Fefi

F

Ja

b

c

d

Le

f

a

ARRA

KFTTCF

h0

Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

orgetting fire: Traditional fire knowledge in two chestnut forestcosystems of the Iberian Peninsula and its implications for Europeanre management policy

rancisco Seijoa,∗, James D.A. Millingtonb, Robert Grayc, Verónica Sanza,b,c,Jorge Lozanod, Francisco García-Serranoe, Gabriel Sangüesa-Barredaf,esús Julio Camarerof

Middlebury College C.V. Starr School in Spain, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Geography, King’s College London, London, UKRW Gray Consulting Ltd, Chilliwack, BC, CanadaDepartamento de Ciencias Naturales, Sección de Biología Básica y Aplicada, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, San Cayetano Alto, C/París s/n.,oja 1101608, EcuadorSaint Louis University, Madrid, SpainInstituto Pirenaico de Ecologia-CSICAvda. Montanana, 1005. 50059 Zaragoza, Spain

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 6 October 2014eceived in revised form 25 February 2015ccepted 14 March 2015

eywords:ire exclusion policiesraditional ecological knowledgeraditional fire knowledgehestnut forest ecosystemsire Paradox

a b s t r a c t

Human beings have used fire as an ecosystem management tool for thousands of years. In the context ofthe scientific and policy debate surrounding potential climate change adaptation and mitigation strate-gies, the importance of the impact of relatively recent state fire-exclusion policies on fire regimes hasbeen debated. To provide empirical evidence to this ongoing debate we examine the impacts of statefire-exclusion policies in the chestnut forest ecosystems of two geographically neighbouring municipal-ities in central Spain, Casillas and Rozas de Puerto Real. Extending the concept of ‘Traditional EcologicalKnowledge’ to include the use of fire as a management tool as ‘Traditional Fire Knowledge’ (TFK), we takea mixed-methods and interdisciplinary approach to argue that currently observed differences betweenthe municipalities are useful for considering the characteristics of “pre-industrial anthropogenic fireregimes” and their impact on chestnut forest ecosystems. We do this by examining how responses frominterviews and questionnaire surveys of local inhabitants about TFK in the past and present correspondto the current biophysical landscape state and recent fire activity (based on data from dendrochrono-logical analysis, aerial photography and official fire statistics). We then discuss the broader implicationsof TFK decline for future fire management policies across Europe particularly in light of the published

results of the EU sponsored Fire Paradox research project. In locations where TFK-based “pre-industrialanthropogenic fire regimes” still exist, ecosystem management strategies for adaptation and mitigationto climate change could be conceivably implemented at a minimal economic and political cost to the stateby local communities that have both the TFK and the adequate social, economic and cultural incentivesto use it.

“This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made byany god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by

regular measures”.

Heraclitus

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 913071825.E-mail address: fseijo@middlebury.edu (F. Seijo).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.006264-8377/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Contemporary ecology understands that many ecosystems canbe considered “fire adapted”, their structure and function beingpartly determined by the fire regimes with which they haveco-evolved (Gill, 2002; Pausas and Keeley, 2009). Humans haveoften played a long-standing role in such fire-adapted ecosystems.

Anthropogenic landscape burning is believed to have had a signif-icant ecological impact on the Earth system for thousands of yearsand in many flammable ecosystems worldwide it has become a keyecological process conditioning present biodiversity and climate

e Polic

(btcewP2

irsclfiwtifAewescacPIafiwap(P

“lpsovabhp

ia(pbspdbtre2etFth

F. Seijo et al. / Land Us

Stewart, 1957; Ruddiman, 2003; Bowman et al., 2010). However,iomass burning has also been recently determined to be an impor-ant contributor to the global greenhouse gas emissions causinglimate change, though the impact of anthropogenic fires on netmission outputs is highly uncertain and remains widely debatedithin the scientific community (Hurteau et al., 2008; Fule, 2008;

ausas and Fernández-Munoz, 2012; Moritz et al., 2013; IPCC AR5,014; Gill et al., 2014).

In the context of the scientific and policy debate surround-ng potential climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies,esearchers continue to discuss the importance of the impact oftate fire exclusion policies on fire regimes. Fire exclusion poli-ies have been defined as the attempt to exclude all types ofandscape fires from a specified area (Scott, 2015). One of therst contemporary large-scale attempts at implementing a state-ide fire exclusion policy was carried out by the United States

hroughout the 20th century prompting other countries receiv-ng its technical advice and forestry aid funds, such as Spain, toollow suit (Donovan and Brown, 2007; Seijo and Gray, 2012).t the end of the 20th century it has become apparent that theffects of fire exclusion policies on fire regimes may be provokinghat some researchers have termed a “firefighting trap” (Collins

t al., 2013). By altering historical fire regimes and landscape fueltructures, state fire exclusion policies may well be contributing toontemporary “megafires” that seem to positively feedback withnthropogenic climate change as well as spiralling fire suppressionosts in many countries (Millar et al., 2007; Seijo and Gray, 2012;ezzatti et al., 2013; Stephens et al., 2014; Fernandes et al., 2014).n this volatile and uncertain scenario, theoretical concepts suchs “applied historical ecology” and “pre-industrial anthropogenicre regimes” have been advanced in an attempt to come to termsith the role that historical fire patterns (in general) and traditional

nthropogenic fire practices (in particular) should or should notlay as a baseline for informing future fire management decisionsSwetnam et al., 1999; Keane et al., 2009; Seijo and Gray, 2012;ezzatti et al., 2013; Gill et al., 2014; Petty et al., 2015).

Traditional ecosystem management practices are reliant onTraditional Ecological Knowledge” (TEK), defined as, “the cumu-ative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptiverocesses and handed down in generations by cultural transmis-ion, about relationships of living beings [including humans] withne another and with their environment” (Berkes et al., 2000:8). Aariant of TEK but with particular regard to the use of fire as a man-gement tool, “Traditional Fire Knowledge” (TFK) has more recentlyeen defined as, “fire-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices thatave been developed and applied on specific landscapes for specificurposes by long time inhabitants” (Huffman, 2013:1).

Decline of the use of TEK and TFK can lead to significant changesn ecosystems. Some of the first descriptions of these impactsppear in Omer C. Stewart’s collection of essays “Forgotten Fires”Stewart, 1957), which has inspired this article’s title. In his 1950sioneering work, Stewart identified diverse TFK-based fire usesy native Americans for ecosystem management and describedome of the ecological consequences that emerged when theseractices were “forgotten”. Today, the gradual abandonment of tra-itional land use – resulting in a loss of both TEK and TFK – haseen recognized as one of the main structural factors leading tohe emergence of so-called “Large Wildland Fires” across Mediter-anean Type Ecosystems in Europe (Seijo and Gray, 2012; Galianat al., 2013; Pezzatti et al., 2013; Montiel, 2013; Stephens et al.,014; Fernandes et al., 2014). Much of the literature now acknowl-dges that socio-economic and political drivers are at the core of

his change (Seijo, 2005; Seijo and Gray, 2012; Pezzatti et al., 2013;ernandes et al., 2014). However, little attention has been paid tohe exact mechanisms by which state fire exclusion policies – whichave been shown to be ecologically, economically and politically

y 47 (2015) 130–144 131

undesirable (Seijo and Gray, 2012; Montiel, 2013) – and rural devel-opment policies have impacted TEK and TFK. For example, in theIberian Peninsula these policies often set the stage to the enclosureof large tracts of land for new industrial era uses (e.g. afforesta-tions, conservation areas, recreational hunting estates, etc.) and theprohibition of traditional land use practices such as extensive ani-mal husbandry and swidden agriculture (Fernandes et al., 2014)These changes shifted rural economies away from approaches thatrequired the use of TFK-based practices and therefore contributedto rural abandonment (Seijo and Gray, 2012; Stephens et al., 2014).It is important, therefore, to re-evaluate the fire managementpotential of TFK-based practices, particularly since continent-wideEuropean Union funded research projects such as Fire Paradox arecalling for a reform of present fire suppression based managementstrategies and advocating for the promulgation of new Europeanlegislation on the matter in the form of a “Fire Framework Directive”(Montiel, 2013).

As an evidence-based contribution to this ongoing debate, inthis study we examine the current biophysical attributes of twoadjacent sweet chestnut forest ecosystems of the Iberian Peninsulaand local inhabitants’ perspectives on pre-industrial anthropogenicburning within them. The present existence of chestnut forestecosystems throughout Europe was only made possible by cen-turies of intense management by local communities (Conederaet al., 2004; Conedera and Krebs, 2009). In fact, the chestnut for-est ecosystems of the study sites we consider in this paper – themunicipalities of Casillas and Rozas de Puerto Real in the foothillsof the mountains of Gredos, central Spain – can be theoreticallydescribed as coupled human–natural systems because of the histor-ically verified, prolonged and intense interaction between humanand natural system variables in them (Liu et al., 2007). Commu-nities in this region have managed their chestnut forests with asophisticated ecosystem management toolkit that exemplifies TEKand TFK. Through time these communities actively participated inthe design of their chestnut forest ecosystems through terracing,grafting, pruning, careful tree species selection and burning in whatcan be most aptly described as a pre-industrial effort at large-scaleenvironmental engineering (Martin et al., 2010).

Changes in the use of TEK in coupled human–natural chest-nut forest ecosystem management have been known to result insubstantial transformations in both their structure and functionas natural succession processes resume unaltered (e.g. Mazzoleniet al., 2004; Romero-Calcerrada and Perry, 2004; Millington et al.,2007; Millington et al., 2009). Such change in forest stands for-merly dominated by chestnut trees has been observed in Corsica,for example, with the encroachment of mixed and closed-canopystands dominated by Holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) and Cluster pine(Pinus pinaster Ait.) following abandonment (San Roman et al.,2013). In Bulgaria, in the absence of traditional management, chest-nut forests have apparently become increasingly vulnerable to pestdisturbances such as chestnut blight (Zlatanov et al., 2013), andin Switzerland the loss of ecologically valuable old growth “giant”chestnut trees is feared – as well as the emergence of significantfire regime changes – as the anthropogenic silvicultural practicesof the past fade away (Krebs et al., 2012; Pezzatti et al., 2013).

In an effort to restore ecosystem structure and process in aban-doned chestnut forest ecosystems a debate is thereby emergingconcerning the appropriate role of traditional pre-industrial eraburning in the ecological restoration of these ecosystems. Someresearchers advocate for continued use of TFK-based practices orsurrogate prescribed burning (Grove and Rackham, 2003; Seijo andGray, 2012; Fernandes et al., 2013) in contrast to others who argue

it should be limited to certain specific sites where the goal is theconservation of locally endangered species associated via coppiced(or abandoned) chestnut stand communities (Grund et al., 2005;Moretti et al., 2006, 2008; Pezzatti et al., 2013).

132 F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144

stilla y

ttfsfistctiotWm

M

S

wIpdw(cSt2sprnola(

Fig. 1. Study area location. Casillas is located within Comunidad de Ca

Here, we take a mixed-methods and interdisciplinary approacho explore these issues, integrating both quantitative and quali-ative methods, to capture and understand the complexities andeedbacks between coupled human and natural systems in ourites (Bryman, 2006; Liu et al., 2007). We compare contemporaryre regimes, landscape characteristics and use of TEK-based land-cape burning practices in two Spanish municipalities and arguehat currently observed differences are useful for considering theharacteristics of “pre-industrial anthropogenic fire regimes” andheir impact on chestnut forest ecosystems. We do this by exam-ning how responses from interviews and questionnaire surveysf local inhabitants about TFK in the past and present correspondo the current biophysical landscape state and recent fire activity.

e then discuss the broader implications of TFK decline for fireanagement policies across Europe.

ethods

tudy species and site selection

The sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) is a deciduous, hard-ood angiosperm tree species belonging to the Fagaceae family.

t has been widely cultivated throughout the temperate world,articularly across the Mediterranean Basin in areas with abun-ant precipitation and its geographical range is closely associatedith the activities of pre-industrial traditional agrarian societies

Conedera et al., 2004). Currently, sweet chestnut forests are mainlyoncentrated in southern Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal andwitzerland) and Turkey where there is a long tradition of their cul-ivation as groves for nuts and wood production (Conedera et al.,004). The species itself seems to be native to the Iberian Penin-ula with pre-Holocene glacial refugia having been identified inrimary and secondary foci located in N and W Spain and N Portugalegions (Krebs et al., 2004; Postigo-Mijarra et al., 2010). The chest-ut forest ecosystems of our study area are located in the foothills

f the mountains of Gredos (central Spain). These forests, in all like-ihood, originated in the 13th and 14th centuries as a result of thenthropogenic diffusion of sweet chestnut after the “Reconquista”Reconquest) and the subsequent “repoblación” (re-population)

Leon and Rozas within Comunidad de Madrid, both in central Spain.

of these territories with social groups originating from NorthernSpain, though further palynologic and genetic research would beneeded to confirm this hypothesis.

Our data collection was conducted in the municipalities of Casil-las, autonomous community of Castilla y León, and Rozas de PuertoReal (hereafter abbreviated as Rozas), autonomous community ofMadrid (Fig. 1) from June 1st, 2012 to May 31st, 2013. These munic-ipalities are contiguous geographically but separated by a politicalboundary between autonomous communities in the Spanish state(Fig. 1). Site selection was informed by a previously articulatedconceptualization of “pre-industrial anthropogenic fire regimes”in Mediterranean Type Ecosystems (MTEs), which hypothesizesthat uneven economic and political development processes havedriven, to varying degrees, the fire regime changes taking place atpresent in many MTEs (Seijo and Gray, 2012). Casillas and Rozashave differing economic conditions (Table 1), but relatively similarmountainous MTEs. Casillas has lower family income and munic-ipality expenditure than Rozas, with a smaller proportion of thelocal population employed in the service sector and a greater pro-portion in agriculture. By selecting these sites we have endeavouredto ensure that the biophysical variables underlying any differencesin fire regimes could be held (as far as possible in a natural non-laboratory setting) constant so as to better highlight the ecologicaleffects of different fire management recently. This is a provenmethodological approach that has yielded interesting findings onchanging fire regimes in other MTEs (Minnich, 1983).

Biophysical data

To assess the current biophysical state of the municipalities’forests and their fire regimes we used National Forest Inventorydata (IFN3, 2007), fire reports from autonomous communities,dendrochronological sampling and military aerial photographsfrom 2011. Individual fire reports for the two municipalities werereceived from the regional autonomous governments of Madrid

and Castilla y Leon for the period 1984–2012. In this study, wehave only quantified the fire regime attributes that can be inferredfrom official Spanish government fire statistics for the selectedsites. These include information on fire regime characteristics,

F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144 133

Table 1Development level indicators for Casillas and Rozas. Income levels, employment sectors and other indicators were compiled to determine the uneven stages of developmentpresent in both study sites.

Indicator Casillas Rozas Year Source

Territory (km2) 11.96 30.15 2011 Caja EspanaPopulation (no. of inhabitants) 841 466 2011 Caja EspanaGDP per capita (% of EU 27 average)* 98.80 135.80 2012 EurostatFamily income (D per capita) 16,290 23,929 2013 AISMunicipality expenditure (D per capita) 1245 3442 2011 Caja EspanaMunicipal property tax (D per capita) 181 237 2011 Caja EspanaOccupational sectors (% of population) 2011 Caja Espana

Agriculture 6.2 2.1Industry 0 1Construction 65.2 19.6Services 28.6 77.3

on)

*

fmAE

sfstibsfici

ctoiat1sgwotcucgcmsl

H

ctwqjetib

Questions examined in this paper refer to inhabitants’ per-spectives on fire causes, fire sizes, attitudes towards fire andfire use (see Table 2). To test for possible differences in answersbetween groups of respondents (e.g. between municipalities),

Unemployed

Regional government fire suppression costs (D per hectare of territorial jurisdicti

Data are for the respective autonomous communities.

requency, size, season and causality. Comparable figures for bothunicipalities were only available for the period 1984–2009.erial photographs were received from the “Centro Geografico deljercito” of the Spanish army.

We used dendrochronology to estimate the age of chestnuttems apparently not affected by recent fires. We took cores at 1.3 mrom dominant trees (n = 11 in Rozas, n = 18 in Casillas) randomlyelected in each site and not presenting visible ‘catfaces’ (cavities athe foot of the trunk with darkened burn markings), using a Presslerncrement borer. We sampled non-fire scarred trees distributed asroadly as possible across each of the two study areas. All woodamples were air dried, sanded using several papers of successivelyner grains until tree-rings were clearly visible and then visuallyross-dated. The sampling area was approximately from 1 to 3 han each study site.

We interpreted forest stand structure (i.e. primarily canopyover) in the two selected study sites/municipalities using his-orical aerial photographs (see Fig. 3). Aerial photographs werebtained from the Spanish army’s geographical services andncluded color photographs for 2011 for both Rozas and Casillas. Tonalyze the data, we placed a grid over the existing cartography forhe two municipalities and numbered each grid cell (Nowak et al.,996). Using a random number generator 74 grid cells (plots) wereelected for analysis (Rozas n = 27; Casillas n = 47). Only completerid cells were analyzed while plots crossing municipal boundariesere discarded. Grid cells including buildings, roads, orchards and

ther man-made infrastructures were also discarded. Grid cells forhe municipality of Casillas covered 5.2 ha while grid cells for Rozasovered 7.3 ha. To visually estimate foliage cover in both sites wesed a standardized comparison chart in order to determine theanopy cover for each grid cell. To describe the structure of eachrid cell, we developed a stand structure code with the followingharacterizations: no canopy; open, mixed-canopy stand; closedixed-canopy stand; closed and small-canopy stand; open and

mall-canopy stand; open and large-canopy stand; and closed andarge-canopy stand (see Fig. 3).

uman activity and perceptions data

Between September 2012 and May 2013 we interviewed andarried out a survey among 54 randomly selected respondents inhe municipalities (n = 29 Casillas; n = 25 Rozas). The respondentsere asked to identify their individual preferences to a series of

uestions on a Likert scale while, simultaneously, the qualitativeustifications for these responses were recorded by the interview-

rs. The survey itself was divided into four sections: land use, landenure, fire use and demographic related questions. As in other sim-lar survey- or interview-based studies this design was conditionedy the research questions (Mistry, 1998; Fernández-Giménez and

24 16.214 75 2006 ASEMFO

Fillat, 2012). The surveys/interviews were administered and com-pleted face-to-face with respondents by the principal investigatorand other collaborators since, as has been the case in other researchstudies on TEK taking place in Spain, many respondents werefunctionally illiterate or had problems reading, understanding oranswering the written questions on their own (Otero-Rozas et al.,2013). The questionnaire itself contained 83 semantic differentialscale and rank order type questions, 38 multiple choice and 13open-ended questions.

Fig. 2. “Traditional” vs “abandoned” chestnut forest stand structure. Traditionally man-aged chestnut forest groves in Casillas (a, photo taken 26/11/2012) Rozas (b, phototaken 31/10/2013) Note how trees in (a) exhibit an open stand structure comparedto younger saplings re-sprouting from root systems in (b).

134 F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144

F ties. (am capes

nm9

R

B

F

wpWffawtM

TS

ig. 3. Example aerial imagery used to evaluate landscape structure in the municipaliixed canopy. Summary of the proportions of different structure types in the lands

on-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compareedian values of coded responses (all results are reported at the

5% confidence level).

esults

iophysical characteristics

orest cover and land use resultsBased on National Forest Inventory data (IFN3, 2007), forests

ithin the municipal territory of Rozas de Puerto Real are com-osed mainly of six tree species, namely: C. sativa, Quercus pyrenaicailld., P. pinaster, Pinus pinea L., Quercus ilex and Fraxinus angusti-

olia Vahl. In Rozas 40.7% of rural lands are forested while 55.8%orm pastures and shrubland (including ‘dehesa’). A ‘dehesa’ is

n extensive area which is generally, but not always, enclosed,ith low densities of old growth trees that allows multiple pas-

ure and arable farming practices in the spaces between (e.g. seeillington et al., 2007). The most important agricultural crop in

able 2emantic differential scale questions. Questions were grouped by topic and responses code

Topic Question

Fire cause On a scale from ‘none’ to ‘all’, how many fires were started in this[accidental/intentional/natural] in the [past/present]

Fire size On a scale from ‘small’ to ‘large’ how large in area were the bigge

Attitudes to fire On a scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’, how do you[fires are . . . bad/good/destructive/necessary/useful]

Fire Use On a scale from ‘Not Useful’ to the ‘Best method’, how useful is fircultivation/clearing land for livestock pasture/improving soil for cshrubs and weeds underneath or near useful trees/eliminating shhabitat for wildlife (e.g. rabbit, birds)]

) Open large canopy, (b) open medium canopy, (c) closed small canopy, (d) closed is shown in Table 3.

Rozas is wine which covers 3.2% (Caja Espana, 2012) and themost extensive tree species is C. sativa which is estimated tooccupy 39% of Rozas forested surface (442 ha). In Casillas, IFN3data identifies C. sativa, P. pinaster, Q. pyrenaica, Pinus sylvestrisL. and, to a lesser extent, Pinus nigra J. F. Arn. as the main treespecies. In Casillas 52.9% of rural lands are forested, while 42.1% arepasture and shrubland and 4.8% are agricultural land. The chest-nut forests of Casillas occupy approximately 24% of all forestedland (155 ha), though this figure may be, in fact, larger since itonly accounts for chestnut trees employed for nut production.Other chestnuts are classified as timber wood and may consti-tute a large proportion of the remaining 483 ha of the forestedsurface.

Chestnut forest groves in Rozas and Casillas exhibit subtly dif-ferent stand structures as can be appreciated in Fig. 2. A significant

proportion of chestnut forest patches in both Rozas and Casillasare composed of young saplings re-sprouting from root systems.These chestnut trees grow in closed canopy, coppiced stand forma-tions. Results from our dendrochronological sampling indicate that

d for analysis as shown.

Coding

municipality by the following causes? None = 0All = 10

st fires in this municipality in the [past/present]? Small = 0Large = 10

agree with each of these statements about fire? Strongly disagree = 0Strongly agree = 10

e for the following purposes? [clearing land forultivation/improving livestock pastures/eliminatingrubs and weeds in understory of forests/improving

Not useful = 0Best method = 10

F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144 135

Table 3Landscape cover types in Casillas and Rozas. Percentages of different landscape covertypes derived from aerial photo analysis (e.g. Fig. 3) for 2011 are similar betweenmunicipalities except ‘open, no canopy’ and to a lesser extent ‘closed, small canopy’.

Landscape cover type Casillas Rozas

ONC (open, no canopy) 21 7OLC (open, large canopy) 17 26OSC (open, small canopy) 0 0OMC (open, mixed canopy) 15 15CLC (closed, large canopy) 0 0

tiFniMalppostuc

sdp(owgiilcd

ibmeitoifir

I

ifiwfiRafir0at

Fig. 4. Comparison of frequency of burning between municipalities by season. The

disagree that the cause of past fires was natural (inhabitants ofRozas holding views more strongly than Casillas, Fig. 5a). Regardingpresent fires, respondents in both municipalities predominantlyagree that most fires at present are intentional in origin, disagreeing

Table 4Results of Mann–Whitney U tests comparing perspectives on fire causes at differenttimes (past and present) between municipalities. Values in bold indicate statisticallysignificant differences between group medians relative to corresponding probabilitylevels (p, at the 95% confidence level).

Cause Past Present

U p U p

CSC (closed, small canopy) 13 19CMC (closed, mixed canopy) 34 33

ree stems in chestnut groves are on average younger in Rozas thann Casillas, with median age 64 years and 96 years, respectively.urthermore, survey respondents claimed that the young chest-ut forests of Rozas are apparently the result of salvage logging

mplemented after the “large fire” event that took place in 1985.any chestnut stems in Rozas, therefore, seem to be of the same

ge cohort though there are also disperse patches with what seemike older chestnut trees and younger individual saplings seeminglylanted from seed and managed for timber rather than chestnutroduction. In Casillas chestnut groves seem to be slightly olderverall with trees growing from single stems though younger C.ativa and Q. pyrenaica saplings are increasingly encroaching intohese patch types. Many of Casillas’ older chestnut trees are reg-larly pruned, grafted and planted in front of old terraces to bothontain erosion and favour chestnut production.

Aerial photo analysis (see Fig. 3) reveals that current landscapetructure in the municipalities is similar. The main differences thato exist are the proportion of the landscape with ‘open, no canopy’atches (greater in Casillas), and ‘open, large canopy’ patchesgreater in Rozas; Table 3). In the former case this may be the resultf Casillas greater elevation, slope inclination and granite outcropshich impede trees from growing in some areas. In terms of the

reater abundance of ‘open large canopy’ patch types in Rozas thiss likely the consequence of the presence of large “dehesa” type Q.lex patches which sustain sizeable cattle and horse herds. In Casil-as livestock is composed mainly of sheep and goats with someattle grazing on the treeless mountainous pastures and shrublandsuring the summer months.

Patches of C. sativa are difficult, if not impossible, to discrim-nate purely from an aerial photo analysis since this species cane easily confused with other deciduous species common to bothunicipalities (such as Q. pyrenaica, F. angustifolia) and even from

vergreen pine species. Structure types in our analysis thereforenclude all tree species types mentioned in the IFN3 data. Althoughhe aerial photo analysis sheds little light on the quantitative extentf differently managed chestnut forest patches in both municipal-ties it does help us interpret differences between burned area andre size differences in the municipalities (see the “Individual fireeports” section).

ndividual fire reportsOfficial statistics for 1984–2009 indicate that 76.9% of fires

n Casillas were classified as “surface” fires, 11.5% as “crown”res and 11.5% as “mixed-severity” fires. In Rozas all incidentsere classified as “surface” fires. The total number of recordedre incidents during 1984–2009 in Casillas was 52 whereas inozas it was 31. Fire incidence in Casillas peaked in 1989, 1995nd 2009 with 8, 4 and 10 recorded fire incidents. In Rozasre incidence peaked in 1989, 1999 and 2005 with 3, 3 and 4

ecorded fire incidents. Median burned areas are similar (Rozas.41 ha, Casillas 0.42 ha) but once differences in territorial sizere accounted for, burnt surface per year was larger in Rozashan in Casillas by a factor of 10 (2.12 ha km2 yr−1compared to

majority of fires in Casillas occur outside summer months (characteristic for TFKpractices in this area) whereas in Rozas the majority of fires occur in summermonths.

0.22 ha km2 yr−1). Rozas experienced a 1257 ha “large fire” (offi-cial statistical definition: >500 ha) in 1985, whereas in Casillas thelargest fire during the study period burned 20.7 ha in 1989. Inboth municipalities the fire season peaked in the summer months(JJA) but in Casillas fires were more evenly spread out through-out the calendar (Fig. 4). In Casillas fires in spring (MAM) andautumn (SON) months accounted for a greater proportion (53%)of fire events than in summer months (47%). This is in contrastto Rozas where summer months accounted for the vast majorityof events (71%) with spring and autumn months contributing farless (29%). Finally, 77% of fires in Casillas had a verified anthro-pogenic origin, 21% were caused by unknown factors and 2% bylightning. In Rozas 58% had an unknown origin, 39% were anthro-pogenic and 3% were ignited by lightning. In many cases firesclassified as “unknown” in both municipalities probably had ananthropogenic cause but if forest agents are unable to verifythat this is the case they must classify it as such in the officialreport.

Perceptions and traditional fire knowledge

Survey on perceptions of fireThere is a statistically significant difference between municipal-

ities regarding perspectives on causes of past fires, but not for firesin the present (Table 4). Differences seem to be driven mainly byviews of inhabitants of Rozas, many of whom disagree or disagreestrongly that past fires were accidental and agree or strongly agreethat past fires were intentional (Fig. 5a). In contrast, opinion on theimportance of accidental or intentional causes of past fires in Casil-las is divided. Inhabitants of both municipalities predominantly

Accidental 141.0 0.003 205.5 0.091Intentional 369.5 0.031 236.0 0.597Natural 194.5 0.060 223.5 0.180

136 F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144

Fig. 5. Perspectives of the ignition cause of (a) past and (b) present fires by municipality. Box plots show the median values, first and third quartiles, with whiskers extendingt at thei tives ob ding.

tip

fdmoidfittvtTvsr

itFcsd

TR(da

ular. In both municipalities more than 60% of the respondentsbelieved this to be the case. A second important fire use identifiedby respondents is both to improve fertility and clear shrubs or treesfrom arable land. Again, in both municipalities around 60% of the

o 150% of the inter-quartile range. There are statistically significant differences

ntentional causes of past fires (see Table 3) driven mainly by divergent perspecetween municipalities for present fires. See Table 2 for questions and response co

hat they are accidental or natural (Fig. 5b), and there are no signif-cant statistical differences between municipalities for any class ofresent cause (Table 4).

Perspectives on fire size in the past and present vary to dif-ering degrees between municipalities. We detected a statisticalifference in the perspectives of inhabitants between the twounicipalities with regards fires at present (Table 5). Inhabitants

f Casillas generally perceive fires at present to be larger thannhabitants of Rozas (Fig. 6). There is no statistically significantifference between municipalities in their perspectives on pastres (Table 5), although the median response for Casillas is smallerhan for Rozas (Fig. 6; 2.0 vs 7.0, respectively). There is a statis-ically significant difference in perspectives on sizes of presents past fires for inhabitants of Casillas (Table 5), with inhabi-ants perceiving fires to be larger now than in the past (Fig. 6).here is no statistical difference between perspectives on presents past fire sizes in Rozas (Table 5), although median response ismaller for fires at present compared to the past (Fig. 4; 1.5 vs 7.0,espectively).

There are no statistical differences between the municipalitiesn terms of median responses to questions about their attitudesowards fire (whether bad, good, destructive, necessary, useful;ig. 7). Furthermore, inhabitants of both municipalities clearly per-

eive fires as ‘bad’ and ‘destructive’ (most respondents repliedtrongly agree) and not ‘good’ (most respondents replied stronglyisagree).

able 5esults of Mann–Whitney U tests for perspectives on fire sizes between time periodpast vs. present) and municipality. Values in bold indicate statistically significantifference between group medians relative to corresponding probability levels (p,t the 95% confidence level).

Municipality Period U p

Casillas–Rozas Past 189.5 0.214Casillas–Rozas Present 393.5 0.017Casillas Past–present 523.5 0.014Rozas Past–present 225.0 0.186

95% confidence level (P < 0.05) between municipalities regarding accidental andf inhabitants of Rozas. There are no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05)

TFK survey and interviewsAs can be seen in Fig. 8, fire is perceived as a useful ecosystem

management tool by a large proportion of the survey respondents inboth municipalities. The most important perceived utility ascribedto anthropogenic burning is as a tool for understory burning underwoodland, in general, and useful trees (i.e. chestnuts), in partic-

Fig. 6. Perspectives on fire sizes, past and present, by municipality. There are statis-tically significant differences at the 95% confidence level (P < 0.05) in responsesregarding fires at present between municipalities and between fires in past andpresent in Casillas. See Table 2 for questions and response coding.

F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Polic

FfS

iiactowF

Farc

ig. 7. Attitudes towards fire by municipality. There are no statistically significant dif-erences at the 95% confidence level (P < 0.05) in responses between municipalities.ee Table 2 for questions and response coding.

nterviewed locals responded favourably to the use of fire formproving arable land fertility with about 50% in Casillas andpproximately 40% in Rozas believing fire to be a useful tool forlearing land from shrubs and trees for agricultural cultivation. In

erms of using fire to improve or clear land for pasture about 40%f respondents in both municipalities believed this to be the caseith a slightly higher percentage of positive responses in Rozas.

inally, about a fifth to a quarter of respondents in Casillas and

ig. 8. Attitudes towards fire as an ecosystem management tool. Abbreviations as follows: clend trees for new arable cultivation and pasture, respectively; imprv arable and imprv paespectively; rm woodland and rm forest are perceived usefulness of fire to burn the unhestnut, etc.), respectively; and imprv habitat is perceived usefulness of fire to improve h

y 47 (2015) 130–144 137

Rozas, respectively, identified fire as being a useful tool for improv-ing habitat for hunting species.

By asking the respondents to elaborate on their rationale forthese responses we developed a more detailed content analysis ofthe body of TEK–TFK (Table 6). At least 14 different reasons for usingfire as an ecosystem management tool were identified, many ofthem connected to the adequate care of chestnut forest ecosystems.

In the course of conducting the survey/interviews, respondentscommented on important qualitative aspects of human systemdevelopments affecting the natural environment in their munic-ipalities. These comments could not be quantified but provide thenecessary background to the discussion in the “Discussion” section.

Of 25 interviewees in Rozas, 9 highlighted the importance of “LosReginos”, an entrepreneurial family based in the neighboring townof Sotillo de la Adrada, as the driver of the significant land tenurechanges taking place in the municipality throughout the 20th cen-tury (1920s–1980s). Interviewees claimed that by using both theirpolitical and economic pre-eminence as the main employers in thearea, “Los Reginos” registered many “montes comunales” (com-munal lands) with no written property titles under their nameor forced their employees, many of whom were small landown-ers, to sell their land in exchange for employment and/or politicalprotection. For example, as one interviewee noted;

Los montes eran todos del pueblo. Los Reginos se hicieron contodo a base de emborrachar a la gente y haciendoles firmar conmalas artes. Lo compraron todo a traves de unos encargados quetenian.

(The “montes”’ belonged to the village. The Reginos took themover by getting people drunk or forcing them to sign withdevious methods. They bought everything through some rep-

resentatives they had).

During the first years of the new democratic period “LosReginos” further consolidated these larger estates by buying off

ar arable and clear pasture are perceived usefulness of fire to clear land from shrubssture are perceived usefulness of fire to fertilize existing arable fields or pastures,

derstory of “wild” woodland (oak, ash, etc.) or under “domesticated” trees (olive,abitat for huntable animal species (deer, roe deer, wild boar, partridge, etc.).

138 F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144

Table 6Components of traditional fire knowledge in Casillas and Rozas. Landscape burning in both Casillas and Rozas was justified by survey respondents with various rationaleswhich are classified here as ecosystem management strategies.

Ecosystem management strategy Targeted landscape patch typeor feature

TEK–TFK element

Agro-silvo-pastoral Chestnut tree groves Burn chestnut leaves so as to visually facilitate chestnut and mushrooms harvestingChestnut tree groves Burn leaves and understory so as to facilitate grassland growth in the understory for

possible use as pasture or simply because the landscape looks “cleaner”Chestnut tree groves Use fire to sift through the chestnut harvest. Fire roasts the useless, insect ridden,

chestnuts by burning into the holes made by perforating insects and killing them. This alsofacilitates the separation of healthy from infected chestnuts and prevents insectproliferation in the stored chestnut harvest

Shrublands “Piornales” (Cytisusspp.) and “Escobares” (Retamaspp.)

Some respondents maintain burning is useful for regenerating or creating new pastures inshrublands by favouring more palatable new shrub growth and grasses

Traditional landscape maintenance Human-made stonewalls,roads, terraces and otherlandscape infrastructure

Eliminate annual growth from the “callejas” (paved, stonewall accesses to individual plots)and the terraces (“bancales”)

Chestnut tree groves Burn remains of small diameter understory shrubs and young trees/sprouts that areuseless for firewood

“Acequias” (human-madeirrigation ditches) and naturalwater courses

Unclog water courses from grass and weeds

Chestnut tree groves Stop or slow down tree (Q. pyrenaica, P. pinaster) and shrub encroachment into old growthchestnut groves

Forest structure andbiodiversity

Use fire to keep the landscape visually “clean” and to eliminate “shelters” for wild animals(boar, foxes, vipers, etc.) near the village

Forest structure “Pile burning” used to maintain the understory clean in all types of forests, not onlychestnuts, so as to prevent wildfires

Fire and smoke for plant diseasecontrol

Chestnut tree groves Use leaf pile burning to “smoke” individual old growth trees. Some respondents andpractitioners argued that this was “good” for the trees to prevent fungi infection of stemsthough no rationale or scientific justification were provided as to why this would be thecase

Chestnut tree groves Burning the leaves under old chestnut trees is believed by some survey respondents toprevent chestnut bleeding canker (“tinta”) and chestnut blight (“chancro”) caused by thepathogenic fungi Phythophtora cinnamomi and Cryphonectria parasitica, respectively. Therewas a certain debate about what technique to use in order to accomplish this moreeffectively whether “pile burning” or “a manta” broadcast burning

Chestnut tree groves Some respondents argued that it was also convenient to burn the hollow “catface” of firescarred old-growth chestnut trees by piling leaves or straw inside the trunk cavity andigniting a slow burn so as to prevent fungal and insect attacks

Cultural tradition Chestnut tree groves Fire forms a part of the cultural feast of the “Calbote”, “Calbotada” or “Calbotá” which isheld in both municipalities around November 1st. In this feast locals build bonfires under

chestnbeginn

se

fdcdi

oa

the

the

mall landowners through other means. As another intervieweexplained:

Yo vendi a los ‘Reginos’ obligado prácticamente porque nolimpiaban sus fincas y asi yo no tenia acceso a las mias. Paraeso mejor venderlas.

(I was practically forced to sell to the Reginos because they didn’tclean their land plots and so I couldn’t reach mine. So before theydisappeared I chose to sell to them).

In the 1980s “Los Reginos” sold their lands, in turn, to wealthyamilies from Madrid for use as recreational hunting estates. Thisecade-long process of land grabbing may have generated someonflict within the municipality, according to some survey respon-ents, and may constitute the social setting leading to the large fires

n the municipality. As an interviewee put it:

Pueblo pequeno, infierno grande. Hay mucha rivalidad y ene-mistad entre los que tienen fincas grandes y pequenas. En Rozaslos fuegos han sido todos por venganza

(Small town, large hell. There is a lot of enmity between thosewho have large and small estates. In Rozas all the fires are moti-vated by revenge).

Regarding the Comunidad de Madrid’s forest and rural devel-pment policies, many interviewees from Rozas complained about

certain disdain or even hostility on the part of the authorities

ut groves. The feast marks the end of the summer “growing” season and eithering or the end of the chestnut harvest (depending on weather conditions)

towards traditional ecosystem management practices associatedwith stockbreeding or agriculture. As an interviewee in Rozasobserved:

Antiguamente la Comunidad pagaba para limpiar el monteahora ya nada. Hace poco dieron algo para hacer unas rutas desenderismo pero ahora estan abandonadas

(Some time ago the regional government would pay for us tokeep the forests clean but now nothing. . . Lately, they spentsome money in creating some hiking paths but those have alsobeen abandoned).

This same interviewee also expressed his dismay about havingto apply for burning permits and paying a tax for them:

Ahora hay que pagar para quemar D 1 o D 1.5 por metro. Enseguida vienen los helicópteros cuando quemas algo ahí estanencima.

(Now you have to pay to burn about D 1 or D 1.50 per squaremeter and as soon as you burn they send the helicopter to con-trol you).

Finally, another interviewee openly accused the authorities ofmismanaging the few forestry projects that are actually funded in

the municipality’s communal lands:

El monte publico esta sin arboles. Hace 8 anos se repoblo concastanos y se gastaron unos D 118.000 pero no se cuido y desa-parecieron

e Polic

tgR

ttnt

ict

Ccrs

D

C

rd[naiefiIw

F. Seijo et al. / Land Us

(The comunal lands have no trees. About 8 years ago they refor-ested with chestnuts and they spent about D 118,000 but theydidn’t take care of them and they disappeared).

Even the management of hunting estates, which seems to behe main land use priority for the Comunidad de Madrid’s regionalovernment in the municipality, does not escape the scrutiny ofozas inhabitants. As an interviewee from Rozas told us:

Antes habia cebada, trigo, centeno, algarroba y claro las perdiceseran como gallinas. Ahora como esta todo a monte no hay masque jabalíes y estos no las dejan criar.

(In the old times the fields were planted with barley, wheat, ryeand carob kernel and the partridges were like chickens. Noweverything is abandoned and there’s only wild boar because theboar eats the partridges’ eggs).

In Casillas interviewees also manifested their discontent withhe Castilla y Leon community authorities thought to a lesser extenthan in Rozas. When asked to compare the management of chest-uts in both municipalities an interviewee in Casillas succinctlyold us:

El castano en Rozas es de propiedad comunal y aquí en Casillases todo privado y por eso esta bien

(The chestnut groves in Rozas are communal whereas here inCasillas its all private that’s why here it’s well kept).

However, the same interviewee noted increased intervention-sm on the part of the regional authorities on privately ownedhestnut forest groves and traditional management practices inhem:

Estos bosques los han plantado nuestros padres y abuelos yahora tienes que pedir permiso hasta para hacer una poda, nohay derecho.

(These trees were planted by our grandparents and parents andnow you have to ask for a permit even to prune them. It’s unfair).

Since, in the 1950s and 1960s, the regional government ofastilla y Leon was perceived as being more supportive in its poli-ies of pine tree plantations than chestnut forests, criticism of theegional government’s forest policies appear in a subtler manneruch as in this quote from another Casillas interviewee:

Estoy de acuerdo en que planten mas castanos. Pinos no. Lacastana se puede vender a la cooperativa y sacar una renta perola madera de pino ahora no la quiere nadie, ni la resina tampoco

(I think that more chestnut trees should be planted not pines.We can sell the chestnuts to the cooperative but no one wantsthe pine wood now or the resin).

iscussion

ontrasting anthropogenic fire regimes

According to Guyette et al. (2002: 473), “an anthropogenic fireegime can be defined as patterns of wildland fire shaped by theynamic interactions of vegetation [fuels] and human populationsignitions] whether voluntary or involuntary”. Following this defi-ition it is clear that present fire regimes in both Casillas and Rozasre anthropogenic in character since less than 4% of forest fires aregnited by lightning in both municipalities according to official gov-

rnmental statistics. The contrast between present anthropogenicre regimes in both municipalities is, however, quite remarkable.

n Casillas most ignitions seem to fit within the rationale of whate argue constitutes a “pre-industrial anthropogenic fire regime”

y 47 (2015) 130–144 139

based on TFK burning practices (Seijo and Gray, 2012). This is ren-dered most evident by the fire season and frequency data obtainedfrom the official municipal individual fire reports (see the “Individ-ual fire reports” section). Most fire incidents in Casillas still takeplace in the traditional fire season (i.e. autumn and spring months,Fig. 4) and seem to be linked to the management devoted to the pro-duction of chestnuts, firewood and, occasionally, timber or otheruses compatible with and related to TFK management goals (seeTable 6).

In Rozas, on the other hand, the vast majority (71%) of fires occurin summer months, seemingly corresponding to the markedly dif-ferent rationale of an “industrial or post-industrial anthropogenicfire regime” with fire regime attributes in all likelihood linked todifferent land use (greater abandoned shrubland in Rozas), landtenure (larger land holdings used as hunting estates) and the aban-donment of traditional fire use (Seijo and Gray, 2012; Huffman,2013; Fernandes et al., 2014). This is not to say that absolutelyall fire incidents in both municipalities respond to the aforemen-tioned theoretical characterizations. Some fire incidents in Rozasmay indeed respond to the logic of the “pre-industrial anthro-pogenic fire regime” (fires linked to pastoral or chestnut understoryburning which then burned out of control to unintended areas) andvice versa for Casillas.

Fires in Rozas are less frequent than in Casillas but have a muchlarger mean size (see the “Individual fire reports” section). Whileofficial fire statistics in Casillas actually registered far more fire inci-dents than in Rozas (by a factor of almost 2:1) annual burnt surfacein Casillas was inferior to Rozas by a factor of 1:24. In other words,more frequent, traditional seasonal burning in Casillas producesless burnt annual forest surface overall than in Rozas. This differ-ence may be an indirect consequence of both the fuel structureof chestnut grove forest stands resulting from frequent TFK-basedburning (open with larger, older trees; Fig. 2) and the fire seasonpreferred by TFK practitioners (unintended fire escapes are likelyto be less common if burning takes place during the less dry andhot Spring, Autumn and Winter months; Fig. 9, Table 6). In addi-tion, Casillas, in spite of having a smaller fire return interval thanRozas, has not experienced any large fires during the 1984–2009period while in Rozas a “large fire” event took place in 1985. Theseresults seem to replicate Minnich’s (1983) findings on the contrastbetween fire regimes in Baja California (Mexico) – where duringthe time of his study state fire suppression policies had neverbeen implemented – and California (USA) where active state firesuppression policies had been a part of the landscape since thebeginning of the 20th century. These findings have been confirmedand further refined in posterior comparative studies of fire regimesin both countries (Stephens et al., 2008).

Perceptions of past and present fire regimes

There seem to be some significant differences in the percep-tion of fire between the populations of both municipalities. In both,respondents believed that both “past” and “present” fires wereanthropogenic in origin. Regarding “past” fires it seems that most ofthe respondents of Casillas perceive that most were “accidental” innature while in Rozas most respondents believe those fires to havebeen “intentional”. Is it possible that these differing perceptionsof causes of past fire demonstrate a greater empathy towards TFKbased burning in Casillas than in Rozas in the present? If this werethe case this could help explain, in part, the continued persistenceof TFK based burning in Casillas today and its almost total disap-pearance in Rozas. However, in terms of “present” fires the survey

evidence seems to be more contradictory, since most respondentsin both municipalities perceive “current” fires to be mostly “inten-tional”. This perception in Casillas may be related to a successionof “atypical” arson fire events that took place during 2009 which

140 F. Seijo et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 130–144

F e mainl litter

rfivbficmlbms

atpatertipaamrabcarl

carbon sequestration. If this were to be the case, managers in theseecosystems may deem it necessary to “retain or attain” (perhapsthrough prescribed burning surrogate techniques where traditionalburning has disappeared) the “pre-industrial anthropogenic fire

Table 7Indicators of property structure of rural lands in Rozas and Casillas. Data are fromCaja Espana (2012).

Indicator Casillas Rozas

ig. 9. Traditional fire knowledge for agro-sylvo-pastoral uses and traditional landscapeaves. This contrasts with ‘a manta’ broadcast burning in which leaves and ground

esulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the arsonist. These arsonres were frequently mentioned in the course of the in-depth inter-iews in Casillas where respondents were eager to differentiateetween the positive ecological effects and rationale of traditionalre use and the “destructive” character of these arson fires. The per-eption on the “intentionality” of “past” and “current” fires in Rozasay be related, on the other hand, to conflicts over land tenure and

and use which many respondents, during the in-depth interviews,elieved to have been the driving force of most fire incidents in theunicipality in the recent past (see the “TFK survey and interviews”

ection).Other perceptions that are worth noting concern the size of fires

nd their “useful” or “destructive” character in both municipali-ies. A majority of respondents in Casillas believe that fires in theast were smaller than at present. Could this perception reflect,gain, the general impression left by the “atypical” arson fire eventshat took place in 2009 or could it possibly be related to a gen-ral sense that TFK based burning may be withering away as aesult of young people not participating as much in these tradi-ional practices? Perhaps this could also simply reflect differencesn the property structure of both municipalities since individuallots are much larger in Rozas than Casillas, hence fires wouldlways have been larger in Rozas than in Casillas both in the pastnd in the present (see Table 7). Finally, there is a perception in bothunicipalities that fires are generally “bad” although, contradicto-

ily, most respondents also believe that they are often “necessary”nd “useful”. This generalized “negative” perception of fire maye expressing a “framing effect” resulting from fire exclusion poli-

ies implemented by the regional forest agencies of Castilla y Leónnd Madrid in both municipalities where all fires, including thoseelated to TFK based burning, are depicted in governmental pub-ic information campaigns as destructive ecological catastrophes

tenance. The ‘pile-burning’ technique involves (a) raking, (b) piling and (c) igniting are burned across larger areas (as used in the area shown in d).

or crimes (Seijo, 2009; Paveglio et al., 2011; Altangerel and Kull,2013). Such public opinion formation processes associated with theimplementation of fire exclusion policies among local communitypractitioners have been observed elsewhere around the world (forexample, in Mexico; Matthews, 2003).

A final perception on TFK based fire use appeared during theinterviewing process but cannot be quantified through the sur-vey responses. These observations relate to the adequate use of“a manta” (broadcast) vs “pile” burning techniques (Table 6). Somerespondents argued that the most frequent burning technique inthe past was that of “a manta” broadcast rather than “pile” burning.

Factors conditioning present TFK-based fire use in Casillas andRozas

Why do we currently see more TFK-based landscape burning inCasillas but not in Rozas? This is an important question for fire man-agement, particularly if future research verifies that TFK-based firepractices favour chestnut ecosystem resilience to disturbances and

Total rural land owners 1005 591Total rural land ownership plots 5874 1448Rural land area (ha) 1208 2969Mean plot area (ha) 0.21 2.10

e Polic

r“vdAtbqaptnms

osaoppw22st“nSapciilhwttSjer

Tlc(isfeslroFlbeta

iet

F. Seijo et al. / Land Us

egime” either through rural development policies implementingpayment for ecosystem services” schemes or just simply by pro-iding the adequate incentives for fire practitioners to continueoing what they are already doing (Gill et al., 2014; Redford anddams, 2009; Galiana et al., 2013). Although it is difficult to quan-

ify the exact mechanisms whereby human system dynamics maye influencing this outcome we suggest that the answer to thisuestion may lie in a series of interrelated social, political, culturalnd economic transformations related to the uneven impacts of therotracted “industrialization” and “post-industrialization” processaking place throughout the second half of the 20th and the begin-ing of the 21st century in both municipalities, in particular, andore generally throughout Spain as has been suggested in other

tudies (Seijo and Gray, 2012).An important factor that may play a role in the relative absence

f TFK in Rozas is the different intensity with which fire exclu-ion and suppression policies have been implemented by the firegency of the autonomous community of Madrid compared to thatf Castilla y León. State fire exclusion policies seem to have, indeed,layed an important role in determining the evolution of anthro-ogenic fire regimes not only in Spain but also throughout theorld (Minnich, 1983; Kull, 2002; Seijo, 2005; Laris and Wardell,

006; Stephens et al., 2008; Montiel, 2013; Fernandes et al.,014). Political scientists have hypothesized, for instance, that theame international governance rural development or environmen-al policies may have contrasting impacts depending on the relativestrength” or “weakness” of the implementing national state orga-izations (Migdal, 1988; Scott, 1999; Guha, 2000; Goldman, 2005;eijo and Gray, 2012). This could very well be the case in Rozasnd Casillas. As can be seen in Table 1 expenditure in fire exclusionolicies in Rozas is higher than in Casillas by a factor of five. Thisould likely translate into a greater pressure on fire practitionersn Rozas to discontinue traditional burning. For example, in-depthnterview respondents in Rozas noted that, frequently, when theyit a bonfire or conducted a pile burn in their fields, a forest agencyelicopter would fly over them or a police (Guardia Civil) vehicleould appear in the scene (see the “TFK survey and interviews” sec-

ion). This is facilitated by the fact that the firefighting station forhe Madrid forest agency is located only a few kilometres away inan Martín de Valdeiglesias. In Casillas, however, which is under theurisdiction of the autonomous community of Castilla y Leon, for-st agency pressure is much lower though, according to the surveyespondents, it is also increasing.

Two other factors that may be playing a role in the differentFK-based practices in Rozas and Casillas concern developments inand tenure and land use since the 1950s. Today, property is con-entrated in the hands of fewer owners in Rozas than in CasillasTable 7). Correspondingly, the total number of ownership plotss greater in Casillas and mean plot area is an order of magnitudemaller than in Rozas. This was not always the case. The trans-ormation in both land tenure and use in Rozas were driven by thentrepreneurial family known locally as “Los Reginos” (see the “TFKurvey and interviews” section). “Los Reginos” owned much of theocal resin pine industry, and were thus the main employers in theegion, and also dominated local politics during the dictatorshipsf generals Miguel Primo de Rivera (1923–1930) and Franciscoranco (1939–1975). After the large fires of the 1980s, significantand use changes took place in the larger properties once ownedy “Los Reginos”. Under the new owners these properties wereither transformed into recreational hunting estates or chestnutree plantations for timber. Traditional chestnut recollection and itsssociated management practices were subsequently abandoned.

These transformations in land use and tenure may have elim-nated much of the rationale for TFK-based burning in Rozas. Thenclosure of the large hunting estates also blocked or made accesso individual plots embedded within them difficult resulting in

y 47 (2015) 130–144 141

the abandonment of traditional management practices (see the“TFK survey and interviews” section). The communal chestnutforests that still remain in Rozas may have also suffered a simi-lar fate though for different reasons. EU and regional communityforest agency rural development projects have actively subsidizeda “wildland” management approach for these forests since it isbelieved that urban “ecotourists” prefer a less disturbed “wild” nat-ural environment for their recreational activities rather than a morekept “humanized” landscape (Mayor of Rozas, pers. comm. and the“TFK survey and interviews” section). When compounded all ofthese factors create a very inauspicious environment for traditionalfire practitioners in Rozas.

In Casillas, on the other hand, the industrialization processunfolded quite differently which may have led to a social environ-ment more conducive to the continuity of traditional TFK basedburning. In the 1970s, the P. pinaster resin tapping industry inthe area declined sharply because of increasing labour costs andthe availability of synthetic substitutes for resin. In addition, resintapping only provided seasonal employment for the inhabitants ofCasillas in the first place. Both factors in all probability, halted theexpansion of cluster pine plantations and their encroachment intochestnut forest groves, while simultaneously creating an economicincentive for the maintenance of the pre-industrial era chestnutgroves as a complementary source of income to seasonal work inresin-tapping, industry or construction. In addition, the people ofCasillas set up a cooperative to facilitate the commercializationof chestnuts which has led to an easy access to cash in exchangefor chestnuts for its inhabitants (see the “TFK survey and inter-views” section). The combination then of a more divided propertystructure, stability in land use practices and economic incentivesto maintain chestnut production has likely contributed to the con-tinuity of traditional fire practices in the municipality.

Broader implications of TFK decline for fire management policies

The implications of these findings for the ongoing scholarlydebates outlined in the “Introduction” section of this article areimportant. The specific mechanisms by which TFK-based burningpractices maintain ecosystem structure and function in tradition-ally managed chestnut forests (outlined in Table 6) has rarely beendescribed in the literature, though it may be indispensable. Fur-ther research would therefore be needed to investigate longer timescales in order to fully verify these observations using, if possible,dendrochronology to rebuild the fire histories of these landscapes(Swetnam et al., 1999). Comparative research would also be nec-essary in other European regions (in the Mediterranean Basin andbeyond), where chestnut forests are still managed traditionally butalso in other sites where traditional practices have been abandoned,so as to build a complete typology of the ecological rationale for TFKpractices in these ecosystems.

The emphasis placed by Pezzatti et al.’s (2013) model for FireParadox on fire frequency and burnt area as quantitative indicatorsof changing fire regimes in chestnut forest ecosystems is particu-larly relevant from a policy point of view because, when other fireregime attributes are taken into consideration, it may be telling onlya part of the story. Pezzatti et al.’s model does not account for crucialfire regime attributes in chestnut ecosystems such as fire season.As we have seen in Casillas, where TFK-based burning practices aremore prevalent, the “pre-industrial anthropogenic fire regime” maywell be characterized by a spring/autumn fire season as opposedto that in Rozas where the vast majority of fire events take placeduring the summer months (Fig. 4; the “Contrasting anthropogenic

fire regimes” section). Seasonality, then, is an important quantifi-able indicator that, in view of our study’s findings, should also betaken into account when identifying fire regime change points inchestnut forests as Pezzatti et al. (2013) do in their study.

1 e Polic

dlSifintfa

f“iggefifi“ct

aatadlsaspbtbfdoo(atsct

itawMsbtrpamirsmri

42 F. Seijo et al. / Land Us

Another aspect of Pezzatti et al.’s (2013) model for Fire Para-ox that seems to require further refinement is related to the

and use (human system) indicator chosen for quantification.tockbreeding, though undoubtedly an important indicator of pre-ndustrial traditional land use practices associated with chestnutorest ecosystems, is not the only human system variable that maympact on their structure, process and disturbance regimes. Chest-ut collection in both of our study sites seems to have been, in fact,he crucial socio-economic driver of traditional fire practices andorest stand structure and, should, therefore be taken into accounts a valid human system indicator worthy of quantification.

Finally, Pezzatti et al.’s concluding “policy lesson”, as derivedrom their model’s findings, regarding the proven effectiveness ofabsolute fire bans” on reducing fire frequency and burnt area dur-ng certain historical periods seems to require further clarification,iven our findings that large fires and burnt surface per year arereater in Rozas, where fire suppression policies are more strictlynforced. This is especially important when considering that thenal objective of Fire Paradox is to provide an impetus for a newre management paradigm in Europe that moves away from theecologically undesirable” (Pezzatti et al., 2013: 7) and “economi-ally unfeasible” (Montiel et al., 2013: 1) fire exclusion policies ofhe past.

If TFK-based fire practices are at the root of the “pre-industrialnthropogenic fire regime,” we have characterized in this study,nd to which chestnut forest ecosystems have become adaptedhrough the centuries, what can, or should be, done to “retain orttain” (Gill et al., 2014) them so as to maintain the ecologicallyesirable fire cycle that has made possible the existence of these

andscapes for centuries? A first necessary step would entail thecientific validation of the fire management strategies and usesrticulated by TFK practitioners in Table 6. Second, the humanystem dynamics that favour the preservation of these TFK-basedractices need to be identified and preferably quantified so as toetter inform policymaking in similar ecosystems elsewhere. Ahird line for future research would imply studying the effects oniodiversity of maintaining the traditional pre-industrial chestnutorest ecosystem structure (Fig. 2a) or abandoning it to changeriven by succession and competition (Fig. 2b). Anecdotal evidencebtained from the survey respondents indicates that in the absencef TFK practices and traditional land use, a range of animal speciesrabbits, partridge, etc.) are substituted by others more adapted tobandoned chestnut forest landscapes (wild boar, roe deer, etc.). Inhese and other ecosystems in which TFK practices are declining,cientists and landscape managers will need to clarify and recon-ile impacts with desired biodiversity and conservation goals (seehe “TFK survey and interviews” section).

What our findings seem to suggest – from a policy perspective –s that rural development policies that overlap and converge withhe socio-economic effects of state fire exclusion policies can have

significant impact on fire regime change. This contrasts sharplyith some of the conclusions of Fire Paradox (Galiana et al., 2013;ontiel, 2013). Galiana et al. (2013) affirm, for instance, that, “It

hould be recognized that large territories cannot be managedy means of agricultural or stockbreeding activities any longer;he abandonment of traditional forest management is not to beeversed. . . The likelihood of success is beyond the reach of theolicies (i.e. forest-related rural development EU initiatives) undernalysis” (: 44). As our study sites show, however, rural develop-ent and fire exclusion policies (or rather their “weak” or “strong”

mplementation) seem to have a significant impact on changing fireegimes. Indeed, the emphasis placed by Fire Paradox on top-down

olutions to the issue of changing fire regimes in Europe througheasures such as “Fire Framework Directives” or “Ecotourism”

ural development initiatives will probably not accomplish muchn motivating local communities to continue managing their

y 47 (2015) 130–144

landscapes with fire in the traditional manner. Evidence from Rozassuggests that “ecotourism” initiatives–by fostering a “wildland”approach to the management of chestnut forests–may in fact pro-duce the opposite effect.

In sum, references to local community stakeholders’ prefer-ences, attitudes and rationale regarding ecosystem management,state rural development policies and state fire exclusion policies arenotoriously absent or have been “forgotten” – similarly to observa-tions on native American fire use practices in Omer C. Stewart’s time(Stewart, 1957) – in the published results of Fire Paradox and meth-ods leading to their obtainment have not been contemplated withthe exception of some questionnaires distributed among repre-sentatives of the Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Development,Environment and Civil Protection of various EU member countries(Galiana et al., 2013). This is unfortunate because some of themost promising leads in contemporary fire management seem tobe emerging from non-state, local community initiatives as wellas from state forest and forest-related policies that integrate localknowledge and practices (Agrawal et al., 2008; Raymond et al.,2010).

The clock, of course, cannot be turned back and it would beboth impossible and undesirable to recreate the pre-industrialeconomic, cultural and social human systems that favoured theexpansion of Europe’s chestnut forests 2000 years ago (Conederaand Krebs, 2008). However, there exists a wide range of policyoptions available to managers who would find it desirable to main-tain TFK-based practices in these (and similar) ecosystems, bothas a means of conserving them but also possibly strengtheningtheir resilience to likely future disturbance regime transformationslinked to climate change in Mediterranean type ecosystems (Millaret al., 2007; Pérez and Boscolo, 2010; Fernandes et al., 2013). Inchestnut forest ecosystems, the simplest strategy would probablybe to facilitate the profitable commercialization of chestnuts eitherby supporting cooperatives of producers, such as those existingalready in Casillas, or through other locally tailored or Europe-widemarketing initiatives. Other options could include payment forecosystem services (Redford and Adams, 2009) or even surrogateprescribed burning carried out by professionals that would comple-ment or replicate the small patch-burning mosaic pattern producedby TFK-based burning practices (Abbot and Burrows, 2003; Bilbaoet al., 2010; Fernandes et al., 2013).

Conclusion

Practices based on Traditional Fire Knowledge (TFK) in thechestnut forest ecosystems of the mountains of Gredos exhibit alevel of sophistication that deserves further attention from sci-entific researchers, foresters and environmental managers. By(attempting to) exclude fire from ecosystems that can be consid-ered to be “fire adapted”, contemporary fire management policiesmay be ignoring some promising leads as to how to manage andconserve such ecosystems in the future. This is particularly impor-tant in light of disturbance regime transformations likely to beinduced by anthropogenic climate change in forest ecosystems.In locations where TFK-based “pre-industrial anthropogenic fireregimes” still exist, ecosystem management strategies for adap-tation and mitigation to climate change could be conceivablyimplemented at a minimal economic and political cost to the stateby local communities that have both the TFK and the adequatesocial, economic and cultural incentives to use it.

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible by an Academic Out-reach Engagement Grant from Middlebury College. The following

e Polic

MtsrCWtPNhfmaaqrPmRaFStsGwEMlfq

R

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

CC

C

C

D

F

F

F. Seijo et al. / Land Us

iddlebury College and New York University students volun-eered as interviewers during the Fall of 2012 and Spring of 2013emesters: Kimberly Sable, Kaelin Stone, Charlotte O’Herron, For-est Carroll, Zuzana Vuova, Peter Elbaum, Jillian Mock, Jessica Davis,ody Beaudreau, Aidan McGrath, Gabrielle Fromer, Fran Bullard,illiam Marrs, Rosie Mazzarella, Emily Duh, Shaun Devlin, Mar-

in Kim, Samuel Schwartzbad, Priyanka Jhaveri, Renee Antoine,hillip Origlio, Michael Cutrone, Louis Bedford, Lindsey Skolnik,ino Kakauridze, Giovanni Barcenes, Ann Yang and Rachel Rine-art. Francisco Seijo would like to thank the Fundación “Equo”

or its help in finding local volunteers for the project and theunicipal governments of Rozas de Puerto Real and Casillas –

nd particularly David Saugar and Daniel Moreno – for their kindnd disinterested collaboration in the deployment of the surveyuestionnaire. FS would also like to express his gratitude to Beat-iz Pérez Ramos from the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha andeter Fule of Northern Arizona University for their helpful com-ents and contributions to this paper and to Captain Jorge Garcia

odriguez of the Spanish army for allowing us access to militaryerial photographs. Jorge Lozano is being supported by a Prometeoellowship from the SENESCYT, a national agency for Education andcience of the Government of Ecuador. James Millington would likeo acknowledge the Leverhulme Trust for his Early Career Fellow-hip (ECF/2010/0378) which funded his fieldwork in the study area.. Sangüesa-Barreda and J.J. Camarero contributions to this studyere supported by projects CGL2011-26654 (Spanish Ministry of

conomy and Competitiveness) and 1032S/2013 (OAPN, Spanishinistry of Agriculture and Environment). All authors would also

ike to express their gratitude to the people of Rozas and Casillasor their hospitality and, especially, patience in responding to ouruestions.

eferences

bbot, I., Burrows, N., 2003. Aboriginal fire regimes in south-west Western Australia:evidence from historical documents. Symposium Proceedings, vol. 1. BackhuysPublishers, Australia.

grawal, A., Chhatre, A., Hardin, R., 2008. Changing governance of the world’s forests.Science 320 (5882), 1460–1462.

ltangerel, K., Kull, C., 2013. The prescribed burning debate in Australia: conflictsand compatibilities. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 56 (1).

erkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledgeas adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 10 (5), 1251–1262.

ilbao, B., Leal, A.V., Mendez, C.L., 2010. Indigenous use of fire and Forest loss inCanaima National Park, Venezuela. Assessment of tools for alternative strategiesof fire management in Pemon Indigenous Lands. Hum. Ecol. 38 (5), 663–673.

owman, 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., Harrison, 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 theearth system. Science 24, 481–484.

ryman, A., 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?Qual. Res. 6 (97).

ollins, R., Neufville, R., Claro, R., Oliveira, T., Pacheco, A., 2013. Forest fire manage-ment to avoid unintended consequences: a case study of Portugal using systemdynamics. J. Environ. Manage. 130, 1–9.

aja Espana, 2012. Fichas de datos municipales.onedera, M., Krebs, P., Tinner, W., Pradella, M., Torriani, D., 2004. The cultivation of

Castanea sativa (Mill) in Europe from its origin to its diffusion on a continentalscale. Vegetat. Hist. Archaeobot. 13, 161–179.

onedera, M., Krebs, P., 2008. History, present situation and perspective of chest-nut cultivation in Europe. In: Abreu, C.G., Peixoto, F.P., Gomes-Laranjo, J. (Eds.),Proceedings of the second Iberian Chestnut Congress, Vila Real (P), June 20-22th2007. Acta Hort. 784, 23–27.

onedera, M., Krebs, P., 2009. Switzerland. In: Avanzato, D. (Ed.), Following Chest-nut Footprints (Castanea spp.). Cultivation and Culture, Folklore and History,Traditions and Uses. Scr. Hortic. 19, 149–154.

onovan, G., Brown, T., 2007. Be careful what you wish for: the legacy of SmokeyBear. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2 (5), 73–79.

ule, P.Z., 2008. Does it make sense to restore wildland fire in changing climate?Restor. Ecol. 16 (4), 526–531.

ernandes, P., Davies, M., Ascoli, D., Fernandez, C., Moreira, F., Rigolot, E., Stoof, C.,Vega, J.A., Molina, D., 2013. Prescribed burning in southern Europe: developingfire management in a dynamic landscape. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11 (1).

y 47 (2015) 130–144 143

Fernandes, P., Loureiro, C., Guiomar, N., Pezzatti, G., Manso, F., Lopes, L., 2014. Thedynamics and drivers of fuel and fire in the Portuguese public forest. J. Environ.Manage. 146, 373–382.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Fillat, F., 2012. Pyrenean pastoralists’ ecological knowl-edge: documentation and application to natural resource management andadaptation. Hum. Ecol. 40, 287–300.

Galiana, L., Aguilar, S., Lazaro, A., 2013. An assessment of the effects of forest-relatedpolicies upon wildland fires in the European Union: applying the subsidiarityprinciple. For. Policy Econ. 29, 36–44.

Gill, A.M., 2002. Fire regimes and biodiversity: legacy and vision. In: Ross Bradstock,Jann Williams, A., Malcolm Gill (Eds.), Flammable Australia: The Fire Regimesand Biodiversity of a Continent. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Gill, A.M., Sharples, J., Johnston, G., 2014. Edge effects on between-fire interval inlandscape fragments such as fire-prone terrestrial conservation reserves. Biol.Conserv. 169, 54–59.

Goldman, M., 2005. Imperial Nature. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Grove, A.T., Rackham, O., 2003. The nature of Mediterranean Europe: an ecological

history. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Guha, R., 2000. Environmentalism: A Global History. Longleaf, New York.Guyette, R.P., Muzika, R.M., Dey, D.C., 2002. Dynamics of an anthropogenic fire

regime. Ecosystems 5, 472–486.Grund, K., Conedera, M., Schroder, H., Walther, G.R., 2005. The role of fire in the

invasion process of evergreen broad-leaved species. Basic Appl. Ecol. 6, 47–56.Huffman, M.R., 2013. The many elements of traditional fire knowledge: synthe-

sis, classification, and aids to cross-cultural problem solving in fire-dependentsystems around the world. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4), 3.

Hurteau, M.D., Koch, G.W., Hungate, B.A., 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduc-tion: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6 (9),493–498.

IFN3, 2007. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona,

Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier,P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlomer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx,J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution ofWorking Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom,New York, NY.

Keane, R., Hessburg, P., Landres, P., Swanson, F., 2009. The use of historical rangeand variability (HRV) for landscape management. For. Ecol. Manage. 258 (7),1025–1037.

Krebs, P., Koutsias, N., Conedera, M., 2012. Modelling the eco-cultural niche of giantchestnut trees: new insights into land use history in southern Switzerlandthrough distribution analysis of a living heritage. J. Hist. Geogr. 1 (15),372–386.

Krebs, P., Conedera, M., Pradella, M., Torriani, D., Felber, M., Tinner, W., 2004.Quaternary refugia of the sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.): an extendedpalynological approach. Vegetat. Hist. Archaeobot. 13, 145–160.

Kull, C., 2002. Madagascar aflame: landscape burning as peasant protest, resistance,or a resource management tool. Polit. Geogr. 21, 927–953.

Laris, P., Wardell, M., 2006. Good, bad or ‘necessary evil’? Reinterpreting the colonialburning experiments in the savanna landscapes of West Africa. Geogr. J. 172 (4),271–290.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A., Deadman,P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman,C., Schneider, S., Taylor, W., 2007. Complexity of coupled human and naturalsystems. Science 317, 1513–1516.

Martin, J., Roy, E., Diemont, A.W., Ferguson, B., 2010. Traditional ecological knowl-edge (TEK): Ideas, inspiration, and designs for ecological engineering. Ecol. Eng.36 (7).

Matthews, A.R., 2003. Suppressing fire and memory: environmental degradation andpolitical restoration in the Sierra Juárez of Oaxaca, 1887–2001. Environ. Hist. 8(1), 77–108.

Mazzoleni, S., di Pasquale, G., Mulligan, M., di Martino, P., Rego, F.C., 2004. RecentDynamics of the Mediterranean Vegetation and Landscape. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, UK.

Migdal, J.S., 1988. Strong Societies and Weak States: State–Society Relations andState Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Millington, J.D.A., Perry, G.L.W., Romero-Calcerrada, R., 2007. Regression techniquesfor examining land use/cover change: a case study of a Mediterranean landscape.Ecosystems 10 (4), 562–578.

Millington, J.D.A., Wainwright, J., Perry, G.L.W., Romero-Calcerrada, R., Mala-mud, B.D., 2009. Modelling Mediterranean landscape succession-disturbancedynamics: a landscape fire-succession model. Environ. Model. Softw. 24 (10),1196–1208.

Millar, C.L., Stephens, N.L., Stephens, S.L., 2007. Climate change and forests of thefuture: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol. Appl. 17 (8).

Minnich, R., 1983. Fire mosaics in Southern California and Northern Baja California.Science 219 (4590), 1287–1294.

Mistry, J., 1998. Decision-making for fire use among farmers in savannas: anexploratory study in the Distrito Federal, central Brazil. J. Environ. Manage. 54,321–334.

Montiel, C., 2013. Comparative assessment of wildland fire legislation and policy inthe European Union: towards a fire framework directive. For. Policy Econ. 29,1–6.

Montiel, C., et al., 2013. The Fire Paradox project: setting the basis for a shift in theforest fire policies in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 29, 1–70.

1 e Polic

M

M

M

N

O

.

P

P

P

P

P

P

44 F. Seijo et al. / Land Us

oretti, M., Staehli, E.C., Gillet, F., 2008. Determinants for the conservation ofa vulnerable fire-dependent species at its marginal range. Plant Ecol. 199,89–98.

oretti, M., Duelli, P., Obrist, M.K., 2006. Biodiversity and resilience of arthro-pod communities after fire disturbance in temperate forests. Oecologia 1 (49),312–327.

oritz, M.A., Hurteau, M.D., Suding, K.N., D’Antonio, C.M., 2013. Bounded ranges ofvariation as a framework for future conservation and fire management. Ann.N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1286, 92–107.

owak, David J., Rowan, A., Rowntree, E., McPherson, Gregory, Sisinni, Susan M.,Kerkmann, Esther R., Stevens, Jack C., 1996. Measuring and analyzing urban treecover. Landscape Urban Plann. 36, 49–57.

tero-Rozas, E., Ontillera-Sanchez, R., Sanosa, P., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-Garcia, V., Gonzalez, J.A., 2013. Traditional ecological knowledge amongtranshumant pastoralists in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3), 33.

Pérez, F.F., Boscolo, R. (Eds.), 2010. Clima en Espana: pasado, presente y futuro.Informe de Evaluación del Cambio Climático Regional, Ministerio de MedioAmbiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN),Madrid.

ezzatti, G., Zumbrunnen, T., Burgi, T., Ambrosetti, P., Conedera, M., 2013. Fire regimeshifts as a consequence of fire policy and socio-economic development: an anal-ysis based on the change point approach. For. Policy Econ. 29, 7–18.

aveglio, T., Norton, T., Carroll, M., 2011. Fanning the flames? Media coverage duringwildfire events and its relation to broader societal understandings of the hazard.Hum. Ecol. Rev. 18(1).

ausas, J., Keeley, J., 2009. A burning story: the role of fire in the history of life.BioScience 59 (7), 593–601.

ausas, J., Fernández-Munoz, S., 2012. Fire regime changes in the western Mediter-ranean basin: from fuel limited to drought driven fire regime. Clim. Change 110(1-2), 215–226.

etty, A.M., Isendahl, Christian, Brenkert-Smith, Hannah, Goldstein, David J., Rhem-tulla, Jeanine M., Rahman, Syed Ajijur, Kumasi, Tyhra C., 2015. Applying historical

ecology to natural resource management institutions: lessons from two casestudies of landscape fire management. Glob. Environ. Change 31, 1–10.

ostigo-Mijarra, J.M., Morla, C., Barrón, E., Morales-Molino, C., García, S., 2010. Pat-terns of extinction and persistence of Arctotertiary flora in Iberia during thequaternary. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 162 (2010), 416–426.

y 47 (2015) 130–144

Raymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M., Stringer, L., Robinson, G.M., Evely, A., 2010.Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J.Environ. Manage. 91 (8), 1766–1777.

Redford, K., Adams, W., 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge ofsaving nature. Conserv. Biol. 23 (4), 785–787.

Romero-Calcerrada, R., Perry, G.L.W., 2004. The role of land abandonment inland-scape dynamics in the SPA ‘Encinares del rio Alberche y Corio’ central Spain,1984–1999. Landscape Urban Plann. 66, 217–232.

Ruddiman, W., 2003. The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of yearsago. Clim. Change 61 (3), 261–293.

San Roman, A., Fernandez, C., Mouillot, F., Ferrat, L., Istria, D., Pasqualini, V., 2013.Long-term forest dynamics and land-use abandonment in the MediterraneanMountains, Corsica, France. Ecol. Soc. 18 (2), 38.

Scott, J., 1999. Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press, Connecticut.Scott, J., 2015. Systems for Environmental Management. Firewords.net,

〈http://www.firewords.net/definitions/fire exclusion.htm〉.Seijo, F., Gray, R., 2012. Pre-industrial anthropogenic fire regimes in transition. Hum.

Ecol. Rev. 19 (1), 58–69.Seijo, F., 2005. The politics of fire: Spanish forest policy and ritual resistance in

Galicia, Spain. Environ. Polit. 14, 380–402.Seijo, F., 2009. Who framed the forest fire? State framing and peasant counter fram-

ing of anthropogenic forest fires in Spain since 1940. J. Environ. Policy Plann.11.

Stephens, S.L., Burrows, Neil, Buyantuyev, Alexander, Gray, Robert W., Keane, RobertE., Kubian, Rick, Liu, Shirong, Seijo, Francisco, Shu, Lifu, Tolhurst, Kevin G., vanWagtendonk, Jan W., 2014. Temperate and boreal mega-fires: characteristicsand challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3 (14).

Stephens, S.L., Fry, D.L., Franco-Vizcaino, E., 2008. Wildfire and spatial patterns inforests in northwestern Mexico: the United States wishes it had similar fireproblems. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2), 10.

Stewart, O., 1957. Forgotten Fires. University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.Swetnam, T., Allen, C., Betancourt, J., 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past

to manage for the future. Ecol. Appl. 9 (4), 1189–1206.Zlatanov, T., Shleppi, P., Velichkov, I., Hinkov, G., Georgieva, M., Eggertson, O., Zla-

tanova, M., Vacki, H., 2013. Structural diversity of abandoned chestnut (Castaneasativa Mill.) dominated forests: implications for forest management. For. Ecol.Manage. 291 (1), 326–335.