader fire management framework.
prevention measures through regulatory, informational, and coopera- In the literature, there are several methodologies for conducting
tive policy instruments, [and] in the medium to long term […] to PIAs, such as simulation gaming, policy exercises, interviews, and focus
develop a sustainable rural landscape” (Pandey et al., 2023, p. 4). groups. Salter et al. (2010) analysed PIAs in three broad categories:
In what concerns forest owners, Portuguese authorities have an methods, participation and outcomes. According to these authors,
essential role to play in developing assertive legal and fiscal solutions methods include both quantitative and qualitative techniques; partici-
aimed at spatial planning and maximising the productive potential of pation refers to mechanisms and settings of engagement, such as focus
forests (Pinho, 2014). These tools serve as mechanisms to incentivise groups; and outcomes relate to how a PIA assists or informs policy. For
and guide private forest owners to work together for the benefit of for- example, Puy et al. (2008) applied PIA focus groups to understand the
ests. It should however be noted that private forest owners have a high enhancing factors as well as the constraints of the development of sus-
degree of freedom in terms of management decisions (Nichiforel et al., tainable forest biomass energy systems.
2018). Several policy tools have been implemented to encourage Given the aim of this study, qualitative and quantitative methods
were used. As a mechanism of participation, we conducted focus groups
combined with a short questionnaire with the participants. An extensive
1
Statistics compiled from individual fire data available at https://www.icnf. literature review was conducted to serve as the basis for focus group
pt/ (ICNF - Portuguese Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Forests) sessions with stakeholders.

3
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Fig. 1 shows the protocol followed. The protocol was divided into as well as prevention strategies, 12 focus groups were conducted be-
three stages. Firstly, for problem identification, we analysed areas and tween September 2020 and January 2021 in different Portuguese mu-
populations at risk of or affected by forest fires and selected one region. nicipalities, applying within-method triangulation (Bengtsson, 2016). A
Secondly, we identified key stakeholders inside and outside of the region total of 66 participants were recruited to represent different stake-
to conduct the PIA focus groups and thirdly, grouped them into three holders. Firstly, we identified the need to involve residents of areas close
categories to run sessions with homogenous groups. to forests and where forest fires had occurred in recent years (four in-
As for the populations targeted by this study, we distinguished two person focus groups with local population: N = 22). For the local pop-
variables: decision-making power and proximity to forests. In terms of ulation, recruitment was done by invitation from the municipality
the proximity to and relation with forests, we considered areas affected following a profile defined by the research team, namely local residents
by major forest fire incidents in the past. We identified individuals in the living in some proximity to forests. Also, we wanted to have a diverse
local community without and with decision-making power or re- representation of interests, but in groups where people were still at ease
sponsibilities, namely local residents and local authorities/organisa- to express their opinions.
tions, respectively. We label these groups as follows: local population Secondly, in loco, we also found individuals with institutional roles
and decision makers. On a more micro-level, local residents and local (one in-person focus group with decision makers: N = 6). For the
decision makers live near forests and are affected directly by forest fires, decision-makers focus group, the intention was to have representatives
observe the local implementation of policies and the behaviour of forest from relevant local institutions, and again recruitment was done with
owners. Decision makers, while located locally, also act under an insti- the help of the municipality.
tutional framework provided by central government. Thirdly, we included non-local population who also have a stake and
We oppose these stakeholders with non-local populations, who interest in preventing forest fires and conserving the country’s forests
reside farther away from forests but may still value their conservation, (seven online focus groups with non-local population: N = 38).
as well as the prevention of forest fires. On a more macro-level, national The participation in the focus group was voluntary, and the topic of
residents have irregular contact with forests but also hold perceptions as discussion was announced previously to the session, thus people who
to what are the causes and potential solutions for the problem of forest agreed to contribute were most likely those that wanted to share their
fires. In fact, non-local populations may also be involved with forests, opinion on the topic of forest fires.
and at least are taxpayers who contribute to the financing of national Focus group discussions were moderated by one of the study’s au-
policies, including costly fire prevention, suppression and reconstruc- thors, and sessions were audio-recorded. All participants gave their
tion measures, and voters who vote for parties and policies. consent regarding the recording and anonymous use of information
These three groups participate in our PIA focus groups separately. collected. A guide was developed following the guidelines suggested by
In terms of the specific implementation in this study, the area Barbour and Morgan (2017), Kasemir et al. (2003), and Puy et al.
selected for the local focus group discussions covered the municipality of (2008). Three main parts were differentiated in the guide: (1) the pre-
Baião. In this municipality there have been in recent years more rural sentation and objectives of the meeting, (2) the main causes of forest
fires than the national average for municipalities (in 2019, for example, fires, and (3) the value of forests and the main strategies for preventing
there were twice as many rural fires and almost 1100 ha burned, forest fires. Table 1 shows the focus group interview structure that was
whereas the average burnt area per municipality was 151 ha2). The followed in all sessions.
areas selected for the non-local focus group discussions are included the After the focus group discussion, participants were invited to fill out
municipality of Porto, which is an urban area, and in the municipality of a short questionnaire.3 The timing of the questionnaire was premedi-
Leiria, where the National Forest of Leiria is located (which is property tated so as not to influence spontaneous responses during the focus
of the state), and which was the stage in 2017 of a large forest fire group discussion. This allowed us to gather information on the partici-
devastating almost 86 % of land (Aguiar et al., 2021). pants’ lifestyle (in terms of their location relative to forested areas),
experiences of forest fires, values attached to forests, and whom they
3.2. Focus groups (PIA FG) perceived to be responsible for fire prevention. Additionally, we inves-
tigated risk factor perceptions as well as preferred strategies for pre-
Stakeholders’ workshop and focus groups are participatory methods vention. Sociodemographic characteristics were also elicited.
that are used in the PIA approach (Patel et al., 2007; Volkery et al.,
2008). In our research, the focus group method was chosen. PIA FGs 3.3. Data analysis methodology
depart from the assumption that group discussions produce different
kinds of findings: richer, more reflective and collective, and potentially Data collected from the focus group sessions and questionnaire were
more policy-relevant (Puy et al., 2008). In this sense, the PIA FGs pro- analysed as described in Table 2.
mote the opportunity to gather more distinctive in-depth reflections, The focus groups were transcribed verbatim in Portuguese and im-
perceptions and motivations regarding collective matters. Kasemir et al. ported to NVivo qualitative data analysis software (version 11) for
(2003) provide a comprehensive description of the focus group method content analysis. Content analysis is a qualitative and quantitative
applied in a PIA. PIA FGs can support improvement of the integration of methodology that allows for inferences from data in visual, written and
diverse knowledge and value domains and increase efficiency and equity verbal forms. The content analysis procedure is divided into four main
by enhancing the efficiency of available information (Kasemir et al., stages: decontextualisation, recontextualisation, categorisation and
2003; Puy et al., 2008). Despite the advantages of the focus group compilation (Bengtsson, 2016). The transcripts were analysed repeat-
methodology, care should be taken, when planning the sessions. A edly by the authors and coded into categories consistent with ap-
predefined structure needs to be consistently applied to each group to proaches applied in prior research (Chen et al., 2021; Hesseln, 2018;
ensure the data is compatible across sessions. Since group discussion can Moore, 2019; Puy et al., 2008; Rigolot et al., 2015). After the coding
be dominated by certain individuals with strong opinions or more phase, frequencies of concepts were computed. Following the purpose of
dominant postures, the role of the moderator is crucial in guiding the the PIA FGs approach, relations between nodes and participants from
session and ensuring all opinions are heard and all topics equally
covered (Krueger and Casey, 2014).
To explore how different stakeholders feel about causes of forest fires 3
As the purpose of the questionnaire was to assess individual perceptions of
the topic under study, it was not undertaken with decision makers, since they
represented the different institutions involved with forests, and not themselves
2
Data by municipality available on request from ICNF. as individuals.

4
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Fig. 1. Protocol followed.

4. Results
Table 1
Focus group session structure.
4.1. Local and non-local population characteristics: Results from the
Stage Main questions and prompts questionnaire
1. Introduction Welcome and introduction to the study
What are the main causes you associate with forest fires? We collected data from the short questionnaire to characterise the
2. Causes What are the losses associated with forest fires participants from the local and non-local populations (Table 3).
occurrence?
What is the value of forests?
Regarding the respondents’ sociodemographic profile, 60 % were men,
3. Prevention strategies How can forest fires be prevented? the mean age was 39 years, and 44 % had completed at least an un-
What can you directly do to prevent forest fires? dergraduate degree. Sociodemographic differences emerge when
4. Summary Summary of the session comparing the two communities: local population participants were
5. Questionnaire*
mostly men (95.5 %) with an average age of 53.9 years and an
*
The questionnaire was conducted with the local and non-local populations. elementary level of education (42.9 %); meanwhile, non-local popula-
tion participants were mostly women (60.5 %), the majority had an
undergraduate degree, and the mean age was 30.5 years.
Table 2 As expected, the descriptive analysis shows the differences in
Topics and sources for data triangulation.
Focus group Questionnaire
Table 3
Data analysis Content analysis Statistical analysis (descriptive
Characteristics of local and non-local population sample.
statistics)
Data triangulation Local Population Non-local population
Domain Stage Questions
Gender
External drivers Participants’ lifestyle
Women 4.5 % 60.5 %
Risk factors
Causes Men 95.5 % 39.5 %
Local causes Experience of forest fires
Highest Education level
Responsibility for prevention
Elementary 40.9 % 0.0 %
Government- Value of forests
Prevention High School 27.3 % 26.3 %
driven Prevention strategies
strategies Undergraduate 27.3 % 52.6 %
Citizen-driven Responsibility for prevention
More than undergraduate 4.5 % 26.3 %
Participants’ lifestyle
Lives close to the forest 90.9 % 60.5 %
different backgrounds were explored. Regarding the results from the Sees forest from home 95.5 % 65.8 %
questionnaire, a descriptive statistical analysis was applied. Sees forest daily 90.9 % 73.7 %
Following a content analysis complemented by triangulation data Previous Experience
from a questionnaire, a framework model is proposed which synthesises Has been affected by wildfires 59.1 % 26.3 %
Knows someone affected by wildfire 90.9 % 15.8 %
the insights collected and proposes an integrated relation between
causes and prevention strategies. Sample composed of local population (22) and non-local population (38); rela-
tive frequency per subgroup (absolute frequency).

5
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

lifestyle in relation to forested areas for the two groups of participants. Table 5
More than 90 % of the local participants lived close to a forest and saw Perceptions of forest fires: risk factors, responsibility for prevention, and
forested areas either from home or in their daily activities. On the other strategies.
hand, only half of the non-local population lived close to a forest or saw Local Non-local Total
one either from home or daily. Previous experience of forest fires also population population
differed between locals and non-locals: 62 % of locals claimed to have Forest fire risk factors: important
been affected by forest fires, and 95 % knew someone who had been (%)
affected. In contrast, only 24 % of non-local participants said that they Climate change and/or weather
41 % 66 % 57 %
conditions
had been affected by forest fires, and 38 % knew someone who had been
Lack of monitoring of forested land 36 % 66 % 55 %
affected. Lack of profitability 36 % 66 % 55 %
Table 4 shows the value of forests as attributed by respondents. No subsidies for forest cleaning 41 % 55 % 50 %
While there was overwhelming agreement with the fact that forests have Lack of biomass management 64 % 71 % 68 %
value, there were some differences between participants. For instance, Land abandonment 73 % 71 % 72 %
Responsibility for prevention: most
local participants valued forests less for the opportunity to practise responsible (%)
sporting or recreational activities than did the non-local population but Forest owners 33 % 32 % 32 %
recognised more the value attached to traditions and history. Central government 45 % 18 % 28 %
In terms of risk factor perceptions, there were differences between Local government 23 % 26 % 25 %
Non-responses 0% 24 % 15 %
participants of the community (Table 5). For non-locals, the risk of forest
Prevention strategy: very important
fires focused on three factors: a lack of monitoring of forested land, no (%)
subsidies for forest cleaning, and a lack of biomass management. On the Monitoring of state of land 55 % 84 % 70 %
other hand, locals identified land abandonment as the main forest fire Financial state support for forest
45 % 45 % 38 %
risk factor. activities
Land ownership registry 55 % 68 % 53 %
Regarding participants’ perceptions of the responsibility of protect-
Cleaning by owners 64 % 89 % 72 %
ing forests, they reported different opinions (see Table 5). For non-local Increase financing of firefighters 32 % 71 % 55 %
participants, the responsibility focuses on the forest owner. On the Fines for negligent forest owners 55 % 71 % 62 %
contrary, local participants held the central government responsible for Risk factor is considered important if rated 1 to 3 in a scale of 1: most important
protecting forests and preventing forest fires. As a prevention strategy, to 6: least important; responsibility for prevention elicited as 1 (most respon-
cleaning by owners was the most important strategy for both participant sible) to 3 (least responsible); prevention strategy on a scale of 1 (not important)
groups. Additionally, the monitoring of forests, increasing the funding of to 3 (very important); sample composed of local population (22) and non-local
firefighters, and enforcing fines for negligent owners were also population (38).
mentioned by non-local participants as important strategies. On the
other hand, local participants signalled the land ownership registry and driven activities that promote the occurrence of forest fires and corre-
fines as prevention strategies. spond mostly to temporally confined and specific factors, but also in-
cludes more structural causes that relate to ownership problems, which,
4.2. Focus groups: overview of the results from content analysis in turn, cause a lack of proper care for properties. As per Table 6, within
each domain, several categories were identified. Graph 1 reports the
Following the session structure (Table 1), the content analysis fell relative importance of each category for each subsample.
under two main topics: causes of forest fires as well as prevention stra- When aggregating the total mentions over external drivers relative to
tegies. For each topic, two domains were analysed and several categories local causes, we can see that the non-local population divided mentions
and nodes were identified. A summary list of the most relevant nodes for between both domains, whereas the local population gave more weight
each topic is presented in Table 6, and each topic will be explored in to external drivers (60 % of mentions within the subsample) and less to
more detail in the next subsections. local causes (40 %). This tendency is emphasised by decision makers,
who gave much less importance in the discussion to local causes (34 %)
4.3. Causes of forest fires than to external drivers (64 %).

The three participant groups (local, non-local, and decision makers) 4.3.1. External drivers
were asked about the main causes of forest fires, and we identified two Four thematic categories were identified by participants: rural
broad domains. The first domain — external drivers — reflects causes not paradigm shift, lack of economic profitability of forests, current government
directly related to local stakeholder activities, such as economic and policy, and natural factors. These are essentially factors beyond the direct
natural causes. The second domain — local causes — explores human- control of individuals that either reflect the current economic situation

Table 4
Forest values.
Local population Non-local population

Disagree (a Neither agree nor Agree (a Median Disagree (a Neither agree nor Agree (a Median
lot) disagree lot) response lot) disagree lot) response

The forest has value in itself and must be

0% 5% 95 % 5 0% 5% 95 % 5
protected (regardless of the cost).
The forest has value because of the tradition
0% 14 % 86 % 4 3% 24 % 74 % 4
and history associated with it.
The forest has value for the natural
0% 0% 100 % 5 0% 3% 97 % 4
landscape.
The forest has value because it allows the
0% 36 % 64 % 4 8% 21 % 71 % 5
practice of sports and recreation.

Responses elicited on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (agree), or 5 (strongly agree); sample composed of local population
(22) and non-local population (38).

6
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Table 6 of forests and the countryside or reflect natural causes. To better un-
NVivo summary list of topics. derstand participants’ perceptions, each category will be analysed in
Topic Domain Category Nodes (Concepts) more detail, and Table 7 presents the relative importance given to the
category for each subsample alongside illustrative quotes from the focus
Rural paradigm shift Abandonment
Cleaning cost groups.
Lack of economic No perceived value
profitability Lack of forest paths 4.3.1.1. Rural paradigm shift. The category rural paradigm shift relates to
Biomass accumulation
one important concept, namely the abandonment of rural locations in
Non-effectiveness of
External drivers forest policies favour of more urban locations and, as a consequence, of land near
Government policy
Lack of financial support forests. Decision makers and the local population emphasised that a
Lack of coordination more urban population contributes to rural land abandonment, creating
Climate change areas of unmanaged forests and nurturing dense fuel loads. Furthermore,
Weather conditions
Causes
Natural factors
Topography
old practices related to forests, such as grazing and the collection of
Tree species firewood, contribute to a reduction in biomass as well as a low-cost
Burn to clean solution to cleaning these terrains. With fewer local inhabitants and
Intentional fires
Forced timber sale an older remaining population, these habits will tend to disappear.
Arson
In the questionnaire responses reported in Table 5, this driver was
Prescribed burning
Inheritance issues the most significant amongst the local population. For the non-local
Local causes population, by contrast, this driver was almost negligible in the focus
Ownership issues Negligent neighbours
Unknown owner group discussion.
Lack of knowledge Thus, comparing these results with the risk factor perception re-
Negligence Cigarette smokers
Campfires
ported in Table 5, the findings are consistent: the local population listed
Repurposing biomass as the highest risk the abandonment of land (a mean of 2.42 on a scale of
Forest tracks decreasing seriousness of 1 to 6), contrary to non-locals (who found
Forest management
Territory surveillance other risk factors to be more serious) (Table 5). This could explain why
Tree species
policies 45 % of locals attributed the responsibility for prevention to the central
Regulations
Government-
Fines and penalties government (also because they know that forest owners do not live near
driven their land), contrary to non-locals, who identified forest owners as the
Fire registry
Infrastructure most responsible (32 %).
Promotion of economic
Financial support
Prevention activities
strategies Government subsidies 4.3.1.2. Lack of economic profitability. Graph 1 clearly shows the
Awareness and importance that the lack of economic profitability of forests and their
Citizenship
education products has as one of the main perceived causes of dangerousness and
Promotion of prevention forest fire risk. This is the category that is the most important in relative
Role of forest owners strategies
terms in each subsample. For this category, four nodes were identified:
Citizen-driven Biomass management
Monetary cleaning cost, no perceived value, a lack of forest paths, and biomass
Time accumulation.
Engagement
Experiencing forests The three participant groups referred to biomass accumulation in
Fire alert
forests as one of the main issues that follow low economic profitability.
Since forests do not yield significant incomes, it follows that any activity
for fire prevention that involves incurring costs is not undertaken, as is
the case of removing biomass. Decision makers in particular identified

Graph 1. Causes of forest fires: external drivers and local causes.

Sample composed of local population (22), non-local population (38), and decision makers (6); frequencies relative to total mentions in the topic causes are calculated
by subsample.

7
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Table 7
Main causes identified within the domain of external drivers: relative importance and illustrative statements.
Category Concepts Relative importance

Local Non-local Decision Illustrative statements

population population makers

Rural paradigm Abandonment ++ + ++ I realised that in my time, I’m talking about 20–25 years ago, a very large
shift percentage of the land was cleared (…) Because it was rare for a family not to have
their own fields, where they went to grow their crops (LP).
The thing that troubles us the most is depopulation and the abandonment of some of
the activities that we used to do (DM).
(…) A few years ago, when there was a rural exodus, people began to leave the
interior for the coast and began to abandon the forests, to leave the land (…) (NLP).
Lack of economic Cleaning cost ++ + +++ The problem is that you can’t afford it or you don’t have the profitability to clean it
profitability up (LP).
The average yield is very low — the cleaning costs are high (DM).
No perceived value + I don’t think the forest has ever been seen as a national asset, as a major source of
income, because there are no people in the interior either (NLP).
It’s just that I also think it’s a bit sloppy on the part of the population, because the
land, the forest, the undergrowth, inevitably always belongs to someone, whether
it’s a private individual or a company (DM).
Lack of forest paths ++ + + There’s a lack of cleanliness and sometimes there’s little access to get there (LP).
Sometimes fires break out and firefighters can’t reach certain parts of the forest
(NLP).
Biomass accumulation ++ +++ +++ We have a lot of land, that I think is one of the biggest problems in fuel management
itself (LP).
The average income is quite low. The costs are high in terms of cleaning. Either they
do it themselves or they do it with neighbours, friends, family or they have to hire it
out and it’s very expensive (DM).
Current Non-effectiveness of ++ ++ +++ (…) of the municipalities or councils or whatever, to carry out this cleaning, we
government current forest policies never in our lives have the means even to carry out this type of situation (LP).
policy I think that in order to combat this a bit, there needs to be a little more concern on
the part of the state and even some elements of civil protection (NLP).
Lack of financial support + + ++ (…) because when you create the conditions for people to live here and have an
income, there’s no doubt in my mind that they’ll start coming (LP).
It was more about creating economic incentives, creating (…) going to work with the
municipalities and local associations (NLP).
Lack of coordination + + The highest ranks take command of operations when they don’t even know the
terrain (LP).
(…) ends up making it difficult because other organisations don’t know the terrain
as well as we do (DM).
Natural factors Climate change + ++ ++ The climate is also changing (LP).
There are extremes in terms of climate (NLP).
(…) global warming, which I don’t think is the cause of the fires, but rather helps to
make them more frequent and stronger (DM).
Weather conditions + ++ It had rained a lot, but the land is dry — it’s still dry (LP).
(…) very heavy rain and wind, above normal (NLP).
Topography + + In a forested area with a steep slope (LP).
These terrains are very steep; in fact, they have a very aggressive slope (LP).
Tree species ++ + + Eucalyptus is gunpowder; it’s a type of tree that if there’s a fire, it’s all gone (LP).
The option for eucalyptus in some areas can facilitate the spread of fires (NLP).

For each subsample (LP = local population, NLP = non-local population, DM = decision makers), the relative importance is measured as the number of concept
mentions in relation to the total number of mentions for the topic causes: <5 %: +; [5 %;10 %[: ++; ≥10 %: +++.

cleaning cost alongside biomass accumulation as the main causes of Decision makers also identified the lack of financial support from the
forest fires. central government for measures enacted locally, mentioning small
The local population discussed several issues within this category budgets for forest and road cleaning as an example. Furthermore, the
with equal relevance, additionally mentioning the lack of clear access local population mentioned the state as providing little financial support
paths for when the need arises for firefighters to reach fires. for forest-related activities such as local tourism, which would make
forests more profitable. For locals, the burden of prevention was mostly
4.3.1.3. Current government policy. From the discussion with partici- on the central government. In fact, in the questionnaire they indicated
pants, current government policy was identified as a possible cause of fire that the central government held the most responsibility for forest fire
risk. According to participants’ perceptions, three concepts emerged: the prevention (followed by forest owners and, only then, the local
non-effectiveness of current forest policies, the lack of financial support, and government).
the lack of coordination. Comparing the perceptions of the three partici- One final node that was identified related to the lack of coordination
pant groups, the content analysis identifies differences. Decision makers between agencies related to forests and firefighting (as mentioned by all
highlighted the non-effectiveness of current policies; this is noteworthy groups). The case of local residents is noteworthy. From Table 3, we
because these agents either enforce or comply with the regulations know that this group had direct contact with forest fires (60 %) or knew
defined centrally. All participants agreed that forest policies were someone who had (90.9 %). In the discussion, some mentioned this
neither implemented nor audited if implemented. perception through previous experiences of a lack of coordination in
For the non-local population, the lack of monitoring of forested land relation to firefighting. Decision makers also shared this view.
was deemed to be the most important fire risk factor in the questionnaire
(mean score of 2 on a scale of decreasing seriousness of 1 to 6, Table 5). 4.3.1.4. Natural factors. The category natural factors captured 13–18 %

8
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

of total mentions within the topic of causes, and there were four con- domain of local causes.
cepts mentioned by participants: climate change, weather conditions,
topography, and tree species. For the local population, the type of tree 4.3.2.1. Intentional fires. The category intentional fires include the use of
species seemed to be the main natural cause of increased fire risk and the fire in different activities that can become uncontrollable and cause a
probability of fire ignition. These participants argued that the loss of larger forest fire. The non-local population group approached the issue
native species promotes easy ignition and development of forest fires. As mostly from the perspective of prescribed burning that got out of con-
the local population live close to forested areas (90.9 % of respondents, trol. There were also mentions to fires set by wood intermediaries who
according to Table 3), they are aware of the real composition of forests then buy burnt timber at low prices. Another illegal activity mentioned,
in terms of native and non-native species and have experience of their but only by non-locals, is arson.
resilience to forest fires. Topography was also mentioned by some par- On the other hand, decision makers and the local population
ticipants whose mention alluded to the difficulty in reaching some ter- mentioned the use of intentional fires as a way of cleaning forests and
rains for cleaning, monitoring and firefighting. properties, which reduces the cost of cleaning. Additionally, the local
The non-local population referred to two factors: climate change and population provided examples where prescribed burning gets out of
weather conditions. This group discussed the impact of climate change control. Indeed, these stakeholders argued that the use of fire as a
associated with weather conditions on the major fires experienced in strategy for biomass management may constitute a serious risk of the
Portugal in 2017, namely that prolonged periods of drought combined ignition and spread of forest fires, especially if combined with particular
with high temperatures and unstable weather conditions can favour fire weather conditions.
ignition. As for decision makers, the most cited natural factor was
climate change. 4.3.2.2. Ownership issues. Three concepts were introduced by partici-
pants which we classified as ownership issues: issues involving inheritances,
4.3.2. Local causes negligent neighbours, and unknown owners. When comparing the percep-
The ignition and spread of forest fires depend on many factors related tions of the three groups of participants, some differences emerged. The
to human actions or the lack of actions at a local level. In this domain, results show greater relevance for the local population in comparison to
three categories were referred to by participants: intentional fires, the other two groups (Graph 1 and Table 7).
ownership issues, and negligence. The local population referred to inheritance issues to explain the lack
From the results in Graph 1, some differences are already visible of responsibility for properties, as the division and assumption of re-
between the three participant groups. For the non-local population the sponsibility are often dragged into courts. In other cases, heirs do not
main cause of forest fires attributable to human activities was that of assume responsibility for a particular land.
intentional fires, while for decision makers it was negligence. The local In the same vein, decision makers mentioned unknown ownership as
population highlighted ownership issues often experienced close to their a risk factor, as well as the continuing trend of forest and rural aban-
homes, namely unknown owners or inheritance issues which delay the donment leading to owners that are non-residents and/or do not have an
assumption of ownership, with there being consequences for land active interest in their properties. In both cases, forests are not managed,
cleaning. which worsens the probability of the occurrence of forest fires.
Table 8 displays the concepts found for each category within the

Table 8
Main causes identified within the domain of local causes: relative importance and illustrative statements.
Category Concepts Relative importance

Local Non-local Decision Illustrative statements

population population makers

Intentional Burn to clean + + ++ It burnt out. It got clean. It took a load off my mind (LP).
fires These fires are carried out for this purpose, reducing the biomass in the soil (NLP).
Land conversion (DM).
Forced timber ++ People burn forests mainly for economic reasons (DM).
sale (…) but a very lucrative business (LP).
Now, we know that things happen later. There’s the timber industry. There are many
interests behind it (NLP).
Arson + Actually, the first thing that comes to mind is the human hand and, in this case, the criminal
hand (NLP).
Prescribed ++ +++ A large part of the fires are caused by the burning itself, the burning and the way it is done
burning (LP).
(…) clearing undergrowth, it can and does fall. If a spark jumps out and causes a fire,
sometimes it can be due to these causes of land clearing (NLP).
Ownership Inheritance ++ + + (…) the abandonment of the villages has led to inheritance problems; nobody knows what
issues issues they have (LP).
(…) Inheritance is one of the major problems in identifying land (DM).
Negligent + + The neighbour next door hasn’t even cleared his land. I don’t even know whose land that is.
neighbours Do you? (LP)
(…) So the main cause, in my opinion, is man (NLP).
Unknown owner ++ + ++ (…) the owner is unknown (DM).
(…) everything is abandoned. The owner is unknown (LP).
Lack of + ++ (…) sometimes because of a lack of, I don’t know if it’s, training or perhaps a greater ease
knowledge on the part of people (LP).
I think that the population’s lack of care and knowledge (…) (NLP).
Negligence Cigarette + ++ When using spaces, people often lack citizenship and easily throw their rubbish on the
smokers ground, which can then be triggered at some point (LP).
Popular festivals with the launching of firecrackers, cigarettes (…) (NLP).
Campfires ++ ++ ++ We also always have those human errors, like burning in summer (NLP).

For each subsample (LP = local population, NLP = non-local population, DM = decision makers), relative importance is measured as the number of concept mentions in
relation to the total number of mentions within each subsample for the topic causes: <5 %: +; [5 %;10 %[: ++; ≥10 %: +++.

9
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Additionally, if there is no known owner, already budget-constrained forest cleaning.

local agencies can perform little maintenance, whose costs they are Each category will be analysed in detail based on the concepts
not likely to recover. At the same time, the fact that a terrain is private identified in Table 5 and reported in Table 9.
property legally limits what third parties can do.
For decision makers, the lack of a property registry creates fire risks 4.4.1.1. Forest management policies. Within the scope of government-
and is due mainly to the depopulation of rural areas. For decision driven prevention strategies, several measures and regulations were
makers, this lack of clear property responsibility makes it difficult to mentioned by the participants, namely those that promote sustainable
promote forest markets and land management. forest management. For this category, seven concepts were identified in
the discussion: repurposing biomass, forest tracks, territory surveillance, tree
4.3.2.3. Negligence. The category negligence includes bad use of fire by species, regulations, fines and penalties, and fire registry.
citizens in different activities: the lack of knowledge, cigarette smokers, and In terms of responsibility, the questionnaire data showed that the
campfires. The non-local population and decision makers considered that local population attributed the responsibility of fire prevention to the
the lack of knowledge in general as to how fires start and develop could central government (45 %), so it is natural that they placed great
lead to unintentional fires. emphasis on government-driven measures. Two major ideas emerged
Two specific examples were then mentioned repeatedly in the three from the discussion, namely the need to attach economic value to
groups, namely behaviour by cigarette smokers and, in particular, the biomass as well as the continued need for regulations, dictating, for
use of campfires. instance, the mandatory cleaning of terrains. Additionally, these par-
ticipants highlighted the role of forest tracks which allow access in the
4.4. Prevention strategies case of fire and contribute to proper surveillance, which was also valued
as a prevention measure. Respondents noted the reduction in forest
The first domain within prevention strategies is government-led pre- rangers, who knew the terrain and had a central role in identifying
vention, which comprises the role of government in the development problems. Finally, several participants argued that care should be taken
and implementation of structures and policies to decrease the occur- in terms of choosing species for forests because (in their experience)
rence of forest fires. The second domain focused on the role that in- autochthonous species are more resilient to fires.
dividuals can play in prevention. Graph 2 divides mentions between the Decision makers overwhelmingly supported the role of government-
two domains of prevention strategies and within domains. We can led initiatives (90 % of mentions), as opposed to the role of citizens (10
observe that government-driven measures were mostly mentioned by %). They mostly mentioned financial measures (60 %). As for forest
the local population (86 % of mentions) and decision makers (90 %). policies, they also agreed with the need to repurpose biomass in an
Non-locals divided their mentions between citizen-driven (54 %) and economically feasible way. There should be more territory surveillance
government-driven (46 %), so they placed much more of the burden for and more care in the choice of tree species. In general, the suggestions of
prevention on individual responsibility. decision makers and those of the local population are similar.
On the contrary, the non-local population see the issue of forest fire
4.4.1. Government-driven prevention strategies prevention differently. As mentioned, they are roughly divided between
The role of government was divided into two categories related to the role of government measures and the role of citizen-driven measures,
governmental prevention strategies: forest management measures and which is consistent with the finding from the questionnaire that the
financial support. The first category comprises the design, implementa- main responsibility for prevention is that of forest owners (32 %), fol-
tion and enforcement of measures and regulations that contribute to lowed by the local government (26 %) and, only then, the central gov-
sustainable management of forests. The second category concerns direct ernment (18 %). This corresponds to a bottom-up responsibility
subsidising by the state through investment in infrastructure, promoting perspective. The most mentioned measure was territory surveillance. In
the economic profitability of forests, and direct financial incentives for the questionnaire, non-locals indicated that monitoring of the territory

Graph 2. Prevention strategies for forest fires: government- and citizen-driven.

Sample composed of local population (22), non-local population (38), and decision makers (6); frequencies relative to total mentions in the topic prevention strategies
are calculated by subsample.

10
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Table 9
Main measures identified within the domain of government-driven prevention strategies: relative importance and illustrative statements.
Category Concepts Relative importance

Local Non-local Decision Illustrative statements

population population makers

Forest management Repurposing biomass +++ + +++ That’s why I think that if there was a service that collected the firewood that wasn’t usable, that
policies wasn’t recycling, it could be distributed, shredded, or deposited in a place where it could rot and
even provide natural organic matter (LP).
Forest tracks ++ + I think that prevention — we have a series of forest paths (LP).
Ensuring access so that firefighters can move into the forest and put out a fire (NLP).
Territory surveillance ++ +++ + Tourists can be both a factor in causing fires and a factor in keeping an eye out for fires (LP).
It’s basically the cleaning-up and the supervision, which should be stricter (LP).
I’d say daily vigilance, clearing the forests (…) I think I’d say those two (NLP).
Tree species ++ + +++ We can talk about other trees where it’s possible to make a different profit from these (LP).
As I’ve already mentioned, it’s perhaps the greatest diversity of tree species (DM).
Regulations +++ ++ Land use planning I think is fundamental (LP).
So, perhaps to complement what my colleague said, this cleaning, in other words, there is a legal
obligation, I believe, for owners to do the cleaning, that is, there are government policies that
require the engagement of owners on biomass management.”
Fines and penalties + ++ Supervision and penalisation through the local authority, that’s what it has to be if not and if
the government doesn’t watch over it, if there’s no vigilance (LP).
We used to have forest rangers and there were people who controlled it, who watched over it,
and nowadays that’s no longer the case, or at least there are far fewer people looking after so
much territory (NLP).
The government should help. It should help, it should supervise, and it should also fine those
who don’t comply (…) (LP).
Fire registry + Controlled burning at the right times (LP).
Financial support Support infrastructure + In addition to what has already been said, I think they should also invest in more technical
resources and more efficient equipment (NLP).
Promotion of + But maybe if there was more support and if there was more support for small ruminants and
economic activities more incentives (LP).
Create support, support for the farmers who still survive in the villages and try to pull others
there (LP).
Government subsidies +++ +++ +++ The support that the council or town hall can give is always very residual (NLP).
Okay, if there were some kind of government incentive, some kind of aid, of course it would stay
cleaner. It would be easier to succeed (LP).
There’s no planning because, apparently, there’s no money to incentivise landowners to clean
up their land (LP).
The government should help. It should help, it should supervise (…) and those who do these
things, but with help. Otherwise there’s no chance of keeping the land clean (LP).
It’s the wrong investment for that person, but it’s the perfect investment for society (DM).

For each subsample (LP = local population, NLP = non-local population, DM = decision makers), the relative importance is measured as the number of concept
mentions in relation to the total number of mentions for the topic prevention strategies: <5 %: +; [5 %;10 %[: ++; ≥10 %: +++.

was a very important strategy (84 % of respondents), alongside However, all groups agreed that the government could subsidise the
increasing the financing of firefighters as well as fines for negligent cleaning of forests, since it was broadly acknowledged that exploring
owners (71 % of respondents). forests, as a non-industrial operation, is not profitable. Some terrains
The discussion of prevention strategies did not highlight the need for (due to their topography) would not be profitable even for industrial
a more thorough land ownership registry. This is an ongoing process in operations. Local governments lack the funds for these subsidies, so the
Portugal. However, this concept emerged in the discussion of causes in suggestions mostly called for the central government to implement a
terms of ownership issues. Because of the fact that ownership cannot be subsidy policy.
clearly attributed to a person, responsibility for the land is not possible, One suggestion that also transpired from the discussion was a shift in
nor is the possibility of enforcing regulations. In fact, 55 % of locals and how forests are perceived so that the obligation to care for them is also
68 % of non-locals deemed this measure to be very important for fire shared by society. As one decision maker argued: “It’s the wrong invest-
prevention in the questionnaire; however, it did not appear frequently in ment for that person, but it’s the perfect investment for society” (DM). In the
the discussion. questionnaire, both locals and non-locals agreed that “forests have value
in themselves and should be protected (regardless of cost)” (95 % in
4.4.1.2. Financial support. The category financial support was particu- agreement).
larly noted by decision makers (60 % of mentions). From the discussion,
it emerged that in their different roles they acknowledged that there 4.4.2. Citizen-driven prevention strategies
were few funds at their disposal. For example, local officials complained In terms of the role that can be played by citizens in prevention
that the annual budget for cleaning roads did not cover the number of strategies, some differences also emerged between the groups (Graph 2):
required operations dictated by regulations. Responsibilities often were the non-local population emphasised the role of citizens more than did
delegated to the local government without the corresponding budget the other groups, with about half of their mentions (54 %), whereas it
transfer. was residual in the discussion with the local population (14 %) and
The non-local population mentioned a few measures that can be decision makers (10 %).
labelled as financial. In the questionnaire, 71 % deemed that increasing The concepts identified for each category can be compared in
the financing of firefighters was a very important prevention strategy, Table 10.
but only 45 % said the same about giving financial support to forest
activities. 4.4.2.1. Awareness and education. The category awareness and education

11
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

reflected a concern surrounding the low levels of understanding of what mentions). The results suggest that engagement can take the form of
causes a forest fire amongst the population in general. time spent in nature and in a forest environment. The non-local popu-
The non-local population argued that educating the population could lation discussed their willingness to participate in prevention activities
promote more responsible behaviours, for example, when someone such as forest cleaning.
sporadically came into contact with forests as a tourist. In fact, in the Additionally, it was mentioned that individuals who had engaged in
questionnaire, 71 % of non-locals agreed that forests have value because the past with forests were more likely to value forests and be more
they allow for sporting and recreational activities; therefore, there is a concerned about conservation and forest fire prevention. Several par-
predisposition to visit forests for their own fruition, and they concluded ticipants mentioned forest activities undertaken in their formative years
that more responsible behaviours are needed. Participants narrated in the form of either family activities or educational activities that
anecdotes of irresponsible behaviours mostly in the summer in the shaped their perception of forests and nature; as such, they considered
context of picnics and outdoor activities. Awareness campaigns could that these could promote socially responsible behaviours in the future.
prevent these behaviours. One minor issue discussed concerned the possibility of individuals
receiving alerts from civil protection calling on responsible behaviour
4.4.2.2. Role of forest owners. While the previous concept related to the when the probability of forest fires was high.
population in general, this concept specifically concerned forest owners.
All groups emphasised that forest owners should behave in a socially 5. Discussion
responsible manner. The overall responses to the questionnaire
demonstrated the role of forest owners in being responsible for protec- 5.1. Causes
tion and prevention (about one third of respondents agreed that they
held primary responsibility for forest fire prevention, according to There is a large volume of literature on factors related to the
Table 5). Additionally, as presented in Table 3, forest cleaning by owners occurrence of forest fires, where several elements are identified as
was seen by non-locals (89 %) and locals (64 %) to be a very important influencing the occurrence of forest fires, namely human activities,
prevention strategy. vegetation dynamics, changing climate, and forest management
Participants cited two main activities that can be developed by forest (Moreira et al., 2011; Nyongesa and Vacik, 2018). Natural causes (e.g.
owners: engagement in prevention strategies and biomass management. For lightning, volcanic incidents) play a minor role (Hesseln, 2018). Several
decision makers, the role of forest owners should be to engage in ac- authors reported the impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire
tivities that decrease the occurrence of forest fires on their properties. weather and fire season length (Abatzoglou et al., 2019; Barbero et al.,
On the other hand, the non-local population discussed biomass man- 2020; Krikken et al., 2021; Papagiannaki et al., 2020; Taylor and
agement and developing value-creating opportunities from it. These Alexander, 2006; Van Oldenborgh et al., 2021). The results in the
strategies improve biomass management, reduce the use of fire as a literature demonstrate that climate is one of the drivers of the complex
cleaning strategy, and yield a lower probability of negligent behaviours. interactions amongst environmental, ecological and human factors
The local population mentioned instances in which other residents used influencing forest fire regime and forest fire impacts. In fact, there is
machinery on hot and dry days, which caused unintentional fire igni- evidence of the role of climate change in the occurrence of forest fires
tions. It was thus concluded that more education for forest owners was through increased temperature, humidity, wind, and carbon dioxide in
needed. the atmosphere, as well as an increase in the dryness of burnable fuels
(Abatzoglou et al., 2019; Barbero et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2022; Van
4.4.2.3. Engagement. The engagement of citizens emerged from the Oldenborgh et al., 2021). Fuel dryness was in fact one of the main causes
discussion as a possible strategy with which to change individual be- of the severe fire season in southwest Europe in 2022 (Rodrigues et al.,
haviours, and was mostly identified by the non-local population (23 % of 2023). Even though human activities are most often the leading cause of

Table 10
Main measures identified within the domain of citizen-driven prevention strategies: relative importance and illustrative statements.
Category Concepts Relative importance

Local Non-local Decision Illustrative statements

population population makers

Awareness and Citizenship + +++ + The promotion of citizenship amongst visitors and tourists can help tackle fires … (LP).
education I was saying that there needs to be this concern, but we need to find ways for this concern to
come from the people (NLP).
Role of forest Engagement in ++ + ++ It’s basically the cleaning-up and the supervision, which should be stricter (LP).
owners prevention strategies This prevention of cleaning, in other words, there is an obligation, I believe, for the owners to
clean (NLP).
Biomass management + +++ So there are two options: either clean it and sell it or hand it over to a cleaning company (LP).
It’s the landowner’s responsibility to clean up after themselves (NLP).
Engagement Monetary + I usually contribute financially to these causes as well as to animal causes. Every month I
donate to these two causes (NLP).
Time ++ There is a huge involvement of civil society (…) they are volunteers, young people from schools
who volunteer (NLP).
Experiencing forests +++ I think that direct contact with the forest shows a lot, and from my experience too (NLP).
Fire alert + + (…) alarm that triggers a warning to the national civil protection authority, to the fire brigade
depending on its location, can be something, an asset for people — that’s all (LP).
Avoid these fires at the hottest times. But this is also due to the warnings that go out and the
people who have this responsibility. I think it’s part of their responsibility to follow these
instructions (NLP).

For each subsample (LP = local population, NLP = non-local population, DM = decision makers), the relative importance is measured as the number of concept
mentions in relation to the total number of mentions for the topic prevention strategies: <5 %: +; [5 %;10 %[: ++; ≥10 %: +++.

12
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

fire ignition (Nyongesa and Vacik, 2018), climate change amplifies the their profitability, and thus the need for governments to subsidise these
intensity and duration of forest fires. In the focus groups, natural causes activities. All groups acknowledged that the lack of or low profitability
captured 13–18 % of the discussion, including climate change. The of forests (except for large paper pulp industry properties) was a major
participants also acknowledged weather conditions and even the cause of forest fires in Portugal. In turn, this leads to the lack of main-
topography of the terrains and land cover. This aligns with the empirical tenance of land as well as no cleaning of biomass, including in forest
literature on natural causes for forest fires (e.g. Bergonse et al., 2021). tracks (which prevents access for both surveillance and firefighting).
Other forces, however, namely social, economic and human forces, had Similarly in Greece, Palaiologou et al. (2021) mention little institutional
more salience. support for fuel treatments, arguing for the need to reform forest fire
Human activities are typically related to agricultural and forestry management policies to take these costs into consideration.
operations, garbage dumps, and/or irresponsible behaviour. It is ex- In terms of group differences, some differences are however present
pected that human-caused fire ignitions in forests will increase in the between the local groups and non-locals. The local population and de-
future because climate change may affect fire season length and severity. cision makers highlighted external drivers over local causes. Both local
Major social and economic changes in land use result in an increased groups gave similar high importance to the lack of economic profit-
amount of biomass as well as higher exposure to human-induced fire ability and negligence. The population also emphasised, relative to the
(Bacciu et al., 2022; Moore, 2019; Palaiologou et al., 2021). The results other groups, ownership issues. Since the presence of negligent neigh-
of our study support the literature, finding that involved stakeholders bours or lack of owner identification leads to neglect of forest, it is un-
indeed perceive that the main causes of the occurrence of forest fires are derstandable that locals stress these issues. Decision makers highlight
related to human activities and often negligence (Meira Castro et al., different elements of government policy, which stems from their privi-
2020 for Portugal and Ganteaume et al., 2013 and Europe). Addition- leged perspective in loco of policies defined centrally.
ally, Pandey et al. (2023) document that enforcement of the law in Also, noteworthy is the fact that the non-local population split their
Portugal is often weak and as such owners neglect their legal discussions between external drivers and local causes, giving more
obligations. weight to local causes related to individual responsibility than the other
An important cause highlighted in the focus group discussion related groups. A closer inspection of the causes reveals that non-locals gave
to external socioeconomic drivers that indirectly influence the ignition much more importance to intentional fires than the local groups.
or development of forest fires. The current situation in European Med-
iterranean woodlands can, in fact, be explained by the main causes re- 5.2. Prevention strategies
ported by participants, namely the depopulation of rural areas (because
of better employment opportunities in urban areas) and an increase in Fire suppression is a measure commonly used around the world to
the average age of the rural population (Bacciu et al., 2022; Nyongesa counteract the growing risk of wildland fire outbreaks (Dube, 2013).
and Vacik, 2018; Papagiannaki et al., 2020; Valente et al., 2015a; Vélez, However, there is evidence of increasing limitations to this strategy in
2002). While agricultural activities were a source of income for the the presence of more extreme forest fire events due to, for instance,
population, forests were also cared for. However, the rural paradigm climate change and rural abandonment. In this case, fire suppression is
shift promotes the abandonment of traditional practices in rural envi- an expensive and inefficient strategy (Jazebi et al., 2019; Tedim et al.,
ronments, such as grazing and the collection of firewood, which, 2018). Indeed, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
consequently, leads to biomass accumulation, whereby contributing to Nations (FAO) Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines recommend to
easy ignition of forest fires as well as rapid proliferation. authorities that firefighting should be an integral part of a broader, more
Additionally, the loss of population and traditions raises other issues coherent and more balanced policy (FAO, 2006).
related to ownership and responsibility issues. The participants believed The focus on fire management needs to move from reactive strategies
that the abandonment of land contributes to a lack of maintenance. to preventive strategies that harness public participation, particularly
These results corroborate the arguments of Vélez (2002) and Jazebi et al. local populations, to both generate knowledge and implement strategies
(2019), who suggest that the abandonment of land cultivation results in (Tàbara et al., 2003). Fire suppression is indeed not enough in the
forest formation with fuel accumulation, in which ignitions can easily context of more impactful fires (Moore, 2019) and there is a “need to
spread, take on high speeds and intensities, and are extremely difficult to develop more proactive, people-centred and integrated fire management
control. Negligent behaviour by “neighbours” as well as problems with along the entire risk management cycle of prevention, preparedness,
owner identification were mentioned by locals and decision makers. response and recovery” (Wunder et al., 2021, p. 2). Several authors have
This difficulty in coordinating fire prevention actions amongst small thus argued for the need to develop new strategies for integrated fire
property owners is indeed a problem documented in Portugal (Canadas management that shift the emphasis from fire suppression strategies and
and Novais, 2019). can support communities and policymakers in finding effective and
Uninformed use of fires was also identified as a meaningful cause of efficient approaches to prevent damaging fires (Baskent et al., 2020;
forest fires. Often what is observed is “slash and burn” for agricultural Jazebi et al., 2019; Nyongesa and Vacik, 2018; Wunder et al., 2021),
purposes or systemic burning as a strategy for the cleaning of properties, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder per-
performed by producers and the local population (Oliveira and Fer- spectives to be included when thinking about forest fire issues.
nandes, 2023). Sometimes these controlled fires become uncontrolled Several solutions have been proposed to improve fire management
with the right weather conditions. Tedim et al. (2016) argue that and governance (Tedim et al., 2018; Wunder et al., 2021). Forest fire
traditional uses of fires have been very limited by regulations, which prevention strategies are usually designed to directly target the source of
tends to foster illegal behaviours by the population. the problem (Alló and Loureiro, 2020; Wunder et al., 2021). Martínez
As for arson, only the non-local population mentioned it as a et al. (2009) suggest that different types of human-caused forest fires
meaningful cause of forest fires. Noteworthy is the fact that neither the might require different approaches to their prevention. From the focus
local populations and decision makers viewed it as even worth group discussion, two broad domains of prevention emerged, namely
mentioning. This contrasts with the results from the 2011 questionnaire government-led measures and regulations, and through a more
by Ribeiro et al. (2015) where 79 % of local residents identified this as a responsibly engaged population in general. There was a clear difference
cause. between the importance attributed to these two domains. The local
A problem discussed by participants is the high cost of cleaning population and decision makers mostly mentioned government-driven
associated with the lack of government support for these activities. Our measures preferring a more top-down approach. On the contrary, the
results are in line with the literature. In the focus group discussion, this non-local population split their suggestions between government and
was a recurring theme: the costs of maintaining clean forests relative to citizen-led measures.

13
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Several elements of forest management policies were mentioned. For sustainable forest-based bioeconomy” (p. 9). It is noted that there need
example, decision makers and the local population highlighted the to be education and training for foresters that are specifically adapted to
importance of choosing more fire resisting land cover, in line with the “the challenges and needs of today’s realities” (p. 9). On the other hand,
analysis of Benali et al. (2021). The local population also highlighted the involvement of the educational community is also invoked (“the Com-
role for more regulation. Given that law enforcement for fire prevention mission will further promote cooperation and connect pupils, students,
is deemed weak (Pandey et al., 2023), this is evident to the local pop- teachers and stakeholders on the role of forests, including on the benefits
ulation, who then demand more regulations. To a much lesser extent of outdoor learning”, European Commission, 2021, p. 10).
they mention the enforcement of fines and penalties, while non-locals
give this element more importance. More and better territory surveil- 5.3. Framework of causes and prevention strategies
lance is mentioned in particular by non-locals. Some participants
exemplify that even local visitors can help in this task (which is explored Forest fires are an important element of the forest ecosystem (Alló
in Valente et al., 2024 as an approach to help in scattered forest and Loureiro, 2020). During the 20th century, however, the increase in
surveillance). the number of fires and burnt areas surpassed the capacity of these
On the one hand, it became clear in the discussion that the lack of ecosystems to recover following the fires (Pausas and Keeley, 2009).
economic profitability of forests justified some type of financial support Despite the damage caused to the forests, this increase has generated
to owners. With much lower importance, the participants mentioned the negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts (Nyongesa and
promotion of other sources of income, e.g. repurposing biomass, as well Vacik, 2018).
as other economic activities (such as tourism). The case for the use of The occurrence of some of the most catastrophic fire episodes in
biomass as an energy source in Mediterranean countries has been terms of impacts on society has been related to multiple interacting
explored by Puy et al. (2008) using PIA methodology and by Pinto et al. drivers such as land use, socioeconomic processes, and forest manage-
(2022) in the case of Portugal, specifically as a co-benefit of promoting ment (Barbero et al., 2020; Couto et al., 2020; Turco et al., 2019).
more sustainable land management for forest fire prevention. Pinto et al. Correspondingly, different fire prevention approaches have been pro-
(2022) argue that as long as forest fire prevention is valued by society in posed in the literature (Schultz et al., 2019; Tedim et al., 2018; Wunder
general, biomass use for energy purposes can be subsidised to overcome et al., 2021). In this context, the present study was designed to propose a
the low profitability of forests. Similarly, Sirous et al. (2020) propose fire management framework through a participatory integrated assess-
that developing mixed biomass pelleting could help prevent forest fires ment. Three types of stakeholders were identified, namely at a local level
in Portugal. The European Commission’s Forest Strategy for 2030 (population and decision makers) and, more broadly, national residents.
(2021) acknowledges the need to improve the income of forest owners, Combining these three perspectives, we can provide a holistic view of
particularly small ones, to promote better forest management. Some of the problem and the potential solutions. This view can serve as the basis
the measures discussed include the development of bioenergy, the for legitimising policy proposals, as it is based on stakeholders’ beliefs
development of ecotourism, and payment for ecosystem services pro- and insights. Indeed, the European Forest Institute recommends that
vided by forests. This is in line with some conclusions from the study by participatory assessment and mapping of risk perceptions be undertaken
Ascoli et al. (2023) and more broadly with the recommendation of the as part of a “governance model for tackling the diverse drivers and
European Forest Institute to foster “self-sustaining socioeconomic ac- systematic causes of wildfire risk” (Mauri et al., 2023, p. 9).
tivities in the forest that prevent wildfires as a subsidiary effect” (Mauri The framework model proposed in Fig. 2 intends to help commu-
et al., 2023, p. 10). nities and managers to address causes and prevention within the context
On the other hand, through education and raised awareness, it is of natural environments and socioeconomic systems in which forest fires
expected that the negligence of forest owners as well as users of the occur. This tool explains the interaction between perceived causes of
forest would be reduced. For example, Schulte and Miller (2010) suggest forest fires, the risk of different activities or conditions, and the devel-
that increasing the perception of prevention efficacy amongst forest opment of prevention guidelines. Based on the perceptions and beliefs of
owners can be a key decision factor for some. Previous studies suggest different stakeholders, the framework proposes to help identify
that forest owners lack specific or accurate information or knowledge on perceived causes of forest fires, both in terms of direct human actions
how to perform mitigation activities (Bright and Burtz, 2006; Nelson and indirectly through forested land use. In accordance with these
et al., 2004). This is also the case in Portugal, where studies have found causes, prevention strategies can directly target individuals and, thus,
that individuals lack knowledge as to risk factors and prevention stra- harness citizens’ involvement, or do so indirectly through structural
tegies (Oliveira et al., 2020) and the policy measures in place (Valente policy.
et al., 2015b). Participants in the focus groups believed that environ-
mental education could contribute to more sustainable practices such as 6. Conclusion
better biomass management, whereby promoting forest sustainability
and decreasing the risk of forest fires. Indeed, controlled burning is part Implementing and adopting forest fire prevention programmes re-
of a sustainable forest management strategy but needs to be done with quires knowledge beyond understanding forest fires as natural phe-
responsibility and knowledge (Naveh, 1994). As the participants nomena. The stakeholder involvement underlying our research strategy
mentioned, registering controlled fires is not sufficient, as the weather allows us to understand the perceptions and beliefs regarding fire risk
can suddenly shift and conditions perhaps will no longer be favourable and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. There have been few
for this activity. studies involving stakeholders’ inputs as to the perceptions about forests
The focus group discussion stressed the relevance of awareness and and forest fires in Portugal. Our study is the first to use a participatory
education. Several studies mention emotional attachment and education approach to propose an integrated assessment of causes and prevention
as significant determinants of preventive behaviour (Brenkert et al., strategies for forest fires in Portugal, and that combines the perspectives
2005; Chen et al., 2021; Hesseln, 2018; Wunder et al., 2021). Accord- of different groups of local and non-local population, alongside decision
ingly, the participants in this study suggested as a prevention measure makers.
the need for more direct engagement with forests by individuals to make This study intends to combine insights from different stakeholder
forest fire prevention more relevant for present and future generations. groups for a fire management framework with which to address both
In line with the appreciation given by the focus group participants, causes and prevention strategies. The three groups of stakeholders
we find that the European Commission’s Forest Strategy for 2030 (2021) provide different but complementary perspectives on the issues under
recognises as a policy objective the development of skills of forest study, which stem from their different involvement with forests and
stakeholders, which, in turn, would help “empowering people for forest fires. In combination, the perspectives of these three different

14
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Fig. 2. Framework of causes and prevention strategies from the PIA FGs.

groups provides a more thorough picture of forest fires. Where a group methodology is however translatable into other contexts. We should
of stakeholders emphasizes some elements, others will highlight other bear in mind that forest fires are complex issues from a natural science
elements. The framework presented in this paper is an attempt to perspective and involve many stakeholders in terms of their impact. To
combine these perceptions into a more thorough perspective. better design prevention strategies and move the focus from reactive
The causes, as perceived by participants, were mostly associated strategies, public participation of stakeholders harnesses their specific
with economic factors and a lack of knowledge and awareness of the views on local dynamics (as highlighted in the recommendations of the
risks involved in the use of fire. The non-local population placed more European Forest Institute in Mauri et al., 2023). This enriches the sci-
emphasis on local causes associated with a high perception of inten- entific understanding of the more complex socio-ecological interactions
tional fires and negligent behaviour. For the local population and de- and helps to design more bottom-up and more realist strategies. Addi-
cision makers, external causes were more relevant. The population tionally, prevention strategies that are perceived by local actors to be
focused more on what they observe directly: ownership issues and lack more effective are likely to be welcomed and validated by those directly
of economic profitability. Decision makers highlighted failings in cur- involved, which can in turn contribute to their effectiveness. Ultimately
rent forest policy and the lack of financial support for forest-related involving stakeholders in policy design and decision making improves
activities. public support and the social acceptability of policies and legitimises
Prevention strategies significantly relied on government intervention them.
and a shift in awareness by direct actors and the population in general Complex issues require multidisciplinary and multiple approaches,
(essentially supported through government action, namely education and the present paper hopes to contribute to the debate on forest fire
and information policies). The non-local population gave equal atten- prevention by illustrating the use of PIA methodology. Identifying and
tion to citizen driven measures, illustrated in their willingness to be understanding the elements that influence the occurrence of forest fires
directly involved. They also gave more importance to the promotion of from the perspective of stakeholders can thus provide an insightful basis
citizenship when it comes to forests. The local population suggested for continued research. It is, however, an inherently partial view of the
several elements of forest management policy, while decision makers reality that can be complemented by contributions from other stake-
overwhelmingly supported financial measures. holders, e.g. central government agents, and/or experts from academia
Interestingly, the views of different stakeholders were not conflicting or civil protection. It is a methodology that can be scaled up to other
regarding the causes or prevention strategies. All shared an interest in regional or national contexts and, thus, further enrich the discussion
conservation. It was thus consensual the urgency to devise management surrounding this complex challenge.
strategies that foster the preservation of forested landscapes providers of
valuable ecosystem services, which is in line with current EU policies. Funding
This study is exploratory in nature and was analysed specifically
within the Portuguese case. As such, it precludes the generalisability of This work was supported through national funds from FCT -
the results to other contexts or populations. The recruitment strategy Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [projects PCIF/AGT/0153/2018
using convenience sampling, the focus on specific locations and the and UIDB/03182/2020 (LCP and MV) and PCIF/GRF/0050/2019 (CF)].
small sample size limit the conclusions that can be drawn for a broader The funder had no role in the study design and data analysis.
and different territory. While the insights from the focus group discus-
sions may not be representative of the national population, the

15
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

CRediT authorship contribution statement Cabral, P., Campos, F.S., David, J., Caser, U., 2021. Disentangling ecosystem services
perception by stakeholders: an integrative assessment based on land cover. Ecol.
Indic. 126, 107660 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107660.
Carla Ferreira: Writing – original draft, Validation, Software, Calkin, D.E., Cohen, J.D., Finney, M.A., Thompson, M.P., 2014. How risk management
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Lígia Costa can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface. Proc. Natl.
Pinto: Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Software, Re- Acad. Sci. 111 (2), 746–751. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315088111.
Canadas, M.J., Novais, A., 2019. Forest owners and fuels management coordination.
sources, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, When neighbours’ actions matter. Scand. J. For. Res. 34 (1), 67–77. https://doi.org/
Data curation, Conceptualization. Marieta Valente: Writing – original 10.1080/02827581.2018.1530369.
draft, Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Funding Canadas, M.J., Leal, M., Soares, F., Novais, A., Ribeiro, P.F., Schmidt, L., Delicado, A.,
Moreira, F., Bergonse, R., Oliveira, S., Madeira, P.M., Santos, J.L., 2023. Wildfire
acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. mitigation and adaptation: two locally independent actions supported by different
policy domains. Land Use Policy 124, 106444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2022.106444.
Declaration of competing interest
Chen, B., Jin, Y., Scaduto, E., Moritz, M.A., Goulden, M.L., Randerson, J.T., 2021.
Climate, fuel, and land use shaped the spatial pattern of wildfire in California’s
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Sierra Nevada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 126 (2), e2020JG005786 https://doi.org/
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 10.1029/2020JG005786.
Chuvieco, E., 2009. Global impacts of fire. In: Chuvieco, E. (Ed.), Earth Observation of
the work reported in this paper. Wildland Fires in Mediterranean Ecosystems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 1–10.
Data availability Collins, R.D., de Neufville, R., Claro, J., Oliveira, T., Pacheco, A.P., 2013. Forest fire
management to avoid unintended consequences: a case study of Portugal using
system dynamics. J. Environ. Manag. 130, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Focus group data is confidential. jenvman.2013.08.033.
Couto, F.T., Iakunin, M., Salgado, R., Pinto, P., Viegas, T., Pinty, J.-P., 2020. Lightning
modelling for the research of forest fire ignition in Portugal. Atmos. Res. 242,
Appendix A. Supplementary data 104993 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.104993.
Davim, D.A., Rossa, C.G., Fernandes, P.M., 2021. Survival of prescribed burning
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. treatments to wildfire in Portugal. For. Ecol. Manag. 493, 119250 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119250.
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103330. De Meo, I., Ferretti, F., Frattegiani, M., Lora, C., Paletto, A., 2013. Public participation
GIS to support a bottom-up approach in forest landscape planning. [public
References participation GIS to support a bottom-up approach in forest landscape planning].
iForest - Biogeosci. Forest. 6 (6), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0917-006.
Dube, O.P., 2013. Challenges of wildland fire management in Botswana: towards a
Abatzoglou, J.T., Williams, A.P., Barbero, R., 2019. Global emergence of anthropogenic
community inclusive fire management approach. Weath. Clim. Extrem. 1, 26–41.
climate change in fire weather indices. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46 (1), 326–336. https://
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2013.08.001.
doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080959.
European Commission, 2021. New EU Forest Strategy for 2030 - Communication from
Agee, J.K., Skinner, C.N., 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For.
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
Ecol. Manag. 211 (1–2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.034.
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM(2021) 572 Final).
Aguiar, F.C., Rodrigues, C., Pina, J.P., Soares, P., 2021. Regeneration of riparian and
European Commission: Joint Research Centre, San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Durrant, T.,
maritime pine forests after a large wildfire on the largest public Forest of Portugal.
Boca, R., Maianti, P., Libertà, G., Artes Vivancos, T., Oom, D., Branco, A., de Rigo, D.,
Forests 12 (4), 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040477.
Ferrari, D., Pfeiffer, H., Grecchi, R., Onida, M., Loffler, P., 2022. Forest Fires in
Alló, M., Loureiro, M.L., 2020. Assessing preferences for wildfire prevention policies in
Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2021. Publications Office of the European
Spain. Forest Policy Econ. 115, 102145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/34094.
forpol.2020.102145.
EUROSTAT, 2017. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics, 2017 edition. Publications
Ascoli, D., Plana, E., Oggioni, S.D., Tomao, A., Colonico, M., Corona, P., Giannino, F.,
Office of the European Union.
Moreno, M., Xanthopoulos, G., Kaoukis, K., Athanasiou, M., Colaço, M.C., Rego, F.,
EUROSTAT, 2020. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics, 2020 edition. Publications
Sequeira, A.C., Acácio, V., Serra, M., Barbati, A., 2023. Fire-smart solutions for
Office of the European Union.
sustainable wildfire risk prevention: bottom-up initiatives meet top-down policies
FAO, 2006. Fire management: Voluntary guidelines. Principles and strategic actions. Fire
under EU green deal. Intern. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 92, 103715 https://doi.org/
Management Working Paper 17. United Nations, Rome.
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103715.
Feliciano, D., Alves, R., Carvalho Mendes, A., Ribeiro, M., Sottomayor, M., 2015. Forest
Bacciu, V., Sirca, C., Spano, D., 2022. Towards a systemic approach to fire risk
Land Ownership Change in Portugal. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country
management. Environ. Sci. Pol. 129, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Report: Portugal.
envsci.2021.12.015.
Fernandes, M.E., Simões, P., 2024. Private forest owners’ organizations adherence to
Barbero, R., Abatzoglou, J.T., Pimont, F., Ruffault, J., Curt, T., 2020. Attributing
policy tools. Insights from Portugal. Forest Policy Econ. 160, 103147 https://doi.
increases in fire weather to anthropogenic climate change over France. Front. Earth
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103147.
Sci. 8, 104. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00104.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2020. The law of regression to the tail: how to survive Covid-19, the
Barbour, R.S., Morgan, D.L., 2017. A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges,
climate crisis, and other disasters. Environ. Sci. Pol. 114, 614–618. https://doi.org/
Innovation and Practice. Springer.
10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.013.
Baskent, E.Z., Borges, J.G., Kašpar, J., Tahri, M., 2020. A design for addressing multiple
Gamboa, G., Otero, I., Bueno, C., Arilla, E., Ballart, H., Camprubí, L., Canaleta, G.,
ecosystem services in forest management planning. Forests 11 (10), 1108. https://
Tolosa, G., Castellnou, M., 2023. Participatory multi-criteria evaluation of landscape
doi.org/10.3390/f11101108.
values to inform wildfire management. J. Environ. Manag. 327, 116762 https://doi.
Benali, A., Sá, A.C.L., Pinho, J., Fernandes, P.M., Pereira, J.M.C., 2021. Understanding
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116762.
the impact of different landscape-level fuel management strategies on wildfire
Ganteaume, A., Camia, A., Jappiot, M., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Long-Fournel, M.,
Hazard in Central Portugal. Forests 12 (5), 522.
Lampin, C., 2013. A review of the Main driving factors of Forest fire ignition over
Bengtsson, M., 2016. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis.
Europe. Environ. Manag. 51 (3), 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-
NursingPlus Open 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001.
9961-z.
Bergonse, R., Oliveira, S., Gonçalves, A., Nunes, S., DaCamara, C., Zêzere, J.L., 2021.
Górriz-Mifsud, E., Burns, M., Marini Govigli, V., 2019. Civil society engaged in wildfires:
Predicting burnt areas during the summer season in Portugal by combining wildfire
Mediterranean forest fire volunteer groupings. Forest Policy Econ. 102, 119–129.
susceptibility and spring meteorological conditions. Geomat. Nat. Haz. Risk 12 (1),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.03.007.
1039–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2021.1909664.
Halleux, V., 2020. Forest Fires - Environmental Stakes. EPRS - European Parliamentary
Brenkert, H., Champ, P., Flores, N., 2005. Mitigation of Wildfire Risk by Homeowners
Research Service.
(Research Note RMRS-RN-25). Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA Forest
He, T., Lamont, B.B., Pausas, J.G., 2019. Fire as a key driver of Earth’s biodiversity. Biol.
Service, Fort Collins, CO.
Rev. 94 (6), 1983–2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12544.
Bright, A.D., Burtz, R.T., 2006. Creating defensible space in the wildland–urban
Hesseln, H., 2018. Wildland fire prevention: a review. Curr. For. Rep. 4 (4), 178–190.
interface: the influence of values on perceptions and behavior. Environ. Manag. 37
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-018-0083-6.
(2), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0342-0.
ICNF, 2015. 6◦ Inventário Florestal Nacional (translated title: National Forest Inventory).
Bruña-García, X., Marey-Pérez, M.F., 2018. The challenge of diffusion in Forest plans: a
ICNF, 2021. Portugal Perfil Florestal (translated title: Forest Profile).
methodological proposal and case study. Forests 9 (5), 240. https://doi.org/
Jazebi, S., De Leon, F., Nelson, A., 2019. Review of wildfire management
10.3390/f9050240.
techniques—part I: causes, prevention, detection, suppression, and data analytics.
Bruni, C., Aparício, B., Lourenço, B., Marta-Almeida, M., Benali, A., Barreiro, S.,
IEEE Transact. Power Deliv. 35 (1), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1109/
Rocha, A., Sá, A.C.L., 2024. Wildfire exposure and risk in pulp paper companies’
TPWRD.2019.2930055.
plantations under extreme weather conditions: a case study in North-Western
Portugal. Intern. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 100, 104064 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2023.104064.

16
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Jia, G., Shevliakova, E., Artaxo, P., Noblet-Ducoudré, D., Houghton, R., House, J., Oliveira, R., Oliveira, S., Zêzere, J.L., Viegas, D.X., 2020. Uncovering the perception
Kitajima, K., Lennard, C., Popp, A., Sirin, A., 2019. Land-Climate Interactions (IPCC regarding wildfires of residents with different characteristics. Intern. J. Disaster Risk
Special Report). Reduct. 43, 101370 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101370.
Jones, M.W., Abatzoglou, J.T., Veraverbeke, S., Andela, N., Lasslop, G., Forkel, M., Pais, S., Aquilué, N., Campos, J., Sil, Â., Marcos, B., Martínez-Freiría, F., Domínguez, J.,
Smith, A.J.P., Burton, C., Betts, R.A., van der Werf, G.R., Sitch, S., Canadell, J.G., Brotons, L., Honrado, J.P., Regos, A., 2020. Mountain farmland protection and fire-
Santín, C., Kolden, C., Doerr, S.H., Le Quéré, C., 2022. Global and regional trends smart management jointly reduce fire hazard and enhance biodiversity and carbon
and drivers of fire under climate change. Rev. Geophys. 60 (3), e2020RG000726 sequestration. Ecosyst. Serv. 44, 101143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000726. ecoser.2020.101143.
Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C.C., Gardner, M.T., 2003. Public Participation in Pais, S., Aquilué, N., Honrado, J.P., Fernandes, P.M., Regos, A., 2023. Optimizing
Sustainability Science: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press. wildfire prevention through the integration of prescribed burning into ‘fire-smart’
Krikken, F., Lehner, F., Haustein, K., Drobyshev, I., van Oldenborgh, G.J., 2021. land-use policies. Fire 6 (12), 457.
Attribution of the role of climate change in the forest fires in Sweden 2018. Nat. Palaiologou, P., Kalabokidis, K., Troumbis, A., Day, M.A., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Ager, A.A.,
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21 (7), 2169–2179. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21- 2021. Socio-ecological perceptions of wildfire management and effects in Greece.
2169-2021. Fire 4 (2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire4020018.
Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A., 2014. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Pandey, P., Huidobro, G., Lopes, L.F., Ganteaume, A., Ascoli, D., Colaco, C.,
Sage Publications. Xanthopoulos, G., Giannaros, T.M., Gazzard, R., Boustras, G., Steelman, T.,
Marques, M., Juerges, N., Borges, J.G., 2020a. Appraisal framework for actor interest and Charlton, V., Ferguson, E., Kirschner, J., Little, K., Stoof, C., Nikolakis, W.,
power analysis in forest management - insights from northern Portugal. Forest Policy Fernández-Blanco, C.R., Ribotta, C., Lambrechts, H., Fernandez, M., Dossi, S., 2023.
Econ. 111, 102049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102049. A global outlook on increasing wildfire risk: current policy situation and future
Marques, M., Oliveira, M., Borges, J.G., 2020b. An approach to assess actors’ preferences pathways. Trees, Forests People 14, 100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and social learning to enhance participatory forest management planning. Trees, tfp.2023.100431.
Forests People 2, 100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100026. Papagiannaki, K., Giannaros, T., Lykoudis, S., Kotroni, V., Lagouvardos, K., 2020.
Marta-Costa, A., Torres-Manso, F., Pinto, R., Tibério, L., Carneiro, I., 2016. Stakeholders’ Weather-related thresholds for wildfire danger in a Mediterranean region: the case of
perception of forest management: a Portuguese mountain case study. Forest Syst. 25 Greece. Agric. For. Meteorol. 291, 108076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(1), e052 https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2016251-08122. agrformet.2020.108076.
Martínez, J., Vega-Garcia, C., Chuvieco, E., 2009. Human-caused wildfire risk rating for Patel, M., Kok, K., Rothman, D.S., 2007. Participatory scenario construction in land use
prevention planning in Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (2), 1241–1252. https://doi. analysis: an insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.005. northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 24 (3), 546–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Mauri, E., Hernández Paredes, E., Núñez Blanco, I., García Feced, C., 2023. Key j.landusepol.2006.02.005.
Recommendations on Wildfire Prevention in the Mediterranean. European Forest Pausas, J.G., Keeley, J.E., 2009. A burning story: the role of fire in the history of life.
Institute. Bioscience 59 (7), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.10.
McCaffrey, S., Toman, E., Stidham, M., Shindler, B., 2012. Social science research related Pausas, J.G., Keeley, J.E., 2019. Wildfires as an ecosystem service. Front. Ecol. Environ.
to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs. 17 (5), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2044.
Int. J. Wildland Fire 22 (1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11115. Phillips, C.A., Caldas, A., Cleetus, R., Dahl, K.A., Declet-Barreto, J., Licker, R., Merner, L.,
McLauchlan, K.K., Higuera, P.E., Miesel, J., Rogers, B.M., Schweitzer, J., Shuman, J.K., Ortiz-Partida, J.P., Phelan, A.L., Spanger-Siegfried, E., 2020. Compound climate
Tepley, A.J., Varner, J.M., Veblen, T.T., Adalsteinsson, S.A., Balch, J.K., Baker, P., risks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10 (7), 586–588. https://doi.
Batllori, E., Bigio, E., Brando, P., Cattau, M., Chipman, M.L., Coen, J., Crandall, R., org/10.1038/s41558-020-0804-2.
Daniels, L., Enright, N., Gross, W.S., Harvey, B.J., Hatten, J.A., Hermann, S., Pinho, J., 2014. Forest planning in Portugal. In: Reboredo, F. (Ed.), Forest Context and
Hewitt, R.E., Kobziar, L.N., Landesmann, J.B., Loranty, M.M., Maezumi, S.Y., Policies in Portugal: Present and Future Challenges. Springer International
Mearns, L., Moritz, M., Myers, J.A., Pausas, J.G., Pellegrini, A.F.A., Platt, W.J., Publishing, Cham, pp. 155–183.
Roozeboom, J., Safford, H., Santos, F., Scheller, R.M., Sherriff, R.L., Smith, K.G., Pinto, L.C., Sousa, S., Valente, M., 2022. Forest bioenergy as a land and wildfire
Smith, M.D., Watts, A.C., 2020. Fire as a fundamental ecological process: research management tool: economic valuation under different informational contexts.
advances and frontiers. J. Ecol. 108 (5), 2047–2069. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365- Energy Policy 161, 112765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112765.
2745.13403. Portuguese Council of Ministers, 2020. National Plan for Integrated Rural Fire
Meira Castro, A.C., Nunes, A., Sousa, A., Lourenço, L., 2020. Mapping the causes of Management 20–30. Diário da República 1ª série 16 junho 2020, 23-(22).
Forest fires in Portugal by clustering analysis. Geosciences 10 (2), 53. https://www.agif.pt/pt/plano-nacional-de-gestao-integrada-de-fogos-rurais-20-30.
Montiel-Molina, C., 2013. Comparative assessment of wildland fire legislation and Puy, N., Tàbara, D., Bartrolí Molins, J., Bartrolí Almera, J., Rieradevall, J., 2008.
policies in the European Union: towards a fire framework directive. Forest Policy Integrated assessment of forest bioenergy systems in Mediterranean basin areas: the
Econ. 29 (April), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.11.006. case of Catalonia and the use of participatory IA-focus groups. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Moore, P.F., 2019. Global wildland fire management research needs. Curr. For. Rep. 5 Rev. 12 (5), 1451–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.01.017.
(4), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00099-y. Radeloff, V.C., Helmers, D.P., Kramer, H.A., Mockrin, M.H., Alexandre, P.M., Bar-
Moreira, F., Ascoli, D., Safford, H., Adams, M.A., Moreno, J.M., Pereira, J.M.C., Catry, F. Massada, A., Butsic, V., Hawbaker, T.J., Martinuzzi, S., Syphard, A.D., 2018. Rapid
X., Armesto, J., Bond, W., González, M.E., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., McCaw, L., Price, O., growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Pausas, J.G., Rigolot, E., Stephens, S., Tavsanoglu, C., Vallejo, V.R., Van Wilgen, B. 115 (13), 3314–3319. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718850115.
W., Xanthopoulos, G., Fernandes, P.M., 2020. Wildfire management in Ribeiro, C., Valente, S., Coelho, C., Figueiredo, E., 2015. A look at forest fires in Portugal:
Mediterranean-type regions: paradigm change needed. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (1), technical, institutional, and social perceptions. Scand. J. For. Res. 30 (4), 317–325.
011001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab541e. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.987160.
Moreira, F., Viedma, O., Arianoutsou, M., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., Rigolot, E., Barbati, A., Rigolot, E., Fernandes, P., Rego, F., 2015. Managing wildfire risk: Prevention,
Corona, P., Vaz, P., Xanthopoulos, G., Mouillot, F., Bilgili, E., 2011. Landscape – suppression. In: Birot, Y. (Ed.), Living with Wildfires: What Science Can Tell us.
wildfire interactions in southern Europe: implications for landscape management. European Forest Institute, pp. 49–52.
J. Environ. Manag. 92 (10), 2389–2402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Rodrigues, M., Cunill Camprubí, À., Balaguer-Romano, R., Coco Megía, C.J.,
jenvman.2011.06.028. Castañares, F., Ruffault, J., Fernandes, P.M., Resco de Dios, V., 2023. Drivers and
Myers, R.L., 2006. Living with Fire— Sustaining Ecosystems & Livelihoods through implications of the extreme 2022 wildfire season in Southwest Europe. Sci. Total
Integrated Fire Management. The Nature Conservancy. Environ. 859, 160320 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160320.
Naveh, Z., 1994. The role of fire and its Management in the Conservation of Salter, J., Robinson, J., Wiek, A., 2010. Participatory methods of integrated
Mediterranean ecosystems and landscapes. In: Moreno, J.M., Oechel, W.C. (Eds.), assessment—a review. WIREs Clim. Change 1 (5), 697–717. https://doi.org/
The Role of Fire in Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems. Springer New York, New York, 10.1002/wcc.73.
NY, pp. 163–185. Savari, M., Eskandari Damaneh, H., Eskandari Damaneh, H., 2020. Factors influencing
Nelson, K.C., Monroe, M.C., Johnson, J.F., Bowers, A., 2004. Living with fire: local people’s participation in sustainable forest management. Arab. J. Geosci. 13
homeowner assessment of landscape values and defensible space in Minnesota and (13), 513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05519-z.
Florida, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 13 (4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1071/ Schulte, S., Miller, K.A., 2010. Wildfire risk and climate change: the influence on
WF03067. homeowner mitigation behavior in the wildland–urban interface. Soc. Nat. Resour.
Nichiforel, L., Keary, K., Deuffic, P., Weiss, G., Thorsen, B.J., Winkel, G., 23 (5), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903431298.
Avdibegović, M., Dobšinská, Z., Feliciano, D., Gatto, P., Gorriz Mifsud, E., Hoogstra- Schultz, C.A., Thompson, M.P., McCaffrey, S.M., 2019. Forest service fire management
Klein, M., Hrib, M., Hujala, T., Jager, L., Jarský, V., Jodłowski, K., Lawrence, A., and the elusiveness of change. Fire Ecol. 15 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/
Lukmine, D., Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š., Nedeljković, J., Nonić, D., Krajter Ostoić, S., s42408-019-0028-x.
Pukall, K., Rondeux, J., Samara, T., Sarvašová, Z., Scriban, R.E., Šilingienė, R., Sirous, R., da Silva, F.J.N., da Cruz Tarelho, L.A., Martins, N.A.D., 2020. Mixed biomass
Sinko, M., Stojanovska, M., Stojanovski, V., Stoyanov, N., Teder, M., Vennesland, B., pelleting potential for Portugal, step forward to circular use of biomass residues.
Vilkriste, L., Wilhelmsson, E., Wilkes-Allemann, J., Bouriaud, L., 2018. How private Energy Rep. 6, 940–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.01.002.
are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy Stirling, A., 2006. Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in
76, 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.034. participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 23 (1), 95–107. https://doi.
Nyongesa, K.W., Vacik, H., 2018. Fire Management in Mount Kenya: A Case Study of org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010.
Gathiuru Forest Station, 9(8), p. 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080481. Syphard, A.D., Keeley, J.E., Abatzoglou, J.T., 2017. Trends and drivers of fire activity
Oliveira, E., Fernandes, P.M., 2023. Pastoral burning and its contribution to the fire vary across California aridland ecosystems. J. Arid Environ. 144, 110–122. https://
regime of alto Minho, Portugal. Fire 6 (5), 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/ doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.03.017.
fire6050210.

17
C. Ferreira et al. Forest Policy and Economics 169 (2024) 103330

Tàbara, D., Saurí, D., Cerdan, R., 2003. Forest fire risk management and public Valente, S., Coelho, C., Ribeiro, C., Liniger, H., Schwilch, G., Figueiredo, E.,
participation in changing socioenvironmental conditions: a case study in a Bachmann, F., 2015a. How much management is enough? Stakeholder views on
Mediterranean region. Risk Anal. 23 (2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539- forest management in fire-prone areas in Central Portugal. Forest Policy Econ. 53,
6924.00305. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.01.003.
Taylor, S.W., Alexander, M.E., 2006. Science, technology, and human factors in fire Valente, S., Coelho, C., Ribeiro, C., Marsh, G., 2015b. Sustainable Forest Management in
danger rating: the Canadian experience. Int. J. Wildland Fire 15 (1), 121–135. Portugal: transition from global policies to local participatory strategies. Int. For.
https://doi.org/10.1071/WF05021. Rev. 17 (3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554815815982620.
Tedim, F., Leone, V., Xanthopoulos, G., 2016. A wildfire risk management concept based Van Oldenborgh, G.J., Krikken, F., Lewis, S., Leach, N.J., Lehner, F., Saunders, K.R., Van
on a social-ecological approach in the European Union: fire smart territory. Intern. J. Weele, M., Haustein, K., Li, S., Wallom, D., 2021. Attribution of the Australian
Disaster Risk Reduct. 18, 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.06.005. bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21 (3),
Tedim, F., Leone, V., Amraoui, M., Bouillon, C., Coughlan, M.R., Delogu, G.M., 941–960. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-69.
Fernandes, P.M., Ferreira, C., McCaffrey, S., McGee, T.K., 2018. Defining extreme Vélez, R., 2002. Causes of Forest fires in the Mediterranean Basin. In: Arbez, M., Birot, Y.,
wildfire events: difficulties, challenges, and impacts. Fire 1 (1), 9. https://doi.org/ Carnus, J.-M. (Eds.), Risk Management and Sustainable Forestry - EFI Proceedings
10.3390/fire1010009. No. 45, 2002 (pp. 35–42). European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland.
Tedim, F., McCaffrey, S., Leone, V., Delogu, G.M., Castelnou, M., McGee, T.K., Aranha, J., Volkery, A., Ribeiro, T., Henrichs, T., Hoogeveen, Y., 2008. Your vision or my model?
2020. What can we do differently about the extreme wildfire problem: an overview. Lessons from participatory land use scenario development on a European scale. Syst.
Extrem. Wildfire Events Disast. 233–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- Pract. Action Res. 21 (6), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9104-x.
815721-3.00013-8. Wunder, S., Calkin, D.E., Charlton, V., Feder, S., Martínez de Arano, I., Moore, P.,
Turco, M., Marcos-Matamoros, R., Castro, X., Canyameras, E., Llasat, M.C., 2019. Rodríguez y Silva, F., Tacconi, L., Vega-García, C., 2021. Resilient landscapes to
Seasonal prediction of climate-driven fire risk for decision-making and operational prevent catastrophic forest fires: socioeconomic insights towards a new paradigm.
applications in a Mediterranean region. Sci. Total Environ. 676, 577–583. https:// Forest Policy Econ. 128, 102458 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102458.
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.296. Xanthopoulos, G., Caballero, D., Galante, M., Alexandrian, D., Rigolot, E., Marzano, R.,
Valente, M., Fernandes, M.E., Pinto, L.M.C., 2024. Crowdfunding or crowdsourcing time: 2006. Forest fuels management in Europe. In: Andrews, P.L., Butler, B.W. (Eds.),
exploring the willingness of private citizens to help prevent forest fires. Forest Policy Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March
Econ. 163, 103210 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103210. 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings; (Vol. 41, pp. 29-46). US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

18