a quantitative SWOT analysis for wildfire prevention marino2014

CSIRO PUBLISHING
International Journal of Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 373–384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF12203
Forest fuel management for wildfire prevention
in Spain: a quantitative SWOT analysis
Eva Marino A, Carmen Hernando A,D, Rosa Planelles B,
Javier Madrigal A, Mercedes Guijarro A and Ana Sebastián C
A
INIA, Forest Research Centre, Department of Silviculture and Forest Management,
Carretera de La Coruña km 7.5, E-28040 Madrid, Spain.
B
EIMFOR S.L., C/Berlı́n 4, oficina 3, E-28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid), Spain.
C
GMV Aerospace S.A. Juan de Herrera number 17, E-47151 Boecillo (Valladolid), Spain.
D
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Abstract. Spain is one of the Mediterranean countries most severely affected by wildfires during the last 30 years,
despite enhanced fire suppression efforts. At present, forest area is increasing more in Spain than in any other European
country, and also has one of the highest densities of fire ignitions. However, forest management plans have been developed
for only 13% of Spanish forest areas. The objective of the present study was to assess the role of forest fuel management for
wildfire prevention in Spain. Different fuel management techniques, including mechanical treatments, prescribed burning
and controlled grazing, were considered. A quantitative SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats)
analysis was performed, based on a thorough documentation review and on the opinions of forest fire experts. Results
enabled the identification of obstacles that hinder the implementation of effective fuel management, and suggested
strategic recommendations to overcome them. New opportunities related to rural development activities (e.g. promotion of
‘FIRESMART’ products) would be highly relevant in fire-prone forest areas. These opportunities should provide
additional funding for sustainable forest management and could foster fuel management activities that would directly
involve and benefit rural populations.
Additional keywords: controlled grazing, FIRESMART, forest planning, prescribed burning, rural development.
Received 28 November 2012, accepted 10 September 2013, published online 7 March 2014
Introduction
European forests are an important natural resource, and hundreds of millions of euros are spent to protect their biodiversity,
regulation of water and climate and role in landscape and cultural heritage preservation (FAO 2010). One of the main environmental hazards affecting forests in the Mediterranean region
is wildfire. Wildfire activity is expected to worsen in the future
as a result of climate change (Schmuck et al. 2010; Pausas and
Fernández-Muñoz 2012; Fernandes 2013), which is projected to
lead to increases in extreme weather conditions that would
favour higher fire frequency and severity in Europe, especially
in southern countries (Piñol et al. 1998; Moreira et al. 2011).
Spain has been severely affected by wildfire in the last 30
years. More than 5 106 ha of forest areas were burnt in Spain
between 1980 and 2010; this represents almost 37% of the total
burnt area in the northern rim of the Mediterranean basin during
that period (Schmuck et al. 2010). Spain is the third most
forested country in western Europe, with 18.2 106 ha of forest
land. Forest area is increasing by over 2.9 105 ha year 1,
which is 40% of the annual increase in forest area in Europe
(Forest Europe et al. 2011; SECF 2011). However, forest
management plans have only been developed for 13% of
Journal compilation Ó IAWF 2014
Spanish forest areas (SECF 2011). Spain experiences a high
density of fire ignitions, which poses a major wildfire risk in
some regions (Catry et al. 2010). Consideration of fire risk is an
important factor in forest planning for optimising the efficiency
of forest management systems (Hyytiäinen and Haight 2010;
González-Olabarria and Pukkala 2011). Contemporary land use
trends promote the accumulation of forest biomass and continuity of highly flammable fuel types, thus favouring larger and
more severe fires (Rigolot et al. 2009; Loepfe et al. 2010; Pausas
and Fernández-Muñoz 2012; Fernandes 2013).
Fire regimes depend on forest type and structure, topography,
weather and ignition frequency (Gill and Allan 2008; Pausas and
Fernández-Muñoz 2012). Current ignition patterns in Spain, like
in the entire Mediterranean basin, are mainly associated with
human activities and the increasing wildland–urban interface
(Martı́nez et al. 2009; Badia et al. 2011). Large fire risk
increases despite the investment in fire-fighting technology
and resources, which illustrates the limitations of fire suppression actions, especially under climate change scenarios (Rigolot
et al. 2009; Podur and Wotton 2010; Fernandes 2013). Fire
prevention is essential for dealing with the wildfire problem in
the Mediterranean countries. An adequate management of forest
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf
374
Int. J. Wildland Fire
fuels can increase the fire weather threshold for effective fire
suppression by reducing the energy output in the fire front.
Different types of vegetation cover and stand structure are
associated with different levels of wildfire risk, behaviour and
severity, which indicates the potential of fuel modification to
prevent and mitigate wildfire effects (Stephens and Moghaddas
2005; Duguy et al. 2007; Román-Cuesta et al. 2009; Fernandes
et al. 2010; Moreno et al. 2011).
The strategic fire prevention measures established in the fire
management plans should include, among others, fuel modification actions aiming at forest resources protection from wildfire risks, in support of the land use objectives of the forest
management plans. Fuel modification strategies include different options for fuel build-up control. One option often consists
of applying mechanical treatments or prescribed burning, with
the general aim of reducing fuel loadings and modifying forest
structure (Agee and Skinner 2005). Chemical treatments are
sometimes locally applied, although their use is much less
extended as they increase flammability in the short-term and
motivate environmental concern (Rigolot et al. 2009). Livestock
grazing is another option for maintaining less flammable landscapes by controlling fuel cover and load (Jáuregui et al. 2009;
Ruiz-Mirazo et al. 2011). Intense vegetation removal in strategic locations is also commonly applied to create fuelbreaks,
which act as supporting infrastructure for suppression actions
rather than precluding fire spread by themselves (Syphard et al.
2011). Some silvicultural and restoration practices can also be
applied to replace hazardous vegetation with less fire-prone or
more fire-resilient stand structures (Moya et al. 2008) or plant
communities (Valdecantos et al. 2009). The present study
considers all these possibilities for a comprehensive assessment
of fuel management activities. Understanding the benefits and
limitations of each method is important for being correctly
applied and achieving their management objectives (Reinhardt
et al. 2008).
The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of fuel
management for wildfire hazard reduction in Spain, by a
quantitative SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats) analysis, to provide a knowledge base for more effective wildfire prevention. This work is part of wider research on
the assessment of different wildfire prevention strategies in
Europe within the framework of the FIRESMART Project,
which is devoted to (i) the identification of obstacles hindering
fire prevention and (ii) deriving recommendations for the integration of fire prevention practices in forest management plans.
Methods
An overview of SWOT analysis
SWOT analysis is widely used for analysing internal and
external environments to attain a systematic approach and
support for decision situations (Ghazinoory et al. 2011). The
method, introduced by Weihrich (1982), involves exploring
the strengths and weaknesses (internal factors) as well as the
opportunities and threats (external factors) related to a specific
case. SWOT also provides a framework for deriving strategies
based on promising combinations of observed strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (Rauch 2007). SWOT
analysis is extensively used in strategic management planning,
E. Marino et al.
with recent applications in the forest sector (Kangas et al. 2003;
Blinn et al. 2007; Rauch 2007; Gerasimov and Karjalainen
2008). The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to apply
this technique to the assessment of fuel management strategies
for wildfire prevention.
Applying SWOT methodology
The first step was to identify the relevant factors in each category, i.e. the strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O)
and threats (T) affecting fuel management in Spain. For this
purpose, several sources of information were considered.
A thorough review of existing scientific and technical literature
for wildfire prevention was performed. Scientific information
was gathered at regional, national and international levels to
give a wider perspective to the analysis, whereas technical
documentation was gathered at regional and national levels in
Spain. The information was compiled in a documental database
(available at www.firesmart-project.eu, accessed 31 March
2012). This information was expanded with data from questionnaires on wildfire prevention completed by 286 Spanish
experts (see Hernando et al. 2012). In addition, 10 interviews
were conducted with key wildfire managers, stakeholders, forest
and wildfire experts and academics. The main aim was to gather
further direct information about wildfire prevention at different
spatial scales and at different administrative levels from the
different agents involved. In person interviews with open ended
questions on the following topics were held: fire risk, fire prevention and protection plans, preventive silviculture including
prescribed burning and grazing, wildland–urban interface,
management and funding, use of biomass for energy purposes
and communication and dissemination campaigns. These topics
were the main wildfire prevention issues detected according to
experts’ opinions expressed in the answers to the questionnaire.
A list of relevant factors within each SWOT category was
extracted from the qualitative assessment of all the available
information (literature review and answers to questionnaire and
interviews), considering the respective internal or external
nature and the positive or negative effect on fuel management
for wildfire prevention (Table 1). However, the interesting
information retrieved from this qualitative analysis was insufficient to appraise the relative importance of each single factor in
the overall scenario.
To improve SWOT analysis effectiveness, some researchers
have proposed different methods for factors quantification, such
as combination with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
(Pesonen et al. 2001; Shrestha et al. 2004; Dwivedi and
Alavalapati 2009; Kajanus et al. 2012). Hence, the second step
was to quantify the previously identified factors. In our study,
we used a quantification technique that relied on factor evaluation by eight professionals working on wildfires. Four of them
represented managers and the other four represented researchers. Factors were scored by these experts in their answers to
questions related to their potential effect on different aspects of
fuel management for wildfire prevention (Table 2), with the
magnitude of their importance ranging from 1 to 4. Questions
were selected to provide a wide assessment of fuel management
outcomes within the existing framework of forest management
and land policies at national and European levels. These questions included identification of current needs to improve fuel
Fuel management for wildfire prevention in Spain
Int. J. Wildland Fire
375
Table 1. Relevant factors identified in each SWOT category regarding fuel management for wildfire prevention in Spain
Strengths
Weaknesses
S1. Large number of scientific studies showing the positive influence
of fuel management on reducing wildfire risk and severity
S2. Good scientifically assessed tools and technology to model forest
fire behaviour
S3. Fuel management actions included in some land use and forest
management plans
S4. Some silvicultural practices already planned for safer and more
effective conditions for forest firefighting
S5. Firefighting support infrastructures designed, built and maintained
by each region, involving local administration and forest owners
S6. Local grazing plans to control shrub growth in fuelbreaks
in some regions
S7. Central public administration supports regional administrations
in forest fire prevention actions
S8. Cooperative actions on forest fire prevention involving different
institutions in some regions
S9. Robust legal framework defining the different levels of territorial
competence on forest fire prevention
S10. Regional administrations are legally bound to organise specific
forest fire prevention programmes, and to declare High Risk Areas
for which a Fire Management Plan must be developed
S11. Specific legislation regulates fire use protocols and authorisations
W1. Scientific knowledge on fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological
impacts are scarce in Spain and other Mediterranean ecosystems
W2. Predictions from fire behaviour models not always adequate for
prevention planning because of the lack of field validation or specific models
W3. Scarce information about the economy of fuel management
S12. The public authorities are legally bound to implement the
coordination and training of volunteers
S13. Fuel management activities foster rural development
S14. Specialised firefighting and prevention teams implementing fuel
treatments and promoting the correct use of fire
S15. Successful prevention programs addressing conciliation actions
between parties involved in conflicts of interests
W4. Poor experience in fuel management approaches integrating
different techniques
W5. Different fire risk indexes in different Spanish regions, which cannot be
compared at a national level
W6. Lack of official technical protocols with clear common guidelines for
applying fuel management actions
W7. Conflicts between some land management plans and wildfire
prevention plans
W8. Some silvicultural treatments not always well identified
as preventive actions
W9. Most private owners can only afford fuel management if financial
incentives are available
W10. Prescribed fire use limited to some regions due to legal constraints,
lack of social acceptance or lack of expertise
W11. Fuelbreaks not publically accepted, with their effectiveness and
sustainability under debate
W12. Suppression actions prevail over fuel management policies
W13. Budgets for the forest management plans do not include actions
to ensure the performance and maintenance of fire prevention plans
W14. Shortage of tools in the public administration to integrate volunteer
bodies working on fire prevention
W15. Traditional but careless use of fire by rural population in some regions
W16. Shepherds rarely involved in forest management and fire
prevention activities
W17. Livestock keeping not always profitable for shepherds
Opportunities
Threats
O1. Increasing scientific and technological interest on fuel
management in Europe
O2. Sustainable forest management promotion by the different
institutions
O3. Willingness for the creation of a system to share experiences and
documents on wildfire prevention
O4. Forest manager and land owner organisations as platforms for fuel
management promotion
O5. Forest biomass extraction within new policies promoting
sustainable energy sources
O6. Quality recognition of Protected Designation of Origin for animal
products derived from controlled grazing activities
O7. Land fragmentation used for the integration of forest fire
prevention in rural land planning
O8. Increasing social awareness on the need for appropriate
management of forest ecosystems
O9. Support for grazing activities for wildfire prevention within the
Common Agricultural Policy
O10. Early detection of forest fires by rural population
T1. Low level of interaction between researchers and managers
T2. Predicted climate change scenarios for the Mediterranean region may
limit fuel management effectiveness
T3. Some foresters and policy makers sceptical about the benefits of using
prescribed burning
T4. Fire use regulations considered by land managers as a prohibition for
preventive burning
T5. Small private forest properties in some regions
T6. Low market value of forest products in most Mediterranean ecosystems
T7. Lack of communication and collaboration between agents involved
in wildfire prevention
T8. Conservation generally prevailing over management in current
forest policies
T9. Forest management not given high priority on the political agenda
T10. Priority of intensive management of livestock in the Common
Agricultural Policy
T11. Budget assignments not comparable between regions or between
consecutive governments
(Continued )
376
Int. J. Wildland Fire
E. Marino et al.
Table 1. (Continued)
Opportunities
Threats
T12. Ageing of the rural population and abandonment of rural areas
T13. Success of some prevention programmes depends on public acceptance
T14. Impact of electric power lines in forest areas not well accepted
by land owners and society
T15. Inadequate information transfer to the public on the wildfire problem
and required measures
Table 2. Questions and scores for the quantification of SWOT factors
by the experts
The possible scores given by each expert when answering to these questions
for the quantification of SWOT factors are: 1, almost no impact; 2, weak
impact; 3, high impact; 4, very high impact
To what extent does the identified SWOT factor have an impact ony
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
yformulating fire prevention policies, protocols,
or normalisation of fire prevention practices?
yintegrating prevention measures into
forest management plans?
yproposing synergies with various land
planning policies?
yindicating a knowledge technological gap or solution
or preparing future community research in forest fire prevention?
ysocial aspects of forest fire prevention?
yeconomic aspects of forest fire prevention?
yinstitutional aspects of forest fire prevention?
ylegislative aspects of forest fire prevention?
yunderstanding the role of incentives and restrictions?
management practices in terms of technological and scientific
knowledge and considering socio-economic, institutional and
legislative issues related to wildfire prevention in Spain. A brief
explanation of each factor was included to ensure common
understanding among the experts. The global importance of a
factor was expressed as the sum of the average scores derived
from the individual answers to these questions by all experts, thus
ranging from a minimum score of 9 to a maximum score of 36.
The resulting average scores were weighted on the basis of the
number of factors within each SWOT category, and an overall
value of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats was
obtained. This quantification procedure was rather similar to
those used in previous studies that have applied AHP techniques
to SWOT analysis based on experts’ opinion (Shrestha et al.
2004; Dwivedi and Alavalapati 2009). The exception to this was
the pair-wise comparisons between factors within each SWOT
category, which would have been unmanageable because of the
large number of relevant factors identified. Instead of obtaining
priority scores, as done in the above-mentioned techniques,
factor relevance for each SWOT category was obtained from
ranked scores according to their average global importance. The
relative importance of each factor within each SWOT category
provides valuable insights for decision-making as it assigns not
only a ranking position but also a measurable value of factor’s
importance (Dwivedi and Alavalapati 2009).
Finally, possible strategies for improving fuel management
were proposed according to SWOT analysis results. A good
strategy maximises strengths and opportunities and minimises
threats and weaknesses. For strategy formulation, logical combinations must be searched for within the SWOT matrix, with
the aim of producing possible and attractive strategies (Rauch
2007). Preliminary ideas for the implementation of more successful wildfire prevention in Spain based on fuel management
activities arose from this assessment.
Results
The qualitative assessment resulted in the identification of 15
strengths (S), 17 weaknesses (W), 10 opportunities (O) and
15 threats (T) related to fuel management for wildfire prevention
in Spain. The complete list of relevant factors within each
SWOT category is presented in Table 1.
Scores did not vary significantly between managers and
researchers (P . 0.05, Mann–Whitney U-Test), resulting in a
consistent overall perception of factors’ importance. The average scores for the importance of factors within each SWOT
category are summarised in Fig. 1. According to the quantitative
analysis, those factors with a score of more than 24 points out of
36 (i.e. an average score higher than 2.66 per question in Table 2,
which is equivalent to factors having ‘high impact’ or ‘very high
impact’) were empirically considered the most significant. Such
factors are detailed and discussed below for each SWOT
category. Fig. 2 shows the mean values of the sum of scores
relative to each question.
Strengths
The results showed that strengths had an overall importance
of 26%. The most important factors were the legal commitment
of regional administrations to declare high risk areas (S10), and
the existence of specific legislation regulating fire use (S11).
The robust legal framework defining territorial competence
regarding wildfire prevention was also highly rated (S9). Other
important strengths were the existence of cooperative actions for
wildfire prevention (S8) and the specialised firefighting and
prevention teams (S14). The inclusion of wildfire prevention
actions in land use and forest management plans (S3) or the
existence of local grazing plans in fuelbreaks (S6) were
also important factors. Another relevant factor was that fuel
management activities foster rural development (S13). The
existence of successful prevention programmes addressing
conciliation actions was also highly rated (S15).
Fuel management for wildfire prevention in Spain
Average score
36
Int. J. Wildland Fire
36
Strengths
30
30
24
24
18
18
12
12
6
377
Weaknesses
6
S1
S2
S3
S4
36
S5
S6
S7
S8
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17
S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15
36
Opportunities
30
30
24
24
18
18
12
12
Threats
6
6
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
O9 O10
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Fig. 1. Average scores for the importance of individual factors (described in Table 1) within each SWOT category: strengths (Si), weaknesses (Wi),
opportunities (Oi) and threats (Ti). The horizontal line indicates the threshold considered for the identification of the most important factors.
Weaknesses
Weaknesses were the most significant determinant, with an
overall importance of 33%. The most negative factor identified
was that suppression actions prevail over fuel management
policies (W12). Another highly rated factor was the existence
of conflicts between land management plans and wildfire preventive plans (W7). The traditional but careless use of fire was
an important weakness (W15), as well as the limitations to
prescribed fire use (W10). Another important weakness was that
budgets for forest management plans do not take into account
the actions oriented to ensure the performance and maintenance
of fire prevention plans (W13). Other highly rated factors were
that most private owners need financial incentives to perform
fuel treatments (W9), and the little information about the economics of fuel management activities (W3). Other significant
weaknesses were that shepherds are rarely involved in forest
management and fire prevention activities (W16), and that
livestock keeping is not always profitable (W17).
Opportunities
Opportunities had a lower overall importance (13%) than the
other SWOT categories. The main opportunity identified was
that preventive silviculture operations can provide forest biomass for energy purposes (O5). This factor was given the highest
score, not only within this SWOT category but also in the entire
list of factors (Fig. 1). Also very highly rated was the opportunity
to support controlled grazing within the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) (O9), and the possibility to give Protected Designation of Origin status for animal products derived from this
activity (O6). Another important factor was that fuel management could benefit from land fragmentation for the integration
of wildfire prevention in rural land planning (O7). Sustainable
forest management promotion by different institutions was also
a key opportunity (O2). A high score was also given to the well
established networks of forest managers and landowners organisations (O4), and to the increasing scientific and technological
interest in fuel management within Europe (O1). Another
opportunity was the interest in creating a system to share
experiences and documents on wildfire prevention (O3).
Threats
Threats of fuel management represented 28% of overall
importance. Regarding the external factors, threats had a higher
impact than opportunities. The most important were the low
market value of forest products (T6) and the low priority for
forest management in the political agenda (T9). Another highly
rated factor was the ageing of rural populations and land abandonment (T12). Current forest policies, in which conservation
generally prevails over management (T8), were also a negative
factor. A significant threat was that intensive livestock management has priority over the extensive management in current
CAP (T10). Lack of communication and collaboration between
agents involved in wildfire prevention (T7) was another negative
factor, as well as inadequate public information transfer about
378
Int. J. Wildland Fire
50
E. Marino et al.
60
Strengths
Weaknesses
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
Sum of factors’ scores
10
10
0
0
Q1
Q2
Q3
40
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
60
Opportunities
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Threats
50
30
40
20
30
20
10
10
0
0
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Fig. 2. Overall perception by experts regarding the importance of factors in relation to each question Qi (see Table 2) and for each SWOT category (mean
value of sum of scores standard error).
the wildfire problem (T15). Other threats were the remaining
scepticism of using prescribed burning (T3) and the differing
budget assignments between regions and consecutive governments (T11). Predicted climate change scenarios (T2) and the
small private forest properties (T5) were also highly scored.
Discussion
Main factors and obstacles identified
Results highlight that the most important strengths are related to
the existence of a well-defined legal framework. Spanish law
establishes a common legislation at national level (Ley 43/2003
de Montes), but each autonomous region must define and
implement specific wildfire prevention plans and regulations
(S9, S11). A key issue is that high-risk areas must have a fire
management plan with a minimum content established by law
(S10). The main obstacle is the difficulty to control forest
landowners’ compliance, partly due to the complex situation
regarding land planning (W7), forest ownership (T5) and multiple institutional involvement (T7) (Montiel and Galiana 2005).
Poor fuel treatment implementation is not only linked to weak
law enforcement but also often a result of insufficient resources
and awareness by landowners (Fernandes 2013), who are ultimately responsible for forest ecosystems management. Collaborative work between different agents involved in wildfire
prevention is essential (S3, S8, S15), especially to overcome
potential conflicts of interest. Agreements between forest
regional administration and electric or railway companies to
perform fuel treatments, or between shepherds and forest
managers for controlled grazing (Ruiz-Mirazo et al. 2011) are
good examples of successful cooperation strategies.
The use of forest biomass for bioenergy production (O5) was
the most important opportunity identified to encourage fuel
treatment application. An energy policy based on renewable
energy sources and, particularly, forest biomass energy (FAO
2008) creates favourable conditions for efficient wildfire risk
management (Reva et al. 2010). The present low market value of
forest products (T6) makes biomass extraction economically
unviable, especially in most Mediterranean ecosystems where
forestry-related incomes are low due to the slow species growth
and the scarce demand (Campos and Caparros 2006, Ojea et al.
2012). The current national accounting system for forests
measures only the final commercial output of the production,
ignoring environmental goods and services (Campos and
Caparros 2006). Furthermore, many regions have privately
owned forests divided into small parcels, which constitutes an
obstacle for the development of regional or municipal fuel
management strategies (T5). Most small landowners do not
have any production plan, and avoid costly fuel treatments as the
low direct economic value discourages investments to protect
or improve forest stand productivity, which often leads to
Fuel management for wildfire prevention in Spain
non-sustainable forest management systems (Ojea et al. 2012).
Fuel treatments are usually performed in public forest, because
most private owners need financial incentives to implement
such measures (W9). This is highly relevant in Spain, because
66% of forest areas belong to private landowners (SECF 2011).
A similar situation exists in Portugal, where the predominance
of small private ownership makes the problem of fuel management extremely complex (Reva et al. 2010).
In Spain, the majority of the state responsibilities for wildfire
protection and forest management were transferred to the 17
autonomous regions, thus resulting in a set of different policies
and programs within the country (Montiel and Galiana 2005).
A common problem is that forest management in general and
preventive activities in particular are not given high priority on
the political agenda (T9); environmental and forest policies are
mainly focussed on habitat or species conservation (T8), but
generally preclude fuel management implementation despite the
high wildfire hazard. A similar problem occurs in most Southern
European countries, especially those with decentralised political
systems (Herrero et al. 2009). Such policies are clearly inadequate to protect most Mediterranean ecosystems since it was
demonstrated that conservation strategies alone often lead to a
lack of forest management, favouring biomass accumulation
and landscape homogenisation that further increase vegetation
flammability (Loepfe et al. 2010; Moreira et al. 2011). Despite
the central government support for regional administrations in
applying fuel treatments (S7), such actions are clearly insufficient. At present, existing policies cannot ensure the long-term
planning and implementation required to maintain effective fuel
management (W13, T11).
The greater importance given by Spanish authorities to forest
firefighting than to wildfire prevention (W12) means that most
budgetary resources are invested to support suppression actions,
which are necessary but also very expensive and not always
cost-effective (Rodrı́guez y Silva and González-Cabán 2010).
Although European countries have very different institutional
arrangements for organising wildfire prevention and suppression, this is a common pattern in the Mediterranean region. Fire
management policies rely heavily on fire suppression and do not
sufficiently address the socio-economic and land management
issues behind the inception and spread of fires (Montiel and San
Miguel 2009, Fernandes 2013). This fire suppression policy is
conducive to fuel accumulation in forest areas, which further
increases the probability of wildfires, and even leads to extreme
fire hazard conditions (Piñol et al. 2005, 2007; Xanthopoulos
2007, Fernandes 2008). The effectiveness of firefighting operations is greatly reduced when unfavourable weather and fuel
accumulation coincide as fire control technology succeeds only
within the lower range of fire intensity (Fernandes 2013).
A study reported by Xanthopoulos et al. (2006) presents a good
example regarding the comparison between suppression and
fuel management expenses. Despite predictions of fuel treatment costs in Mediterranean regions (Xanthopoulos 2002),
information on fuel treatment economics is still lacking (W3).
This is an important obstacle as fuel management cost estimation is key to the precise evaluation of the location and extent of
effective fuel treatments, especially considering the low and
variable funding available and the increasing fire-prone areas
(Loepfe et al. 2010).
Int. J. Wildland Fire
379
Fuel management actions are already included in land and
forest planning in some regions (S3). Unfortunately, in many
other cases there are incompatibilities for the implementation of
certain fuel management activities because of technical, legislative or social issues. Conflicts between objectives and aims of
different management plans sometimes hinder fuel treatment
application (W7). Prescribed burning use is limited (W10) and,
when legislation allows this method, there are often important
deficiencies and constraints owing to regulation that hinder its
practical implementation. Moreover, most foresters and policy
makers are still sceptical about its benefits (T3), although many
scientific studies support this technique in fire-prone ecosystems (Vega et al. 1994; Piñol et al. 2005; Fernandes and Rigolot
2007). Despite the existing practices and programmes of fire
use as a prevention tool in Europe (Montiel and Kraus 2010),
prescribed burning is still far from being a widely accepted
technique in most Mediterranean countries. Major contributing
factors are the lack of long-term experience in fire management
organisations and unwillingness to assume the associated risks
(Xanthopoulos et al. 2006).
When not used under legal regulation and good practices,
traditional use of fire may be a significant cause of wildfires in
many European regions, like in Sardinia (Italy) or Portugal
(Xanthopoulos et al. 2006). This is also an important obstacle
in Spain, where the traditional and sometimes careless use of
fire by the rural population is a practice difficult to change
(W15), and that implies a high fire risk (Vélez 2000). There are
sometimes conflicts between shepherds and local institutions
regarding grazing practices (W16), which are often associated
with burnings for pasture renovation (Vélez 2000). The capacity
of livestock to effectively control highly flammable vegetation
is supported by scientific evidence (Étienne et al. 1994; Jáuregui
et al. 2009). Extensive livestock grazing contributes to a more
diversified heterogeneous landscape, and can be locally intensified along fuelbreaks (Ruiz-Mirazo et al. 2011). Despite successful local experiences (S6), lack of profitability is forcing
shepherds to abandon such practices (W17). This is partly due to
the priority for intensive livestock management within the frame
of current agricultural policies (T10).
Another important obstacle is related to the ageing rural
population and land abandonment (T12) (Martı́nez-Fernández
et al. 2013), which lead to loss of traditional knowledge
and implementation of land care practices. This not only
further increases fire risk because of fuel accumulation
(Loepfe et al. 2010) but also decreases the availability of
experienced manpower for forest management activities
(Vélez 2000). The rural exodus is also a problematic trend
affecting wildfire risk in most European Mediterranean countries (Moreira et al. 2011).
Lack of communication (T7) and inadequate information
transfer (T15) are still important obstacles to be overcome. At
institutional level, there is a forest firefighting committee that
annually assesses the situation and sets the basis for a common
strategy at national level. However, main guidelines refer to
coordination of firefighting actions, and fuel management
strategies are poorly considered and not binding. Despite the
breakthrough in fire suppression and awareness campaigns
during the last decades, there is little progress in integrating
prevention practices in sustainable forest management.
380
Int. J. Wildland Fire
Strategic recommendations for the implementation
of successful fuel management in Spain
Overall, the perception of fuel management in Spain was
dominated by the effect of weaknesses and threats (61%) rather
than by strengths and opportunities (39%). This may appear
discouraging to establishing recommendations for effective fuel
management implementation. However, despite the complexity
of the issue, some of the most important obstacles could be
partly overcome by applying adequate strategies, combining
internal strengths and promising opportunities to cope with
existing weaknesses and threats (Rauch 2007).
Many of the main weaknesses and threats are related to
scarce investment in forest management (W9, T6). Implementation of mechanical fuel treatments may be very expensive,
especially to be developed in small forest properties (T5).
Specific funding programs for fire prevention plans on private
lands from a collective perspective could foster fuel treatment
performance, as well as being more effective than independent
fuel management actions (Agee and Skinner 2005). There are
recent successful experiences in Spain regarding shrub clearing
in marginal mountainous lands, leading to a significant reduction in fire incidence with a relatively low investment (S1,
Lasanta et al. 2009). Nevertheless, savings in wildfire suppression expenses, as well as avoided damages to environment,
human and material goods, should be seriously considered when
assessing the economic viability of fuel treatment applications
(Mavsar 2009). Useful examples already exists in other countries, e.g. USA, where the application of the contingent valuation
method provided nonmarket valuation of benefits to the general
public from investment in wildfire prevention, i.e. prescribed
burning and mechanical fuel reduction programs (Loomis and
González-Cabán 2010). Adequate fuel management activities
give higher environmental value to forest areas.
In some regions, lack of funding could be partly solved by
utilising forest biomass for bioenergy production, which might
provide economic incentives to landowners by creating a new
market for forest products (Dwivedi and Alavalapati 2009).
Experts have recognised the great potential of forest biomassbased bioenergy development for effective fuel management
implementation in Spain (O5). Reva et al. (2010) proposed
small-scale bioenergy production to reduce harvesting and
transportation costs. Shrubland and residual biomass use would
have indirect socio-economic and environmental benefits. However, adequate remaining stand density, fuel discontinuity and
dead surface fuel treatment are minimum requirements to ensure
that biomass extraction is effective for wildfire prevention (Agee
and Skinner 2005). Moreover, a suitable policy environment is
needed for sustaining the growth of a forest-based bioenergy
sector in the Spanish economy, which requires a global and
consistent institutional support. Considering the magnitude of
the wildfire problem, it is urgent to formulate effective and
enabling policies at national and European levels that can
promote such a development by integrating forest policy with
other land, rural and energy policies. Understanding stakeholders perceptions is key in order to incorporate issues deemed
important by all sector groups (Dwivedi and Alavalapati 2009).
Fostering biomass extraction for energy may also help
prevent rural abandonment (T12) by providing new
E. Marino et al.
employment opportunities. Fuel management activities foster
rural development (S13) and may be an important source of
stable jobs in forest areas. The creation of specialised fuel
management teams (S14) enhances job stability and professional recognition and also improves efficiency. There is scientific evidence for the inefficiency of wildfire prevention policies
based on fire suppression without fuel management (Moreira
et al. 2011). A change in current Spanish policies may be
recommended (W12, T8, T9 and T11). A new fire management
policy is required, changing from the firefighting response
concept to the strategic placement of fuel treatments. Moreover,
integration of fuel management activities in forest management
plans is a must for effective wildfire prevention. A fire-smart
forest management involves planning and conducting forest and
fire management activities in a fully integrated manner at both
the stand and landscape levels (Hirsch et al. 2001). Budgetary
resources devoted to sustainable long-term forest planning
should be reinforced, including performance of fuel management activities throughout the whole year. Scientific studies
support this proactive hazard reduction (Fernandes and Rigolot
2007; González and Pukkala 2007). By lowering ignition
likelihood and fire behaviour potential, fire suppression capacity
is increased and forest landscapes become more resistant to fire
spread and more resilient to its occurrence (Fernandes 2013).
Furthermore, fuel management must be understood within
the framework of integrated land management (Stockmann et al.
2010). At the regional level, Loepfe et al. (2010) recommend
focussing on wildfire prevention by preserving the traditional
rural mosaic to maintain fuel fragmentation. The inclusion of
managed agrarian areas in fuelbreak networks (O7) can create
heterogeneous landscapes with an adequate mosaic pattern to
hinder fire spread and increase fire suppression effectiveness
(Moreira et al. 2011). A review of existing technical regulations
in Spain is needed to resolve incompatibilities between different
management plans, and establish guidelines to guarantee that
fuel management activities could also be given higher priority
for implementation (W7, W13). The robust national legal
framework on wildfire prevention that already exists (S9, S10)
should be used as a basis to enhance law enforcement for
implementing effective fuel management at a regional level.
This will require that every regional government establish
minimum requirements for adequate fuel treatment performance
for specific ecosystem types, as well as systematic monitoring
procedures to ensure compliance and enforce regulations.
The support for intensive practices (e.g. feedlots) in livestock
management under the European Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) is an important obstacle to the ability of grazing to
support fuel management (T10). This could be balanced by
recognising higher quality animal products obtained from controlled grazing in fire-prone areas (O6), which could make
extensive livestock management more attractive (W17) and
help prevent fuel accumulation. CAP subsidies for livestock
should be modified to favour controlled grazing, thereby decoupling payments from production (Aguilar et al. 2009). The
integration of grazing into wildfire prevention is not only costeffective and sustainable, but also has other benefits (RuizMirazo et al. 2011). Livestock grazing can foster preservation of
the rural population (T12), and help solve the problem of
Fuel management for wildfire prevention in Spain
careless use of fire under traditional practices for pasture
creation in shrubland areas (W15) by the direct involvement
of local livestock owners in fire prevention planning (W16).
Successful local experiences in Spain and other Mediterranean
countries support this strategy (Étienne et al. 1994; Gutman
et al. 2001; Jáuregui et al. 2009; Ruiz-Mirazo et al. 2011).
Furthermore, experts considered the CAP to be an ideal framework for fostering controlled grazing activities for wildfire
prevention (O9).
Lack of technical information may not preclude prescribed
burning application as a fire prevention technique (T3). A basic
scientific understanding of the ecological impacts of this fuel
treatment exists for different Spanish ecosystems, and could be
used to avoid the potential negative effects (Fontúrbel et al.
1995; Vega et al. 2000, 2005; Calvo et al. 2002; Pereiras and
Casal 2002; Vadilonga et al. 2008). Some recent studies provide
useful information on the effects of prescribed burning on plant
flammability and fire behaviour, which is crucial for the
integration of this method in fuel management planning (Baeza
et al. 2002; Marino et al. 2011; Madrigal et al. 2012). Experts
consider that fire can be an effective tool for fuel management
when properly managed and regulated (S11, S14). To cope with
a worsening wildfire situation, it is necessary to change current
fire management strategy from suppressing all fires that can
result in high fire intensity regimes to a new approach based on
fire regimes with low intensity fires (Castellnou et al. 2010).
Appropriate use of fire by rural communities coupled with the
development of prescribed burning undertaken by fire professionals is recommended for integrated fire management (Silva
et al. 2010). Prescribed burning use may be further reinforced
and expanded based on successful experiences. A legal framework and technical guidelines must be established to avoid any
potential negative effects (W10), and improved institutional
cooperation by sharing experiences and skills in specific training programmes (S8, O3). Some regions already have technical
manuals to implement prescribed burning (Vega et al. 2001).
Adequate prescribed burn planning may be an effective tool
where fires are strongly linked to land use conflicts. A successful
programme has been developed with specialised fire prevention
teams that raise awareness on the correct use of fire in particularly difficult rural areas (S15) (Vélez 2010). This type of action
is essential in Spain, where more than 95% of wildfires are
human-caused and 68% are related to fire use by the rural
population (SECF 2011). Understanding the context and main
drivers of this traditional use of fire is key in order to adapt
existing regulations (W10).
Particular characteristics of each forest area may serve as
a basis for selecting the most appropriate fuel treatment.
However, fuel management plans should commonly combine
different practices as there is no single ideal technique for
wildfire prevention (Fernandes and Botelho 2003). Applying
fuel treatments at an appropriate landscape scale is critical to
reducing wildfire damage (Agee and Skinner 2005). Although
the expected extreme wildfire conditions could limit fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of global warming (T2) (Piñol
et al. 1998, Pausas and Fernández-Muñoz 2012), the longterm objective is to increase the resilience of the ecosystem
(Reinhardt et al. 2008). Furthermore, adequate fuel management might minimise the probability of crown fires, thus
Int. J. Wildland Fire
381
reducing CO2 emissions (Narayan 2007, Stephens et al. 2009).
The scientific and fire expert communities are supporting fire
risk integration in the management of Mediterranean ecosystems, where wildfire is an important and recurrent disturbance
(Hyytiäinen and Haight 2010; González-Olabarria and Pukkala
2011). At European level, there are an increasing number of
R&D projects focussed on wildfire prevention in general, and
fuel management in particular (O1), thereby stimulating innovative approaches (Vega et al. 1994; Silva et al. 2010). The
increasing concern about sustainable forest management by
public institutions (O2) provides the ideal framework for integrating fuel management in forest planning and supporting
R&D projects devoted to acquiring new insights as to how,
where and when to perform fuel treatments. Research should be
focussed on the optimisation of fuel management efficiency
(W1, W4), especially regarding economic aspects (W3), and
with particular emphasis on the most suitable temporal and
spatial patterns adapted to the particular characteristics of
Mediterranean ecosystems under climate change scenarios (T2).
Improving basic knowledge would be useless without an
appropriate communication strategy regarding fuel management benefits. Fostering new channels for technological transfer
between researchers and managers should be relatively easy as
appropriate networks already exist (O3, O4). Forest managers
and landowners organisations could promote effective fuel
treatment application in small private ownerships (O4). The
Spanish fire expert community is setting the basis for a system to
exchange information on wildfire prevention, which would
enable professionals to share successful fuel management
experiences (O3). A similar initiative was developed in France
more than 20 years ago, where a prescribed burning network
brings together all practitioners and researchers interested in
prescribed burning (Lambert 2010). Communication and coordination among the different public administrations may be
improved (T7). The existing forest firefighting committee could
provide official updated guidelines on best practices regarding
fuel treatment methods (W6) adapted to the particularities of
each region. This could greatly facilitate fuel management
implementation, avoiding technological knowledge gaps and
uncertainties. A successful initiative exists in France, where a
specific fuelbreak working group works on real case study
analysis and prepares national standards for fuel management
application (Xanthopoulos et al. 2006). Public communication
should also be enhanced through targeted awareness-raising
campaigns to provide better information about the wildfire
problem (T15), including the marketing of ‘FIRESMART’
products derived from wildfire prevention activities (O5, O6).
Conclusions
Despite improved efforts on firefighting resources in recent
decades, wildfires continue to be an important threat to forest
areas in Spain and other Mediterranean countries. Increasing
fire suppression actions alone would not be effective in solving
the problem, especially under future scenarios predicting higher
fire risk, frequency and intensity. This highlights the need to
focus further on wildfire prevention. From our results, fuel
management may play a key role in successful wildfire prevention. Notwithstanding the existing obstacles, fuel control
could be enhanced by more appropriate forest and rural
382
Int. J. Wildland Fire
planning. Focussing on the strengths and opportunities has
served as a basis for proposing fuel management actions producing synergies for wildfire prevention. New opportunities
related to rural development, such as forest biomass extraction
for energy purposes or quality recognition for animal products
obtained from controlled grazing, may be important for solving
the current problems in fire-prone areas. These actions would
provide additional incomes and foster fuel management activities that would directly involve and benefit the rural population.
Fuel management should be integrated in sustainable long-term
forest planning and in other rural development activities,
taking into consideration fire risk, land use and fire causes.
A commitment to important changes in forest planning, rural
development and sustainable energy policies is required from
policy-makers for the successful implementation of effective
fuel management actions in Spain. In spite of existing local
differences among Mediterranean regions, important coincidences with most southern European countries exist.
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the FIRESMART project (‘Forest and Land Management Options to Prevent Unwanted Forest Fires’), which was funded by the
7th Framework Programme of the European Commission (reference 243840
SP1-COOPERATION). The authors sincerely thank all experts who
answered questionnaires, gave interviews and quantified SWOT analysis for
their contributions to the study. We also sincerely acknowledge the useful
comments and suggestions of four anonymous referees (Associate Editor
and three Reviewers) who helped improve an earlier version of the
manuscript.
References
Agee JK, Skinner CN (2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction
treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83–96. doi:10.1016/
J.FORECO.2005.01.034
Aguilar S, Galiana L, Lázaro A (2009) Analysis of wildfire risk management
from a territorial policies perspective: strengths and weaknesses in the
European framework. In ‘Proceedings of the III International Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning and Policy: Common Problems and
Approaches’, 29 April–2 May 2008, Puerto Rico. (Ed. A GonzálezCabán) USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,
General Technical Report PSW-GTR-227, pp. 261–272. (Albany, CA)
Badia A, Serra P, Modugno S (2011) Identifying dynamics of fire ignition
probabilities in two representative Mediterranean wildland–urban interface areas. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England) 31(3), 930–940.
doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2011.01.016
Baeza MJ, De Luis M, Raventós J, Escarré A (2002) Factors influencing
fire behaviour in shrublands of different stand ages and the implications
for using prescribed burning to reduce wildfire risk. Journal of Environmental Management 65, 199–208. doi:10.1006/JEMA.2002.0545
Blinn CR, Jakes PJ, Sakai M (2007) Forest landowner cooperatives in the
United States: a local focus for engaging landowners. Journal of
Forestry 105(5), 245–251.
Calvo L, Tárrega R, De Luis E (2002) The dynamics of Mediterranean
shrubs species over 12 years following perturbations. Plant Ecology 160,
25–42. doi:10.1023/A:1015882812563
Campos P, Caparros A (2006) Social and private total Hickslan incomes of
multiple use forests in Spain. Ecological Economics 57(4), 545–557.
doi:10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2005.05.005
Castellnou M, Kraus D, Miralles M (2010) Prescribed burning and suppression fire techniques: from fuel to landscape management. In ‘Best
Practices of Fire Use – Prescribed Burning and Suppression Fire
E. Marino et al.
Programmes in Selected Case-Study Regions in Europe’. (Eds
C Montiel, D Kraus) European Forest Institute, Research Report 24,
pp. 3–16. (Joensuu, Finland)
Catry FX, Rego FC, Silva JS, Moreira F, Camia A, Ricotta C, Conedera M
(2010) Fire starts and human activities. In ‘Towards Integrated Fire
Management – Outcomes of the European Project Fire Paradox’. (Eds
JS Silva, FC Rego, P Fernandes, E Rigolot) European Forest Institute,
Research Report 23, pp. 9–22. (Joensuu, Finland)
Duguy B, Alloza JA, Roder A, Vallejo R, Pastor F (2007) Modelling the
effects of landscape fuel treatments on fire growth and behaviour in a
Mediterranean landscape (eastern Spain). International Journal of
Wildland Fire 16, 619–632. doi:10.1071/WF06101
Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR (2009) Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest
biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy
Policy 37, 1999–2007. doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2009.02.004
Étienne M, Mas I, Rigolot E (1994) Combining techniques of fuel reduction
for fuel-break maintenance in the French Mediterranean region. In
‘Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Forest Fire
Research’, 21–24 November 1994, Coimbra, Portugal. (Ed. DX Viegas)
pp 713–721. (University of Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal)
FAO (2008) Forest and energy: key issues. FAO forestry paper 154. (FAO)
Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/i0139e/i0139e00.htm
[Verified 7 November 2013]
FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010. Main report. (FAO)
Available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/ [Verified 7
November 2013]
Fernandes PM (2008) Forest fires in Galicia (Spain): the outcome of
unbalanced fire management. Journal of Forest Economics 14,
155–157. doi:10.1016/J.JFE.2007.11.002
Fernandes PM (2013) Fire-smart management of forest landscapes in the
Mediterranean basin under global change. Landscape and Urban Planning 110, 175–182. doi:10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2012.10.014
Fernandes PM, Botelho HS (2003) A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. International Journal of Wildland Fire
12, 117–128. doi:10.1071/WF02042
Fernandes PM, Rigolot E (2007) The fire ecology and management of
maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). Forest Ecology and Management
241, 1–13. doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2007.01.010
Fernandes PM, Luz A, Loureiro C (2010) Changes in wildfire severity from
maritime pine woodland to contiguous forest types in the mountains of
northwestern Portugal. Forest Ecology and Management 260, 883–892.
doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2010.06.008
Fontúrbel MT, Vega JA, Bará S, Bernárdez I (1995) Influence of prescribed
burning of pine stands in NW Spain on soil microorganisms. European
Journal of Soil Biology 31(1), 13–20.
Forest Europe, UNECE, FAO (2011) State of Europe’s Forests 2011.
Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management in Europe.
(Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, FOREST
EUROPE Liaison Unit: Oslo, Norway) Available at http://www.
foresteurope.org/documentos/State_of_Europes_Forests_2011_Report_
Revised_November_2011.pdf [Verified 7 November 2013]
Gerasimov Y, Karjalainen T (2008) Development program for improving
wood procurement in Northwest Russia based on SWOT analysis. Baltic
Forestry 14(1), 87–92.
Ghazinoory S, Abdi M, Azadegan-Mehr M (2011) SWOT methodology: a
state-of-the-art review for the past, a framework for the future. Journal of
Business Economics and Management 12(1), 24–48. doi:10.3846/
16111699.2011.555358
Gill AM, Allan G (2008) Large fires, fire effects and the fire-regime
concept. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17, 688–695.
doi:10.1071/WF07145
González JR, Pukkala T (2007) Characterization of forest fires in Catalonia
(north-east Spain). European Journal of Forest Research 126, 421–429.
doi:10.1007/S10342-006-0164-0
Fuel management for wildfire prevention in Spain
González-Olabarria JR, Pukkala T (2011) Integrating fire risk considerations in landscape-level forest planning. Forest Ecology and Management 261(2), 278–287. doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2010.10.017
Gutman M, Perevolotsky A, Yonatan R, Gutman R (2001) Grazing as a
management tool against fire in open areas. In ‘The Future of the Green
Mediterranean’. (Ed. A Franca) pp. 93–99. (Environmental Defence
Office of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia: Alghero, Italy)
Hernando C, Planelles R, Ortega M, Garrido S, Madrigal J, Guijarro M,
Aragonés JI, Sebastián A (2012) La opinión de los gestores e
investigadores sobre la prevención de incendios forestales en
España: resultados del cuestionario ‘FIRESMART’. Revista Montes
109, 33–38.
Herrero G, Lázaro A, Montiel C (2009) A comparative assessment of the
European forest policies and their influence in wildfire management. In
‘Proceedings of the III International Symposium on Fire Economics,
Planning and Policy: Common Problems and Approaches’. 29 April–2
May 2008, Puerto Rico. (Ed. A González-Cabán) USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSWGTR-227, pp. 273–284. (Albany, CA)
Hirsch K, Kafka V, Tymstra C, McAlpine R, Hawkes B, Stegehuis H,
Quintilio S, Gauthier S, Peck K (2001) Fire-smart forest management: a
pragmatic approach to sustainable forest management in fire-dominated
ecosystems. Forestry Chronicle 77(2), 357–363.
Hyytiäinen K, Haight RG (2010) Evaluation of forest management systems
under risk of wildfire. European Journal of Forest Research 129,
909–919. doi:10.1007/S10342-009-0278-2
Jáuregui BM, Garcia U, Osoro K, Celaya R (2009) Sheep and goat grazing
effect on three Atlantic heathland types. Rangeland Ecology and
Management 62, 119–126. doi:10.2111/07-120.1
Kajanus M, Leskinen P, Kurttila M, Kangas J (2012) Making use of MCDS
methods in SWOT analysis – lessons learnt in strategic natural resources
management. Forest Policy and Economics 20, 1–9. doi:10.1016/
J.FORPOL.2012.03.005
Kangas J, Kurttila M, Kajanus M, Kangas A (2003) Evaluating the
management strategies of a forestland estate – the S-O-S approach.
Journal of Environmental Management 69(4), 349–358. doi:10.1016/
J.JENVMAN.2003.09.010
Lambert B (2010) The French prescribed burning network and its professional team in Pyrénées Orientales: lessons drawn from 20 years of
experience. In ‘Best Practices of Fire Use – Prescribed Burning
and Suppression Fire Programmes in Selected Case-Study Regions in
Europe’. (Eds C Montiel, D Kraus) European Forest Institute, Research
Report 24. (Joensuu, Finland)
Lasanta T, Arnaez J, Errea MP, Ortigosa L, Ruiz-Flano P (2009) Mountain
pastures, environmental degradation, and landscape remediation:
the example of a Mediterranean policy initiative. Applied Geography
(Sevenoaks, England) 29(3), 308–319. doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2008.
09.006
Loepfe L, Martinez-Vilalta J, Oliveres J, Piñol J, Lloret F (2010) Feedbacks between fuel reduction and landscape homogenisation determine
fire regimes in three Mediterranean areas. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 2366–2374. doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2010.03.009
Loomis J, González-Cabán A (2010) Forest Service use of nonmarket
valuation in fire economics: past, present and future. Journal of Forestry
108(8), 389–396.
Madrigal J, Marino E, Guijarro M, Hernando C, Dı́ez C (2012) Evaluation
of the flammability of gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) managed by prescribed
burning. Annals of Forest Science 69, 387–397. doi:10.1007/S13595011-0165-0
Marino E, Guijarro M, Hernando C, Madrigal J, Dı́ez C (2011) Fire hazard
after prescribed burning in a gorse shrubland: implications for fuel
management. Journal of Environmental Management 92(3),
1003–1011. doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2010.11.006
Int. J. Wildland Fire
383
Martı́nez J, Vega-Garcı́a C, Chuvieco E (2009) Human-caused wildfire risk
rating for prevention planning in Spain. Journal of Environmental
Management 90, 1241–1252. doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2008.07.005
Martı́nez-Fernández J, Chuvieco E, Koutsias N (2013) Modelling longterm fire occurrence actors in Spain by accounting for local variations
with geographically weighted regression. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences 13, 311–327. doi:10.5194/NHESS-13-311-2013
Mavsar R (2009) Economics of wildfires. In ‘Living with Wildfires: What
Science Can Tell Us’. (Ed. Y Birot) European Forest Institute, Discussion Paper 15, pp. 59–62. (Joensuu, Finland)
Montiel C, Galiana L (2005) Forest policy and land planning policy in
Spain: a regional approach. Forest Policy and Economics 7(2), 131–142.
doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00026-1
Montiel C, Kraus D (Eds) (2010) Best Practices of Fire Use – Prescribed
Burning and Suppression Fire Programmes in Selected Case-Study
Regions in Europe. European Forest Institute, Research Report 24.
(Joensuu, Finland)
Montiel C, San-Miguel J (2009) Policy analysis reveals the need for
new approaches. In ‘Living with Wildfires: What Science Can Tell
Us’. (Ed. Y Birot) European Forest Institute, Discussion Paper 15,
pp. 63–67. (Joensuu, Finland)
Moreira F, Viedma O, Arianoutsou M, Curt T, Koutsias N, Rigolot E,
Barbati A, Corona P, Vaz P, Xanthopoulos G, Mouillot F, Bilgili E
(2011) Landscape–wildfire interactions in southern Europe: implications for landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 2389–2402. doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2011.06.028
Moreno JM, Viedma O, Zavala G, Luna B (2011) Landscape variables
influencing forest fires in central Spain. International Journal of
Wildland Fire 20, 678–689. doi:10.1071/WF10005
Moya D, De las Heras J, López-Serrano FR, Leone V (2008) Optimal
intensity and age of management in young Aleppo pine stands for postfire resilience. Forest Ecology and Management 255, 3270–3280.
doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2008.01.067
Narayan C (2007) Review of CO2 emissions mitigation through prescribed
burning. European Forest Institute, Technical Report 25. (Joensuu,
Finland)
Ojea E, Ruiz-Benito P, Markandya A, Zavala MA (2012) Wood provisioning in Mediterranean forests: a bottom-up spatial valuation approach.
Forest Policy and Economics 20, 78–88. doi:10.1016/J.FORPOL.2012.
03.003
Pausas JG, Fernández-Muñoz S (2012) Fire regime changes in the
Western Mediterranean Basin: from fuel-limited to drought-driven
fire regime. Climatic Change 110(1–2), 215–226. doi:10.1007/
S10584-011-0060-6
Pereiras J, Casal M (2002) Dynamics of an Ulex shrubland community
subjected to prescribed burning. In ‘Fire and Biological Processes’.
(Eds L Trabaud, R Prodon) pp. 43–56. (Blackhuys Publishers: Leiden,
the Netherlands)
Pesonen M, Kurttila M, Kangas J, Kajanus M, Heinonen P (2001)
Assessing the priorities using A’WOT among resources management
strategies at the Finnish Forest and Park Service. Forest Science 47(4),
534–541.
Piñol J, Terradas J, Lloret F (1998) Climate warming, wildfire hazard, and
wildfire occurrence in coastal eastern Spain. Climatic Change 38,
345–357. doi:10.1023/A:1005316632105
Piñol J, Beven K, Viegas DX (2005) Modelling the effect of fire-exclusion
and prescribed fire on wildfire size in Mediterranean ecosystems.
Ecological Modelling 183, 397–409. doi:10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.
2004.09.001
Piñol J, Castellnou M, Beven K (2007) Conditioning uncertainty in
ecological models: assessing the impact of fire management strategies.
Ecological Modelling 207, 34–44. doi:10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2007.
03.020
384
Int. J. Wildland Fire
E. Marino et al.
Podur J, Wotton M (2010) Will climate change overwhelm fire management
capacity? Ecological Modelling 221, 1301–1309. doi:10.1016/
J.ECOLMODEL.2010.01.013
Rauch P (2007) SWOT analyses and SWOT strategy formulation for forest
owner cooperations in Austria. European Journal of Forest Research
126, 413–420. doi:10.1007/S10342-006-0162-2
Reinhardt ED, Keane RE, Calkin DE, Cohen JD (2008) Objectives and
considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the
interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 256,
1997–2006. doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2008.09.016
Reva V, Pita LP, Lousada JL, Viegas DX (2010) Small-scale bioenergy
production as an incentive for forest fire prevention. In ‘Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Forest Fire Research’, 15–18
November 2010, Coimbra, Portugal. (Ed. DX Viegas) (University of
Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal)
Rigolot E, Fernandes P, Rego F (2009) Managing wildfire risk: prevention,
suppression. In ‘Living with Wildfires: What Science Can Tell Us’. (Ed.
Y Birot) European Forest Institute, Discussion Paper 15, pp. 49–52.
(Joensuu, Finland)
Rodrı́guez y Silva F, González-Cabán A (2010) ‘SINAMI’: a tool for the
economic evaluation of forest fire management programs in Mediterranean ecosystems. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19, 927–936.
doi:10.1071/WF09015
Román-Cuesta RM, Gracia M, Retana J (2009) Factors influencing the
formation of unburned forest islands within the perimeter of a large
forest fire. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 71–80. doi:10.1016/
J.FORECO.2009.03.041
Ruiz-Mirazo J, Robles AB, González-Rebollar JL (2011) Two-year evaluation of fuelbreaks grazed by livestock in the wildfire prevention
program in Andalusia (Spain). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
141, 13–22. doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2011.02.002
Schmuck G, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Camia A, Durrant T, Santos de Oliveira S,
Boca R, Whitmore C, Giovando C, Libertà G, Corti P, Schulte E (2010)
Forest Fires in Europe 2010. European Commission, Joint Research
Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Report number 11.
(Luxembourg)
SECF (2011) Situación de los bosques y del sector forestal en España,
Informe 2010. (Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales) Available
at http://www.secforestales.org/web/images/ISFE/inforestal2010.pdf
[Verified 7 November 2013]
Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR, Kalmbacher RS (2004) Exploring the
potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method. Agricultural Systems 81(3), 185–199.
doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2003.09.004
Silva JS, Rego F, Fernandes P, Rigolot E (2010) Towards integrated fire
management – outcomes of the European project fire paradox. European
Forest Institute, Research Report, vol. 23. (Joensuu, Finland)
Stephens SL, Moghaddas JJ (2005) Experimental fuel treatment impacts on
forest structure, potential fire behaviour and predicted tree mortality in a
California mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 215,
21–36. doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2005.03.070
Stephens SL, Moghaddas JJ, Hartsough BR, Moghaddas EEY, Clinton NE
(2009) Fuel treatment effects on stand-level carbon pools, treatmentrelated emissions, and fire risk in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39(8), 1538–1547. doi:10.1139/
X09-081
Stockmann KD, Hyde KD, Jones JG, Loeffler DR, Silverstein RP (2010)
Integrating fuel treatment into ecosystem management: a proposed
project planning process. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19,
725–736. doi:10.1071/WF08108
Syphard AD, Keeley JE, Brennan TJ (2011) Comparing the role of fuel
breaks across southern California national forests. Forest Ecology and
Management 261, 2038–2048. doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2011.02.030
Vadilonga T, Ubeda X, Germann PF, Lorca M (2008) Effects of prescribed
burnings on soil hydrological parameters. Hydrological Processes
22(21), 4249–4256. doi:10.1002/HYP.7032
Valdecantos A, Baeza MJ, Vallejo VR (2009) Vegetation management for
promoting ecosystem resilience in fire-prone Mediterranean shrublands.
Restoration Ecology 17(3), 414–421. doi:10.1111/J.1526-100X.2008.
00401.X
Vega JA, Valette JC, Rego F, Lara C, Gillon D, Ventura J, Bara S, Gomendy
V, Botelho H, Guijarro M, Houssard C, Ruas L, Cuiñas P, Marechal J,
Mendes-Lopes J, Dı́ez R, Fernandes P, Fonturbel M, Santos J, Rozados
M, Beloso M (1994) Forest fire prevention through prescribed
burning: an international cooperative project carried out in the European
STEP program. In ‘Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Forest Fire Research’, 21–24 November 1994, Coimbra, Portugal.
(Ed. DX Viegas) pp. 75–84 (ADAI: Coimbra)
Vega JA, Cuiñas P, Fontúrbel MT, Fernández C (2000) Planificar la
prescripción para reducir combustibles y disminuir el impacto sobre el
suelo en las quemas prescritas. Cuadernos de la Sociedad Española de
Ciencias Forestales 9, 189–198.
Vega JA, Perez-Gorostiaga P, Cuiñas P, Fonturbel MT, Fernández MC
(2001) ‘Manual de queimas prescritas para matogueiras de Galicia.’
(Xunta de Galicia: Pontevedra, Spain)
Vega JA, Fernandez C, Fonturbel T (2005) Throughfall, runoff and
soil erosion after prescribed burning in gorse shrubland in Galicia
(NW Spain). Land Degradation and Development 16(1), 37–51.
doi:10.1002/LDR.643
Vélez R (2000) Las quemas incontroladas como causa de incendios
forestales. Cuadernos de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales
9, 13–26.
Vélez R (2010) Prescribed burning for improved grazing and social fire
prevention: the Spanish EPRIF Programme. In ‘Best Practices of FireUse – Prescribed Burning and Suppression Fire Programmes in Selected
Case-Study Regions in Europe’. (Eds C Montiel, D Kraus) European
Forest Institute, Research Report 24, pp. 107–122. (Joensuu, Finland)
Weihrich H (1982) The TOWS matrix – a tool for situational analysis. Long
Range Planning 15(2), 54–66. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0
Xanthopoulos G (2002) Shrub removal cost estimation for fire hazard
reduction in Mediterranean forest conditions. In ‘Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Forest Fire Research’, 18–23 November
2002, Luso–Coimbra, Portugal. (Ed. DX Viegas) (CD-ROM) (Millpress
Science Publishers: Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
Xanthopoulos G (2007) Forest fire policy scenarios as a key element
affecting the occurrence and characteristics of fire disasters. In ‘Proceeding of the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference’, 13–17 May
2007, Sevilla, Spain. Available at http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/
sevilla-2007/contributions/doc/cd/SESIONES_TEMATICAS/ST2/
Xanthopoulos_GRECIA.pdf [Verified 7 November 2013]
Xanthopoulos G, Caballero D, Galante M, Alexandrian D, Rigolot E,
Marzano R (2006) Forest fuels management in Europe. In ‘Proceedings
of the Conference on Fuels Management: How to Measure Success’,
28–30 March 2006, Portland, OR. (Eds PL Andrews, BW Butler), USDA
Forest Services, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-41,
pp. 29–46. (Fort Collins, CO)
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf