See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265471723

Pre-industrial anthropogenic fire regimes in transition: The case of Spain and

its implications for fire governance in Mediterranean biomes”.

Article  in  Human Ecology Review · June 2012

CITATIONS READS

27 271

1 author:

Francisco Seijo
Instituto de Empresa
22 PUBLICATIONS   272 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mediterranean Fire CHANS View project

Identifying and disentangling key components of forest vulnerability and resilience in response to drought: The role of ecological memory and legacy effects in Iberian
forests View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco Seijo on 24 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research in Human Ecology
Pre-Industrial Anthropogenic Fire Regimes in Transition:
The Case of Spain and its Implications for Fire Governance
in Mediterranean Type Biomes
Francisco Seijo1
Department of Political Science
Middlebury College School in Spain
Robert Gray
RW Gray Consulting Ltd.
Chilliwack, British Columbia
Abstract
Landscape fire regimes in the Earth system are believed
to be changing rapidly. These changes will have significant
environmental consequences since fires are a key ecological
process in flammable ecosystems with feedbacks on carbon
cycling, soil fertility, biodiversity and regional climate pat-
terns. Based on the evolution of fire regimes in Mediter-
ranean biomes, as illustrated by the case of Spain, this arti-
cle suggests that one of the leading causes of these transfor-
mations was the disruption of the pre-industrial anthro-
pogenic fire regimes (PIAFRs) that helped shape these an-
thropogenic biomes. State-led industrialization policies and
fire exclusion transformed the local communities that gener-
ated PIAFRs in all likelihood contributing to today’s fire
regime changes. In light of the challenges posed by climate
change this article suggests that fire governance policies in
these biomes should be opened to greater scrutiny and argues
for interdisciplinary research into PIAFRs with ABM/LUCC
models to further this goal.
Keywords: landscape fires, fire ecology, fire governance,
traditional ecological knowledge
Introduction
Until recently scientists defined and mapped the Earth’s
biomes on the basis of vegetation patterns conformed chiefly
by regional variations in climate (Ellis & Ramankutty, 2008).
Fire ecologists argue, however, that landscape fires have also
played a major role in shaping the distribution and ecological
properties of many of the world’s ecosystems decoupling in
many cases vegetation from climate (Bond, 2005). Fire-prone
flammable biomes cover about 40% of the Earth’s land sur-
face and harbor some of the most biodiverse ecosystems and
58
densely populated human societies on the planet (Chapin et
al., 2002). In order to describe landscape fire patterns fire
ecologists have developed the concept of the fire regime. A
fire regime has been defined according to the following quan-
tifiable attributes: fuel consumption and spread, intensity,
severity, frequency and season (Bond & Keeley, 2005). An-
thropogenic ignitions, whether deliberate or unintentional,
have played a major role in extending the realm of flamma-
ble ecosystems and modified certain key attributes of fire
regimes (Bond & Keeley, 2005). Individual human beings
and societies, in fact, have manipulated fire regimes through-
out history to serve their varying needs and ends, though
there is no scientific consensus over the degree and extent to
which these activities modified pattern and process in these
landscapes (Guyette et al., 2002; Vale et al., 2002; Kay, C.,
2007; Bowman et al., 2009).
Recent research suggests, however, that, at present, 75%
of the Earth’s ice-free land shows evidence of alteration as a
result of human residence and land use, hence the term an-
thropogenic biomes has been developed in order to describe
many of the ecosystems we are living in today (Ellis & Ra-
mankutty, 2008). Anthropogenic fire use has in all probabili-
ty been in the past, and continues to be at present, a major dri-
ver in the large-scale anthropogenic transformation of the
Earth’s natural systems (Bond, 2005; Ellis, 2011). In turn, an-
thropogenic fire use has also undergone significant transfor-
mations throughout time as a result of political, social, eco-
nomic, cultural, technological and biophysical developments.
This article will propose a historical approach for under-
standing some of the transformations taking place today in
fire regimes in Mediterranean type biomes (MTBs). This ap-
proach, applied historical ecology, has been proposed in the
literature as the most effective way to develop scientifically
sound fire governance (Sweatnam et al., 1999). To accom-
plish this, we will outline some of the possible implications
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012
© Society for Human Ecology

of an integrated natural/social sciences interdisciplinary ap-
proach to both the study of these changes and future fire gov-
ernance in them, illustrating the implications of this proposed
approach with a brief analysis of the case of Spain. In partic-
ular, we will argue that there is a growing need to fully char-
acterize and elaborate typologies of the pre-industrial anthro-
pogenic fire regimes (PIAFRs) that once existed — and, more
importantly, of those that still exist today — in order to fully
understand their role in human ecosystem management and
their possible utility in the management of changing fire
regimes in MTBs in the immediate future. PIAFRs, though
still thriving in many developing societies with MTBs, have
been partially or completely eliminated from many of its de-
veloped societies due to the social, political, economic and
technological transformations that have taken place as a re-
sult of industrialization and post-industrialization and ac-
companying state policies of fire exclusion. We propose that
these typologies of PIAFRs could be used as inputs in inte-
grated Agent Based/Land Use Cover Change (ABM/LUCC)
computer simulation models that could then be employed to
both understand past fire regime changes in MTBs and assess
the potential of future fire governance strategies in them.
It is thus necessary to characterize PIAFRs in MTBs
both qualitatively and quantitatively in order to guide future
hypothesis formulation on the changing fire cycle both in the
biomes where these fire regimes still exist and in the places
where they have lost their predominance or become virtually
extinct. As this article will argue this research should be car-
ried out with an interdisciplinary methodology to avoid bi-
ased conclusions as well as conditioning management strate-
gies (Carmenta et al., 2011). Inevitably, this novel method-
ological approach also raises the question of the kind of fire
governance that ought to be fomented in MTBs where pre-in-
dustrial anthropogenic fire use based on traditional ecologi-
cal knowledge (TEK) by local communities is still the norm
in human ecosystem management. This question is of para-
mount importance given the challenges posed by climate
change which may, in fact, feedback positively with current
fire regime changes in many of these MTBs (Pausas & Fer-
nandez-Muñoz, 2011).
Anthropogenic fire regimes in
Mediterranean type biomes
The PIAFR concept as the basis for a historical
approach to understanding fire regime change in MTBs
An anthropogenic fire regime can be defined as patterns
of wildland fire shaped by the dynamic interactions of vegeta-
tion [fuels] and human populations [ignitions] whether volun-
tary or involuntary (Guyette et al., 2002). The different an-
thropogenic fire regimes existing in the Earth system seem to
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012
Seijo and Gray
be a product of cultural and land use interactions and attribut-
es throughout history. Hence, in different regions and histori-
cal periods hunting and gathering, agriculture and animal hus-
bandry, logging and forestry and conservational-recreational
or even religious human activities, among others, contributed
to shape what can be conceptualized as “socially explicit fire
regimes” (Goldstein & Hull, 2008). Other less intentional
non-TEK based disruptive phenomena affecting human popu-
lations also may have played a role in conditioning anthro-
pogenic fire regimes such as wars, disease, migration and set-
tlement, climate changes, etc. (Guyette et al., 2002).
Given the enormous diversity of human cultures and
their different TEK based ecosystem management practices it
is impossible to generalize and characterize a single common
pre-industrial fire regime for all of them. Studies analyzing
long term biomass burning trends have quantified evolving
historical fire patterns in many of the Earth system’s biomes,
though, and have hypothesized that the human factor is prob-
ably significantly involved in this evolution (Marlon et al.,
2008). Thus, fires taking place in geographical areas with a
long history of dense human occupation before the advent of
the industrial era, say 150 BP or 1800 AD, could be hypo-
thetically classified under the logical umbrella provided by
the PIAFR concept whereas fires taking place after that date
could be classified as belonging to the industrial and post-in-
dustrial anthropogenic fire regime (IAFR) category. The elab-
oration of this historical typology would facilitate the de-
scription of the interplay between human and biophysical
systems and their influence on the transformation of fire pat-
terns. In transition periods between different phases of human
system development, fires of the PIAFR type could conceiv-
ably mix and co-exist with IAFR type fires in different patch-
es of the same landscape since human economic, social, cul-
tural and political development throughout the globe is non-
linear both spatially and temporally. This dichotomous clas-
sification, however, could help formulate research hypotheses
and aid in understanding the co-evolution of landscape fire
regimes and human societies. In order to quantitatively mea-
sure the rate of biophysical change in the fire cycle, in other
words, one must first understand what is qualitatively chang-
ing in human systems, particularly when and where human
ignitions are the main cause of landscape fires.
Investigations of PIAFRs could be facilitated by re-
searching similar ecosystems in different parts of the world
with a scientifically verifiable, long-standing, demographi-
cally-dense human presence and uneven levels of political,
social and economic development. This is the case of many
countries with MTBs. For instance, PIAFRs in MTBs were
often characterized by low intensity, frequent (annual in some
areas), broadcast (extensive) burning with a fire season that
varied considerably from ecosystem to ecosystem and depen-
59
Seijo and Gray
dent on such factors as topography, vegetation cover and
type, presence of domesticated and wild herbivores, etc.
(Cordier & Genin, 2008; Genin, 2007; Sigaut, 1976; Pyne
1995; Moreno et al., 1998; Pausas et al. 1999; Keeley 2002;
Lloret et al. 2002; Pardo et al. 2005; Roura-Pascual et al.
2005; Purcell 2005). PIAFRs would have propitiated the cre-
ation of open woodland and shrubland landscape mosaics
thus favoring mature tree groves (unaffected by frequent low
intensity fires), selected shrub species (Ulex europaeus in
certain parts of Southern Europe was cultivated through
broadcast burning for use as bedding for cattle, feed in ex-
tensive grazing pasturelands and fertilizer for cultivated
fields), and other pyrophitic annual herbaceous species
(Black et al., 2006). PIAFRs would have also resulted in a
mosaic of spatially heterogeneous vegetation patches in
which old arable fields, grasslands, selected shrublands and
old growth tree groves prevailed at the expense of wild shrub-
lands and closed canopy mixed woodlands which were dis-
placed to untreated, marginal or remote “wilderness” areas
(Pyne, 1995; Pyne, 1996; Pausas et al., 1999; Purcell et al.,
2005; Cordier & Genin, 2008; Genin, 2007; Sigaut, 1976).
In sum, PIAFRs in MTBs would have successively or si-
multaneously favored hunter-gatherer, sylvo-pastoral and
agro-pastoral land uses by the different pre-industrial human
societies populating these ecosystems through time and these
would have in turn resulted in the creation of identifiable an-
thropogenic biomes (Ellis & Ramankutty, 2008; Ellis, 2011).
The landscapes resulting from these purposeful anthro-
pogenic land management activities based on TEK can be, in
fact, characterized and studied as cultural artefacts (Spencer-
Wood et al., 2010). The qualitative characteristics of these PI-
AFRs would have to be classified, operationalized and quan-
tified by future interdisciplinary research, of course, but at
least researchers would analytically know what to look for,
thus aiding the process of hypothesis formulation in under-
standing and explaining fire regime changes in these biomes.
Finally, the degree and scale of impact of differing PIAFRs
on landscape patterns and processes could also be contrasted
with similar ecosystems where perhaps human influence on
the landscape may not have been as pervasive or long lasting,
such as the MTBs of North and South America, or with
human societies that live in these biomes that are at present at
a different stage of political, social and economic develop-
ment as in, for instance, North Africa (Vale et al., 2002;
Genin et al., 2007). Similar research strategies, for instance,
have been used to understand fire regime change and the im-
plications of TEK for contemporary fire management in
South America (Bilbao, et al. 2010), and the Caribbean (Mis-
try et al. 2009).
A historical approach based on the PIAFR concept could
also serve as a basis for quantitatively analyzing the complex
60
motivations of human agents involved in the “social dilem-
ma” generated by the transition of coupled human and natur-
al systems from the pre-industrial to the industrial era (Os-
trom, 2005). Traditional computer simulation models work
under the assumption that individual behavior is mainly con-
ditioned by rational, profit-maximizing economic calcula-
tions that are not always valid for understanding local com-
munities’ land-use, land tenure and fire-use preferences and
behavior (Seijo, 2005; Parsons et al., 2002; Seijo, 2009;
Millington et al., 2008). Evidence suggests that aesthetic
preferences for natural landscapes are mediated by affective
processes, perhaps developed by natural selection during
human evolution, and are relatively independent of the influ-
ences of contemporary information interventions or rational
arguments (Parsons et al., 2002; Gobster et al., 2007). Ostrom
(2005) suggests that the most appropriate methodological ap-
proach to this puzzle could lie in the development of new
methodological tools such as ABMs that are based on a more
nuanced vision of individual agent motivations. This form of
simulation modelling is able to go beyond the traditional “ra-
tional egoist” assumptions present in most common pool re-
source analytical frameworks to represent participants that
hold multiple value orientations and value trust, reciprocity,
and equity.
Fire regime changes in MTBs
PIAFRs in MTBs experienced sometimes gradual,
sometimes abrupt transformations at different times and
places after the advent of the industrial era. In some cases PI-
AFRs did not entirely disappear from developed industrial or
post-industrial societies but instead co-exist with new as of
yet uncharacterized industrial era fire regimes though in sig-
nificantly transformed landscapes. In California, for instance,
PIAFRs in the MTBs of the South of the state seem to have
come to an end by the early 20th century as a result of Euro-
pean settlement and the demise of Amerindian tribes or their
confinement to reservations and the introduction of livestock
and commercial logging (Keeley, 2002; Anderson, 2006;
Stephens et al., 2010). Consequently, and particularly during
the 20th century, the economic needs, cultural preferences
and land use policies of the new developed and industrial so-
ciety resulted in a state policy of fire exclusion that led to un-
foreseen, unintended consequences on present fire regimes
and have thus contributed to the emergence of the new IAFRs
which now prevail in the region (Stephens et al., 2010).
The Californian case seems to be an exception, however.
In most MTBs located in developed countries, such as those
in Southern Europe, PIAFRs were not significantly altered
until well into the 20th century (Pyne, 1995; Seijo, 2005). In
many cases, present fire regimes—particularly in Portugal,
Spain and Greece—exhibit a superimposition of PIAFR type
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012

fires with new types of landscape fires that probably respond
to a new, as of yet uncharacterized, IAFR (Castellnou &
Mirabot, 2007; Henderson et al., 2005; Pausas et al., 1999;
Pausas & Fernandez-Muñoz, 2011). “Uncharacteristic” wild-
fires are defined as landscape fires deviating from the histor-
ical fire regime (USFS, 2000). In North African countries,
most fires still seem to be of the PIAFR type although a tran-
sition in land use linked to the industrialization process sim-
ilar to the one that took place in the European Mediterranean
basin during the 20th century may already be well on its way
at present (Funnell, D. et al., 1999; Genin et al., 2007;
Cordier et al., 2008). Similarly to developments taking place
in MTBs, PIAFR’s in Venezuela generated by the Pemon
tribe were responsible for a heterogeneous forest-savanna
matrix managed through a patch mosaic burning system that
not only contributed to biodiversity and resilience, but also
sustained these indigenous peoples. A lack of understanding
about these PIAFR’s led not only to the implementation of
state-led fire exclusion policies in the 21st century but also a
fear for the ecological implications of the new uncharacteris-
tic wildfires that are taking place in the area (Bilbao et al.
2010).
In fact, there is mounting consensus among experts that
IAFRs are gradually taking hold in many developed countries
with MTBs, particularly those located in the Mediterranean
basin (Castellnou & Mirabot, 2007; Pyne, 2007; Pausas &
Fernandez-Muñoz, 2011). The new IAFRs would be con-
formed by the so-called “mega-fires” of the present (Pyne,
2007; Castellnou & Mirabot, 2007). These uncharacteristic
mega-fires are significantly different from PIAFR type land-
scape fires and conform a new type of anthropogenic fire
regime in these regions roughly characterized by a lesser fre-
quency, a different fire season (mega-fires take place mainly
in summer rather than in early spring or late fall as in the
past), higher intensity burns and crown fires (due to the pro-
fusion of accumulated fuels resulting from the combination
of state-led plantation forestry and fire exclusion policies),
and, in general, a bigger spread of the burnt area (Moreira et
al., 2001; Lloret et al., 2002; Castellnou & Mirabot, 2007;
Pyne, 2007; Pausas & Fernandez-Muñoz, 2011). Uncharac-
teristic mega-fires of this type may result in increased green-
house gas emissions since they seem to have a negative feed-
back effect on carbon sequestration (Wiedinmayer &
Hurteau, 2010). To the emergence of IAFRs we must also
compound anthropogenic climate change effects which are
expected to increase the propensity of all flammable biomes,
including MTBs, to burn exponentially in the medium and
long term due to increasing terrestrial surface temperatures
and expected changes in precipitation patterns (IPCC, 2007).
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012
Seijo and Gray
Top-down industrial development as a driver of fire
regime changes in MTBs
One of the reasons why PIAFRs mix and co-exist with
the new types of anthropogenic fire regimes of the industrial
and post-industrial era in MTBs has to do with the manner in
which the industrialization process took, and is taking, place
in these regions of the world. To fully understand fire regime
transformations in MTBs, therefore, it is crucial to under-
stand the political, economic and social dynamics in which
they are embedded as well as the biophysical variables (Seijo,
2005). In many of the Earth’s fire-prone MTBs—as in, for in-
stance, those located in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile and
South Africa—the process of industrial development was fa-
cilitated by authoritarian states. Social historians have called
this type of state-led industrialization process “modernization
from above” (Moore, 1968). This industrial development
strategy often pitted the state’s forest agencies against local
communities in protracted political conflicts over land use,
land tenure and fire use in many areas of the world, not only
in MTBs (Guha, 1999; Scott, 1999; Kull, 2002; Seijo, 2005;
Mistry et al., 2009). The result was that, though new forms of
land use tied to the industrialization process were finally con-
solidated over most of the countryside, significant pockets of
traditional pre-industrial landscapes managed by local com-
munities persisted. These local communities, in many cases,
carved a social, economic and ecological niche for them-
selves in the countryside thus preserving the traditional pre-
industrial landscape, their subsistence agriculture economy
and traditional agrarian practices—and, consequently, their
TEK based PIAFRs—through ritualized political resistance
(Kull, 2002; Seijo, 2005; Mistry et al., 2009).
The consequences of this lengthy process of uneven po-
litical, social and economic development for the evolution of
these ecosystems’ anthropogenic fire regimes are complex.
Clearly, in some regions the state-led transformation of the
traditional rural economy has been complete. Wherever the
“modernization from above” process was fully completed the
rural population migrated to urban areas. Pre-industrial farm-
ers and pastoralists thus became environmental refugees as a
result of the disappearance of their traditional economy and
landscape and in many cases were incorporated into the new
urban labor force thus manning the emerging industries both
in their own country and in other industrial centres abroad
(Seijo, 2007). In rural areas the pre-industrial subsistence
economy was then substituted by a modern market-oriented
forestry and intensive agriculture and animal husbandry
economy (Scott, 1999; Naredo, 2001; Seijo, 2005). In these
new “industrial era” rural landscapes, afforestations with fast
growing commercial tree species for the timber industry re-
placed many of the pastures, old arable fields and fire man-
aged forests of the past (Moreira et al., 2001; Lloret et al.,
61
Seijo and Gray
2003; Roura-Pascual et al., 2005; Seijo, 2005). Simultane-
ously, mechanized intensive agriculture employing chemical
fertilizers, irrigation and stabulated animal husbandry with
industrially produced fodders reduced the demand for tradi-
tionally cultivated fields, pastures and shrublands (Naredo,
2001; Roura-Pascual et al., 2005). In abandoned agricultural
fields and pastures, shrubs reclaimed the landscape in the ab-
sence of PIAFRs, pastoral extensive grazing or a specifically
designed new state land use policy for these terrains (Moreira
et al., 2001; Lloret et al., 2003; Roura-Pascual et al., 2005;
Castellnou & Mirabot, 2007). The confluence of these factors
resulted in the build-up of massive fuel loads that have con-
tributed in many of these ecosystems to the conformation of
the new IAFRs of the present. Afforestations consisting of
exotic eucalyptus tree species, which have been introduced to
MTBs in Southern Europe, North Africa and Chile, are asso-
ciated with many industrial era state-led forest policies in
these biomes. These plantations are highly flammable and
when burned tend to exhibit high to extreme intensity and
emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. Researchers hy-
pothesize that afforestation with eucalyptus in biomes where
fire impacts are likely leads to a positive climate change feed-
back (Jackson et al., 2008; Wiedinmayer et al., 2010).
All these economic, political and social trends com-
pounded with the articulation and implementation throughout
the 20th century of active fire exclusion policies by state for-
est administrations, and in some cases the military. This pat-
tern has repeated itself throughout developed and developing
societies in MTBs. In Spain and Portugal, for example, fire
exclusion policies were implemented in order to protect the
new industrially oriented afforestations with pine and exotic
eucalyptus species from competing pre-industrial land uses
such as extensive pastoral grazing or temporary slash and
burn swidden agriculture (Moreira et al., 2001; Seijo, 2005).
In South African MTBs, park conservation also played a role
in the advancement of these policies (Pyne, 1995). Fire ex-
clusion policies have complicated the picture even further by
making all fires of the PIAFR type illegal in some countries
with MTBs and elsewhere (Seijo, 2005; Bilbao et al. 2010).
Thus firings in the pockets where pre-industrial land use still
prevails are usually carried out clandestinely and with less
control than in the past. Adjacent fuelbeds are, in addition,
now more flammable and spatially extensive because in the
past fuel treatments would have attenuated fire spread. Other
intentional burns that do not necessarily fit within the PIAFR
logic, but are carried out by local communities exhibiting
pre-industrial lifestyles and practices, are aimed at recovering
traditional land uses in landscapes enclosed by the state as
part of its afforestation effort or for conservation reasons
[creation of parks, wildlife refuges, natural preserves, etc.]
(Seijo, 2005).
62
The end result of this complex and evolving picture is
that anthropogenic fire regimes in many MTBs have been
substantially transformed since the advent of the industrial
era by political, economic and social development policies
fomented “from above” by states. Though many fires in
MTBs still respond to the logic of PIAFRs, these fires now
take place in very different industrial and post-industrial era
landscapes in developed countries and as a result co-exist
with uncharacteristic fires of the IAFR type within the same
landscape. This new biophysical reality is largely the result of
the human system drivers described in this section and are
likely to have important subsequent ecological effects due to
the interplay of changing fire regime feedbacks throughout
the Earth system — not only in MTBs — with climate change
(Bowman et al., 2009).
Implications of the PIAFR approach for fire
governance in MTBs: The case of Spain
What lessons if any can be extracted from the impact of
the state-led industrialization process on anthropogenic fire
regime changes in unevenly developed countries with MTBs?
What type of fire governance and development policies
should be fomented for local communities existing in devel-
oping or developed countries with anthropogenic MTBs
which still rely on TEK based PIAFRs for ecosystem man-
agement, particularly in light of the new scenario created by
global climate change? These crucial questions are impossi-
ble to answer fully at this point in the absence of scientific
evidence as to the impact of these fire regime transformations
on ecological processes, the uncertainties inherent in the long
term ecological effects of global climate change and the po-
tential range of human system adaptation and mitigation
strategies to be implemented in the near future. Yet, some
preliminary points can be drawn from the historical experi-
ences of developed countries with MTBs in the recent past.
These lessons can be grouped into two different themes: (1)
Interdisciplinary scientific approach needed to understand
fire regime changes in MTBs, (2) Policy implementation is-
sues and potential climate change adaptation strategies for
these biomes.
(1) Interdisciplinary scientific approach needed to
understand fire regime changes in MTBs
A more nuanced and inclusive approach to fire gover-
nance in anthropogenic MTBs should be developed in light of
the new global climate change scenario. This new approach,
which should contemplate an economic, ecological and polit-
ical evaluation of the role played by TEK based local com-
munity management of flammable biomes, should be based
on an interdisciplinary research into PIAFRs which includes
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012
 Seijo and Gray

both the natural and social sciences. Qualitative and quantita-

tive research into PIAFRs can, in fact, help correlate political,
social and economic human system factors with fire-prone
ecosystem transformations in the Earth’s natural systems.
These inextricably linked human and natural systems have
been defined in the literature as “Coupled Human and Natur-
al Systems”. That is, systems in which human and natural
processes interact (Liu et al., 2007). For research purposes, a
PIAFR could be defined as an anthropogenic fire regime de-
signed to satisfy the cultural and economic needs of a local
community originating in or maintaining at present the eco-
nomic practices of the pre-industrial era.
Figure 1. Fire exclusion costs in Spain 1984-2006
Interdisciplinary research into these PIAFRs would
serve to map the transformations that have taken place in fire Source: ASEMFO, 2006
regimes since the advent of the industrial era. The starting
point from which these transformations took place, so to ABM/LUCC models that could trace the historical evolution
speak, would be the PIAFRs defined and characterized by of PIAFRs after industrialization in developed MTBs and
this research. As in the research of coupled human and natur- subsequent fire regime change. Finally, these tools could be
al systems, the research of PIAFRs would require the forma- applied to developing countries with MTBs to analyze possi-
tion of interdisciplinary teams that would explore the com- ble fire regime change scenarios resulting from the applica-
plex organizational, spatial and temporal couplings of these tion of different industrial development or climate change
systems (Liu et al., 2007). Scientific research into coupled adaptation strategies in them.
human and natural systems is thought to have significant im-
plications for the future formulation of management, gover- (2) Policy implementation issues and potential climate
nance and policymaking decisions in them (Liu et al., 2007). change adaptation strategies for anthropogenic MTBs in
This interdisciplinary approach has also been proposed in re- light of the Spanish case
view articles of literature published on human-fire interac- One of the most important lessons that can be extracted
tions in tropical regions (Carmenta et al., 2011). According to from the fire regime changes that have taken place in MTBs
its authors, fire research in these biomes has been conducted in the past century is that it is politically, socially and eco-
— much like in MTBs — with a wide variety of disciplinary nomically unfeasible—as well as ecologically undesirable—
approaches that include the natural and social sciences, quan- to eradicate landscape fires from these flammable biomes.
titative and qualitative approaches, and positivist and non- This lesson can be clearly appreciated in the 20th century his-
positivist perspectives (Carmenta et al., 2011). As the authors torical experiences of the then developing, now developed,
of this review suggest, non-integrated disciplinary research of
human-fire interactions in these ecosystems could be result-
ing in biased conclusions because the research approach
could be well influencing results and limiting the under-
standing of these fire systems as well as conditioning their 1.800 9.000

management strategies (Carmenta et al., 2011). A novel 1.600 8.000

methodological approach that could aid in the synthesis of

5Ͳyear mean suppression cost ($ million)

1.400 7.000

qualitative and quantitative interdisciplinary research into an- 1.200 6.000

thropogenic fire regime change could be provided by the use 1.000 5.000

of integrated ABM/LUCC models. ABMs allow as an input 800 4.000

the dynamic behaviour of heterogeneous agents by making 600 3.000

explicit assumptions regarding decision making which can be 400 2.000

tested and validated through a variety of empirical methods 200 1.000

(Robinson et al., 2007). LUCC models in turn can allow for 0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ͳ

spatial simulation of how ecosystems and land use interact Year

5Ͳyear mean suppression cost 5Ͳyear mean burned acres
and can be conducted forwards and backwards in time to ex-
plore how different landscape configurations may result. Re- Figure 2. Fire exclusion costs in the United States 1984-2004
search into PIAFRs could result then in the elaboration of Source: National Interagency Fire Center, 2012

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012 63

Seijo and Gray
countries of Southern Europe with MTBs such as Spain. As
can be seen in Figure 1 the costs of fire exclusion in Spain
have escalated dramatically throughout the past three
decades. The figure is even more striking when one realizes
that complete data on costs are only available on what the
central Spanish government administration has spent on fire
exclusion. If the total costs of fire exclusion in all public ad-
ministrations, including the additional funds spent by Spain’s
regional autonomous communities, are considered, one gets a
clearer idea of the magnitude of the expense. Indeed, accord-
ing to recent data, Spain spends almost as much on fire ex-
clusion as the USA as can be seen in Figure 2 (Donovan &
Brown, 2007). Since the USA has a population of about 300
million and the world’s largest GDP it is easy to imagine
what this spending effort represents for Spain, a country that
has a population of only 45 million and the world’s 13th
largest economy in terms of GDP. In spite of this very active
and costly policy of fire exclusion Spain has barely made an
imprint on both the burnt surface affected by landscape fires
and the number of anthropogenic fire incidents. In fact, both
indicators have risen in the years since the application of fire
exclusion policies as can be seen in Figures 3 and 4.
The costs of Spain’s fire exclusion policies should be
confronted with the benefits that were to be expected from
the rural development policies implemented during much of
the 20th century in this country. As previously discussed, PI-
AFRs in Spain were disrupted in order to favor an afforesta-
tion policy that was intended to jumpstart industrialization
and promote the creation of an internationally competitive
cellulose/paper pulp industry. This rural development scheme
was recommended to the Spanish state by the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (UN/FAO), the World
Bank and implemented with the technical advice of the Unit-
ed States Forest Service after the Pacts of Madrid were signed
between President Eisenhower and Generalissimo Franco in
Figure 3. Number of anthropogenic fire incidents in Spain 1976-2006
Source: ASEMFO, 2006
64
Figure 4. Hectares of burnt forest and shrub in Spain
Source: ASEMFO, 2006
1954 (Velez, 2006).
In spite of the covert subsidies implied by a policy of fire
exclusion that wouldn’t have been necessary if PIAFRs had
continued to be the preferred fire management option in
Spain’s flammable biomes, the paper cellulose industry has
only occasionally been profitable since its inception. In 2009,
for instance, Empresa Nacional de Celulosas (ENCE),
Spain’s leading cellulose industrial group lost 93 million
Euros and in 2010 it is expected to only obtain a profit of 6.7
million Euros (Gomez, 2010). The paper pulp and cellulose
industry has also become the source of 73% of the Spanish
state’s forest sector economic output thus giving it an inordi-
nate amount of influence in the formulation of the Spanish
state’s forest policy and a quasi-monopolistic position in
Spain’s forestry sector (INE, 2011). An additional 1.5 billion
Euros is spent annually by autonomous community public
companies (Tragsa, Tragsatec, Egmasa, etc.) to maintain the
extensive afforestations with eucalyptus and pine species that
provide the main raw materials to these industries (INE,
2011). Other externalities that should also be taken into ac-
count in this rough outline of a benefit/cost analysis of
Spain’s 20th century forest sector industrialization strategy
should include the unquantified environmental side-effects of
covering huge extensions of the Iberian peninsula with exot-
ic, fire prone, fast growing, soil depleting species and the
massive displacement of thousands of rural inhabitants since
the 1950s which would have otherwise stayed in these rural
areas, continued to produce other valuable agrarian com-
modities, goods and services and would have managed these
ecosystems with PIAFR type fires based on TEK which
would have prevented the Spanish state from incurring in
these hefty fire exclusion expenses.
It is clear from this data that, at this stage, present poli-
cies of fire exclusion in Spain are not sustainable from a po-
litical, economic and social point of view. In addition, and
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012

from an ecological point of view, the fire regime changes in
Spain’s MTBs that are already taking place are only likely to
accelerate as a result of the compounded feedbacks with cli-
mate change (Pausas & Fernandez-Muñoz, 2011). As Pausas
and Fernandez-Muñoz (2011) have noted fires have unchar-
acteristically increased in size and in frequency in the West-
ern Mediterranean region of Spain since the 1970s and are
strongly related at present to climatic parameters and drought
episodes associated with global warming which have been
exacerbated by land use changes associated with the political,
economic and social developments of the industrial era.
Global climate change greatly affects fire regimes
through land use changes. The changes in land use
(land abandonment and forest plantations) during
the 1970s were responsible for the increase in fire
size and in the frequency of large fires, suggesting
that fire was fuel-limited previously to the 1970s.
However, during the last few decades of the 20th
century, fuels have been available and the area
burnt is strongly driven by dry conditions, which in
turn, are predicted to become more frequent and in-
tense due to global climate change (Pausas & Fer-
nandez-Muñoz, 2012:225).
In light of the preliminary evidence offered by the Span-
ish case, then, what kind of fire management and develop-
ment policies should be considered for both developed and
developing countries with MTBs where local communities
managing landscapes with PIAFRs still exist, particularly in
the new scenario created by the threat multiplier of global cli-
mate change? This question is an important one since PI-
AFRs are still the norm in land use and fire management in
the MTBs of North Africa, particularly Morocco and Algeria,
some countries in Latin America, specifically Chile, and parts
of South Africa.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
has defined new goals for the global forestry sector in light of
climate change and other ecological developments. These
new goals have been synthesized into the concept “sustain-
able forest management” (SFM) which has been defined in
the following way:
Forest resources and forest lands should be sustain-
ably managed to meet the social, economic, ecolog-
ical, cultural and spiritual needs of present and fu-
ture generations. These needs are for forest prod-
ucts and services, such as wood and wood products,
water, food, fodder, medicine, fuel, shelter, employ-
ment, recreation, habitats for wildlife, landscape di-
versity, carbon sinks and reservoirs, and for other
forest products. Appropriate measures should be
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012
Seijo and Gray
taken to protect forests against harmful effects of
pollution, fires, pests and diseases, in order to
maintain their full multiple value (UNFF, 2006).
According to the UN/FAO, therefore, the economic ex-
ploitation of forests should be made compatible with the
livelihood of local communities and the greater universal
goal of preserving one of the most important ecological func-
tions of forests in light of climate change: carbon sequestra-
tion.
The achievement of these more complex and nuanced
SFM goals will be marked by the changes that have taken
place in recent decades in terms of international forest gover-
nance. Leadership in forest governance has been mostly shift-
ing away from states and towards international business in-
terests, non-governmental organizations and local communi-
ties (Agrawal et al., 2009). In addition, there may be what
policy researchers have called a “rigidity trap” in policy for-
mulation regarding fire management (Butler & Goldstein,
2010). Citing research by Gunderson and Holling (2002),
Butler and Goldstein (2010) argue that a rigidity trap occurs
when “natural resource management bureaucracies perpetu-
ate themselves at the expense of the productivity and vitality
of the ecosystems that they manage” (Butler and Goldstein,
2010: 22). This may indeed be the case with the now centu-
ry-long policies of fire exclusion that are mostly implement-
ed in developed countries but that are also starting to be con-
sidered for many countries in the developing world. Though
policy makers now better understand their ecological trap-
pings, progress towards their reform and adaptation to new
scientific knowledge on fire ecology is still slow (Butler &
Goldstein, 2010).
In the new global scenario marked by climate change,
state-led “modernization from above” development schemes
based on ambitious ecological and socially transforming top-
down afforestation projects appear to be obsolete or at least
should be opened to greater scrutiny. As Agrawal has noted,
“Forest governance today is mostly a move away from cen-
trally administered top-down regulatory policies that charac-
terized much of the 19th and 20th century” (Agrawal et al.,
2009). It is not only that top-down industrial development
projects have in many cases proven to be economically inef-
ficient in the long term (witness the case of Spain) but also
that they are unlikely to result in ecologically viable and local
community friendly enterprises compatible with SFM and
climate change adaptation and mitigation goals (Jackson et
al., 2008).
As Stephens and others have noted, the adaptation of
forests in MTBs to climate change offers a series of opera-
tional management variants which include what he calls re-
sistance, resilience, response and realignment options
65
Seijo and Gray
(Stephens et al., 2010). The choice among these options
should vary in turn with the current status of the forest
ecosystems of the regions where these options are to be im-
plemented. Indeed this status may induce the application of a
mix of these adaptation options to climate change. In MTBs
with a long history of dense human occupation and a histori-
cal dominance of PIAFR type fires, such as those in Spain,
resilience and realignment options may be the most adequate
management options after the implementation of decades of
state policies of fire exclusion (Stephens et al., 2010). Both of
these options necessarily imply the reintroduction of pre-
scribed burning practices in the landscape to foment either
the resilience of these forest ecosystems or their realignment.
Resilience strategies would seek to facilitate the accommoda-
tion of ecosystems to gradual climate changes so that they
could return toward the condition prior to disturbance either
naturally or with management assistance. Realignment strate-
gies, on the other hand, would seek to facilitate the restora-
tion of burning patterns and fuels/forest structure emulating
the historical conditions prior to the implementation of fire
exclusion policies (Stephens et al., 2010). In addition, pre-
scribed burning may also prove to be an efficient climate
change mitigation strategy because of its role in preventing
the highly destructive, human life endangering and high
greenhouse gas emission uncharacteristic mega-fires of the
industrial era IAFRs in developed countries (Wiedimayer et
al., 2010).
In developing countries, such as those in parts of North-
ern Africa where PIAFRs are still the norm in landscape man-
agement, prescribed burning techniques designed to bolster
adaptation strategies to climate change could be conceivably
implemented by the local communities that have both the
local TEK and the economic incentives to carry them out. In
fact, the Australian government has started implementing this
strategy in Northern Australia’s flammable biomes through
aboriginal local communities and in collaboration with non-
governmental organizations and multinational corporations
(Heckbert et al., 2008). It has been suggested that a similar
scheme could be applied in other regions of the world, in-
cluding Africa where most greenhouse gas emissions due to
landscape fires occur (Science Daily, 2009). At a bare mini-
mum, it would seem that contingent valuation economic
analyses should be required from international donors rec-
ommending top-down plantation forestry and fire exclusion
policies in developing countries with MTBs to attempt to es-
timate the future costs of disrupting the TEK based PIAFRs
that local communities still use in these areas to manage
flammable ecosystems. This would be in line with the UN’s
endorsement of the precautionary approach as a guiding prin-
ciple for global environmental policymaking. In the absence
of scientific consensus on a given matter — in this case the
66
impact of TEK based fire management on greenhouse gas
emissions — the burden of proof that the regulation or aboli-
tion of these types of management methods will not result in
a negative effect on the environment would lie on those tak-
ing or proposing action (UNESCO, 2005).
There is a methodological and scientific problem in-
volved, however, in the harmonization of contemporary cli-
mate change era SFM goals with local community burning
practices in MTBs. Many of the assumptions traditional so-
cial science makes with regards to natural resource exploita-
tion and management may not be well designed for the study
of the deep motivations and decision-making schemes of pre-
industrial local community actors (Mistry, 1998; Seijo, 2005;
Mistry et al., 2009). As previously noted, Ostrom (2005) has
highlighted that the “rational egoist” assumption made by
many natural resource social scientists may not be the most
pertinent methodology for understanding the “social dilem-
mas” generated when modern industrial forestry management
methods are introduced in pre-industrial local community
lands with peculiar, idiosyncratic land tenure, site-specific ac-
cess rules to common pool resources, unique local manage-
ment institutions and cultural forms of knowledge transmis-
sion on fire use (for eg., rituals on when and how to burn). In
this case, Ostrom suggests that a more diversified perspective
of local actor motivations must be considered that takes into
account ritual and other forms of symbolic cultural behavior
(Ostrom, 2005). This would be the case of the ABM/LUCC
models that this article suggests ought to be developed to an-
alyze changing anthropogenic fire regimes in MTBs.
Conclusions
Fire regimes in many MTBs with a long history of dense
human occupation have changed rapidly in recent decades as a
result of the political, economic and social development
processes associated with industrial development. In the past
the fire regimes existing in MTBs could be conceptualized as
pre-industrial anthropogenic fire regimes, or PIAFRs. In recent
decades, and after half a century of extensive land use change
related to industrialization and post-industrialization processes
as well as the implementation of state-led fire exclusion poli-
cies, a new as of yet ill-defined industrial anthropogenic fire
regime or IAFR seems to be emerging in these biomes. This
new IAFR would be shaped by the so-called “mega-fires” of
the present (Pyne, 2007; Castellnou, 2007). These uncharac-
teristic mega-fires, generally speaking, take place with less fre-
quency than PIAFR type fires, in a longer fire season and re-
sult in fire events of a higher intensity and larger burnt area.
Due to the late and incomplete industrialization processes im-
plemented “from above” by authoritarian states in many devel-
oped countries with MTBs, PIAFR type fires often co-exist
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012

with IAFR type fires in the same landscape.
Fire regime changes in MTBs pose a significant chal-
lenge both for future scientific research and fire management
policy formulation in these biomes. Uneven industrial devel-
opment not only contributed to a large extent to determine the
nature of the change taking place in fire regimes in these bio-
mes but will also affect the future development and fire gov-
ernance policies that ought to be implemented in them, par-
ticularly in light of the challenge posed by global climate
change for the Earth system’s flammable biomes. As
Stephens and others have noted, MTBs are faced with a vari-
ety of policy options to adapt to these new circumstances.
These options include resistance, resilience, response and re-
alignment. The implementation of these strategies will large-
ly depend on the present status of their forest ecosystems
which, in turn, is likely to be largely determined by the stage
of political, social and economic development in which these
societies are at present whether pre-industrial, industrial or
post-industrial.
In order to understand both the fire regime changes tak-
ing place in anthropogenic MTBs and the most adequate
strategy for climate change adaptation in them this article ar-
gues that a new interdisciplinary approach to the study of fire
regime change is needed that can help prevent the economic
and ecological errors of past industrial development strate-
gies and aid states to develop new fire governance strategies
to escape from the “rigidity trap” into which their natural re-
source management bureaucracies have often fallen into. This
interdisciplinary approach could be based, as this article sug-
gests, on the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative method-
ologies for the historical analysis of fire regime change in
MTBs based on ABM/LUCC computer simulation models.
These models can run both backwards and forwards in order
to understand not only the nature of past fire regime changes
but also to assess the potential impacts of different climate
change adaptation policy options in them thus aiding the for-
mulation of science-based best fire governance practices in
MTBs.
Endnotes
1 fseijo@middlebury.edu
References
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Hardin, R. (2008). Changing governance of
the world’s forests. Science, 320: 1460-1462.
Anderson, M. (2006). Tending the Wild. California: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012
Seijo and Gray
ASEMFO. (2006). Incendios Forestales: Recursos de las administraciones
para su prevencion y extinción. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente:
Madrid.
Bibiana, B, Leal, A. V., & Mendez, C. L. (2010). Indigenous use of fire and
Forest loss in Canaima National Park, Venezuela. Assessment of tools
for alternative strategies of fire management in Pemon Indigenous
Lands. Human Ecology. 38 (5): 663-673
Black, B., Ruffner, C. & Abrams, M. (2006). Native American influences
on the forest composition of the Allegheny Plateau, northwest Penn-
sylvania. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 1266-1275.
Bond, W. J. (2005). The global distribution of ecosystems in a world with-
out fire. New Phytologist, 165, 525-538.
Bond, W. J., & Keeley, J. E. (2005). Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecol-
ogy and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 20, 387-394.
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Balch, J. K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Carlson, J. M.,
Cochrane, M. A., D’Antonio, C. M., DeFries, R. S., Doyle, J. C., Har-
rison, S. P., Johnston, F. H., Keeley, J. E., Krawchuk, M. A., Kull, C.
A., Marston, J. B., Moritz, M. A., Prentice, I. C., Roos, C. I., Scott,
A. C., Swetnam, T. M., van der Werf, G. R., & Pyne, S. J. (2010). Fire
in the earth system. Science, 24, 481-484.
Butler, W. H., & Goldstein, B. E. (2010). The US Fire Learning Network:
springing a rigidity trap through multiscalar collaborative networks.
Ecology and Society, 15 (3): 21
Carmenta, R., Parry, L., Blackburn, A., Vermeylen, S., & Barlow, J. (2011).
Understanding human-fire interactions in tropical forest regions: a
case for interdisciplinary research across the natural and social sci-
ences.. Ecology and Society, 16: 53.
Castellnou, M., Nebot, E., & Miralles, M. (2007). El papel del fuego en la
gestion del paisaje. Proceedings of the IV International Wildfire Con-
ference Seville, Spain.
Chapin, F. S., III, Matson, P. A., & Mooney, H. A. (2002). Principles of ter-
restrial ecosystem ecology. New York: Springer.
Cordier J. B., & Genin D. (2008). Pratiques paysannes d’exploitation des
arbres et paysages forestiers du Haut Atlas marocain. Revue
Forestière Française, 60: 571-588.
Ellis, E. C., & Ramankutty, N. (2008). Putting people in the map: anthro-
pogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environ-
ment, 6: 439-447.
Ellis, E. (2011) Planet of no return. In Shellenberger, M. and Nordhaus, T.
(Ed.) Love Your Monsters. USA: Breakthrough Institute.
Funnell, D., & Parish, R. (1999). Complexity, cultural theory and strategies
for intervention in the High Atlas of Morocco. Geografiska Annaler,
81: 131-144.
Genin, D. & Benchekroun, F. (2007). De la parole aux gestes. Elements de
reflexion sur les dispositifs de gestion concertee des resource
forestieres et pastorals au Maroc. ENFI Ambassade de France. Rabat:
IRD.
Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C., and G. Fry. (2007). The shared
landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape
Ecology 22: 959-972
Goldstein, B. & Hull, B. (2008). Socially explicit fire regimes. Society and
Natural Resources, 21: 469-482.
Gomez, C. (2010). ENCE supera su año mas horrible. El Pais.
Guha, R. (1999). Environmentalism: a global history. New York: Longleaf.
67
Seijo and Gray
Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. (2002). Panarchy: understanding transfor-
mations in human and natural systems. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press
Guyette, R. P., Muzika, R. M., & Dey, D. C. (2002). Dynamics of an an-
thropogenic fire regime. Ecosystems, 5: 472-486.
Heckbert, S. Davies, J., Cook, G., McIvor, J., Bastin, G., & Liedloff, A.
(2008). Land management for emissions offsets on indigenous lands.
Australia: CSIRO.
Henderson, M., Kalabokidis, K., Marmaras, E., Konstantinidis, P., &
Marangudakis, M. (2005). Fire and society: a comparative analysis of
wildfire in Greece and the United States. Human Ecology Review,
12:169-182.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica-INE. (2011). Annual Statistics Forest Sec-
tor.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2007). Climate
Change 2007 Synthesis Report.
Jackson, R., Randerson, J. T., Canadell, J. G., Anderson, R. G., Avissar, R.,
Baldocchi, D. D., Bonan, G. B., Caldeira, K., Diffenbaugh, N. S.,
Field, C. B., Hungate, B. A, Jobb·gy, E. G., Kueppers, L. M., Noset-
to, M. D., & Pataki, D. E. (2008). Protecting climate with forests. En-
vironmental Research Letters, 3
Jensen, S., & McPherson, G. (2008). Living with fire. California: Universi-
ty of California Press.
Kay, C. (2007). Are lightning fires unnatural? A comparison of aboriginal
and lightning ignition rates in the United States. Proceedings of the
23rd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: 16-28.
Keeley, J. (2002). Native American impacts on fire regimes of the Califor-
nia coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography, 29: 303-320.
Klinger, L. (2006). Ecological evidence of large-scale silviculture by Cali-
fornia Indians. In Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs) ed. Unlearning the
Language of Conquest: Scholars Expose Anti-Indianism in America.
Texas: University of Texas Press.
Kull, C. (2002). Madagascar aflame: landscape burning as peasant protest,
resistance, or a resource management tool. Political Geography, 21:
927-953.
Kull, C. (2002). Empowering pyromaniacs in Madagascar: ideology and le-
gitimacy in community-based natural resource management. Devel-
opment and Change, 33: 57-78.
Liu, et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Sci-
ence, 317: 1513-1516.
Lloret, F., Calvo, E., Pons, X. & DÌaz-Delgado, R. (2002). Wildfires and
landscape patterns of fragmentation in Eastern Iberian peninsula.
Landscape Ecology, 17, 745-759.
Marlon, J., Bartlein, P. J., Carcaillet, C., Gavin, D. G., Harrison, S. P.,
Higuera, P. E., Joos, F., Power, M. J., Prentice, I. C. (2008). Climate
and human influences on global biomass burning over the past two
millennia. Nature Geoscience, 1: 697-702.
Matthews R., Gilbert N., Roach A., Polhill J., & Gotts, N. (2007). Agent-
based land-use models: a review of applications. Landscape Ecology,
22: 1447-1459.
Mistry, J., Berardi, A. & Duncan, M. (2009). Natural resource management
and development discourses in the Caribbean: reflections on the
Guyanese and Jamaican experience. Third World Quarterly, 30: 969-
989.
68
Mistry, J. (1998). Decision-making for fire use among farmers in savannas:
an exploratory study in the Distrito Federal, central Brazil. Journal of
Environmental Management, 54: 321-334.
Millington, J.D.A., Romero-Calcerrada, R., Wainwright, J. and G.L.W.
Perry. (2008). An agent-based model of Mediterranean agricultural
land-use/cover change for examining wildfire risk. Journal of Artifi-
cial Societies and Social Simulation 11(4) 4.
Moreira, F., Rego, F., & Ferreira, P. (2001). Temporal (1958-1995) pattern
of change in a. cultural landscape of northwestern Portugal: implica-
tions for fire occurrence. Landscape Ecology, 16: 557-567.
Moreno, J. M. (1998). Large Fires. Netherlands: Backhuys.
Moore, B. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy. Massa-
chusetts: Beacon Press.
Naredo, J. M. (2001). La modernizacion de la agricultura espaÒola y sus
repercusiones ecologicas in Gonzalez de Molina, M. and Martinez
Alier, J. eds Naturaleza Transformada Barcelona: Icaria p. 55-87.
National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). (2012) http://www.nifc.gov/fire-
info/fireinfo_statistics.htlm
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Parsons, R. and T. Daniel (2002). Good looking: in defence of scenic land-
scape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 60(1): 43-56.
Purcell, K., & Stephens, S. (2005). Natural and anthropogenic fire regimes,
vegetation effects and potential impacts on the avifauna of California
oak woodlands. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Gen-
eral Technical Report. PSW-GTR-191: 1100-1103. Riverside, CA.
Pausas, J., & Gimeno, I. (2010). Fuego y Evolucion en el Mediterraneo. In-
vestigación y Ciencia. P. 56-63
Pausas, J., & Fernandez-Muñoz, S. (2012). Fire regime changes in the
western Mediterranean basin: from fuel limited to drought driven fire
regime. Climatic Change. 110: 215-226
Pausas, J., & Ramon Vallejo, V. (1999). The role of fire in European
Mediterranean ecosystems. in Chuvieco, E. ed. Remote Sensing of
Large Wildfires in the European Mediterranean Basin p. 3-16
Pyne, S. J., Andrews, P. L., & Laven, R. D. (1996). Introduction to Wild-
land Fire, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pyne, S. (1995). World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth. Washington:
University of Washington Press
Pyne, S. (2007). The meaning of megafires and the means of their man-
agement. Proceedings of IV International Wildfire Conference.
Spain: Seville.
Robinson, D.T., Brown, D.G., Parker, D.C., Schreinemachers, P., Janssen,
M.A., Huigen, M., Wittmer, H., Gotts, N., Promburom, P. Irwin, E.,
Berger, T., Gatzweiler, F., and Barnaud, C. (2007). Comparison of
empirical methods for building agent-based models of land and re-
source use. Journal of Land Use Science, 2(1): 31-55.
Roura-Pascual, N., Pons, P., Etienne, M. & Lambert, B. (2005). Transfor-
mation of a rural landscape in the Eastern Pyrenees between 1953
and 2000. Mountain Research and Development, 25, 254-263.
Science Daily. (2009). Traditional indigenous fire management techniques
deployed against climate change. 2009 (www.sciencedaily.com/re-
leases/2009/11).
Scott, J. (1999). Seeing like a state. Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Seijo, F. (2007). Modernizacion o Emigracion: Desplazados Ambientales y
Repoblacion Forestal en Galicia desde 1950. Revista de Ecologia Po-
litica, 33, 59-62.
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012

Seijo, F. (2005). The politics of fire: Spanish forest policy and ritual resis-
tance in Galicia, Spain. Environmental Politics, 14, 380-402.
Seijo, F. (2009). “Who framed the forest fire? State framing and peasant
counter framing of anthropogenic forest fires in Spain since 1940”.
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 11,
Sigaut, F. (1976). L’Agriculture et le Feu. Paris: Mouton
Spencer-Wood, S. M., & Baugher, S. (2010). Introduction to the historical
archaeology of powered cultural landscapes. International Journal of
Historical Archaeology, 14, 463-474.
Stephens, S. L., Fry, D. L., & Franco-VizcaÌno, E. (2008). Wildfire and
spatial patterns in forests in northwestern Mexico: the United States
wishes it had similar fire problems. Ecology and Society, 13, 10
Stephens, S., Millar, C., & Collins, B. (2010). Operational approaches to
managing forests of the future in Mediterranean regions within a con-
text of changing climate. Environmental Research Letters, 5
Human Ecology Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012
View publication stats
Seijo and Gray
Sweatnam, T., Allen, C., Betancourt, J. (1999). Applied historical ecology:
Using the past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications, 9
(4): 1189-1206
U. S. Department of Agriculture. (2000). Forest Service Cohesive Strategy
for Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.
UNESCO. (2005). http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/
139578e.pdf
UNFF. (2006). Sustainable forest management. PROFOR.
Velez, R. (2006). Community based fire management in Spain. United Na-
tions Food and Agriculture Organization Working Paper. New York.
Vale, T. (2002). Fire, native peoples and the natural landscape. Washing-
ton D.C.: Island Press.
Wiedinmyer, C., & Hurteau, M. D. (2010). Prescribed fire as a means for
reducing forest carbon emissions in the western U.S. Environmental
Science and Technology, 44, 1926-1932.
69