Ecosystems and humans have coevolved with fire, and its use by humans through varying techno-economic strategies impacts the environment through time and space (Coughlan, 2015). Today, traditional and local communities still use fire for clearing land, opening areas for cultivation, renewing pastures, controlling pests, eliminating wastes, and wildlife hunting and gathering (Coughlan, 2015; Pivello, 2011; Russell-Smith et al., 2013). However, conflicts over fire use and management between rural populations and government agencies are commonplace in fire-prone regions due to fire-suppression policies (Seijo et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2024). In some countries (e.g., Brazil, Mali, and Australia), environmental laws and policies prohibited and stigmatized fire use because of European colonialists’ legacy, who perceived open ecosystems (e.g., tropical savannas and grasslands) as degraded forests due to anthropogenic fires (Laris and Wardell, 2006; Moura et al., 2019; Russell-Smith et al., 2013). Until today, this negative perception is still mainstreamed for the public, linking fire use as something destructive and unfavorable (Humphrey et al., 2021). However, fire exclusion policies often lead to uncontrolled, extensive, and intense wildfires, increasing environmental, economic, and social costs in fire-dependent ecosystems (Mariani et al., 2022; Neves et al., 2023; Wieczorkowski and Lehmann, 2022).

The controversy surrounding fire use stems from the conflicting needs and objectives of different societal groups. Although government agencies have tried to involve local communities in fire management, these efforts often fall short. Local people rely on fire as a tool and, at the same time, are disproportionately affected by its negative consequences in rural areas (Hardesty et al., 2005; Myers, 2006). Indeed, there are positive outcomes, such as promoting biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, when stakeholders make informed decisions by listening to local communities and understanding their needs and preferences (Kremen and Merenlender, 2018; Krug et al., 2020). To address this lack of integration of fire management with cultural preferences and needs, conservationists framed Integrated Fire Management (IFM) with an interdisciplinary and adaptive approach (Myers, 2006). IFM involves three fundamental technical components: prevention, suppression, and use of fire to meet specific goals and objectives within ecological and socioeconomic/cultural contexts, such as reducing fuel accumulation and supporting traditional activities (Myers, 2006). By including the human and ecological dimensions, IFM aims at more resilient ecosystems and populations (Gillson et al., 2019), an essential attribute in a world undergoing human-induced environmental and disturbance regime changes (Kelly et al., 2020).

Recently, national and regional environmental agencies (e.g., Australia, Brazil, and South Africa) started to follow the IFM framework and to prescribe fires in ecologically appropriate seasons (usually the early dry season) to manage landscapes, promote biodiversity, and protect human lives and cultures in protected areas (Hiers et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2018; Van Wilgen, 2009). Moreover, sustainable fire regimes should also aim to maintain air quality patterns, contain greenhouse gases, and protect water resources (Roos et al., 2014). As tradeoffs are expected among these goals, prioritization techniques are necessary to rank them according to local and regional contexts (Driscoll et al., 2016; Roos et al., 2014).

The Cerrado is a global biodiversity hotspot that provides habitat to many endemic species and suffers high pressure from agribusiness (Colli et al., 2020; Klink and Machado, 2005). In addition to its biodiversity values, Cerrado supports the main water basins in Brazil and is a significant source of greenhouse emissions because of deforestation and wildfires (Rodrigues et al., 2022). Environmental managers use IFM in some Cerrado protected areas with positive outcomes, such as reducing megafires and rescuing traditional fire uses (Franke et al., 2018; Santos et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2018). Recently, the Brazilian Congress approved the law to regularize the IFM nationally (Law 14944/2024), providing legal, economic, and institutional tools for improved sustainable fire management in private and public areas. However, despite these recent advances in fire management (Durigan et al., 2016; Schmidt and Eloy, 2020), Cerrado still lacks broad and comprehensive fire management goals and criteria, suffering from high-severity wildfires and stigmatization of fire use by local people (Gomes et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2017).

Herein, we investigated Cerrado rural residents’ and environmental specialists’ priorities and attitudes toward fire use and management goals. We addressed the following questions: (Q1) How do environmental specialists and rural residents differ in prioritizing fire management goals? (Q2) How do environmental specialists and rural residents differ in judging the importance of fire use? (Q3) Do individual sociodemographic characteristics and environmental awareness explain the differences between the two groups? (Q4) What are the attitudes of rural residents regarding fire use frequency, applying early dry season fires, and avoiding late dry season fires? (Q5) What are the perceptions of environmental specialists regarding fire use importance for biodiversity, fire regimes’ effects on ecosystems, and IFM? We are the first to attempt to prioritize fire management goals and identify the main conflicts regarding fire attitudes and preferences of key social actors. Further, we provide crucial information for planning, policy, and practice related to IFM in Cerrado towards more sustainable fire regimes on a large scale.

According to our Bayesian multilevel models, rural residents were less likely than environmental specialists to rank biodiversity as a general priority (Fig. 1a). Nevertheless, both groups independently considered that human health and water resources were the most important general priorities in their lives (Fig. 1a). Overall, we found no differences between rural residents and environmental specialists in their priorities for fire management goals: both groups independently considered that protecting water resources, promoting biodiversity conservation, and mitigating climate change are amongst the most important goals in fire management; and pest control and farming are the least important (Fig. 1b). Despite the similarities, rural interviewees tended to attribute a higher priority ranking to goals related to decreased economic costs and health issues than environmental specialists (Fig. 1b), revealing a minor tradeoff between the groups. Most rural interviewees undervalued the importance of fire in their lands (Fig. 1c).

Fig. 1.

Probability of rural interviewees and environmental specialists prioritizing general priorities (a), fire management goals (b), and judging fire importance use (c) in the Brazilian Cerrado savannas. The probabilities reflect how likely each group is to prioritize specific general priorities, fire management goals, or judge fire importance use at a specific level. Higher probabilities indicate a greater likelihood of prioritization or valuation. Differences between groups show where priorities and judgment of fire importance diverge or align. Fire importance scale: 1 = nothing important, 2 = little important, 3 = neutral (indifferent), 4 = important, 5 = very important.

(0.22MB).

People with higher sustainability/conservation awareness attributed a higher rank to biodiversity conservation than the economy (Fig. 2a). Additionally, people who are more aware of climate change impacts were less likely to prioritize the economy over other priorities (Fig. 2b). Contrary to our expectations, people’s environmental awareness did not explain confidently (neither biodiversity conservation nor climate change awareness constructs) their fire management goals prioritization (Fig. 2c and d; Appendix S3). However, people with high sustainability and climate awareness valued the importance of fire use more than people with low sustainability and climate awareness (Fig. 2e and f).

Fig. 2.

Relationships between environmental awareness (sustainability/conservation and climate change awareness) with the probability of rural interviewees and environmental specialists prioritizing general priorities (a, b), fire management goals (c, d), and judging fire importance use (e, f) in the Brazilian Cerrado savannas. The probabilities indicate the likelihood that individuals with varying levels of environmental awareness prioritize general priorities, fire management goals, or judge fire importance use. Higher probabilities indicate a greater likelihood of prioritization or valuation. Fire importance scale: 1 = nothing important, 2 = little important, 3 = neutral (indifferent), 4 = important, 5 = very important.

(0.31MB).

We found no gender differences in all questions evaluated (Appendix S3). In contrast, socioeconomic characteristics (age, educational level, and income) drove people’s prioritization of general priorities, fire management goals, and judgment of fire use (Fig. 3; Appendix S3). Compared to younger people, older people had no clear pattern in prioritizing general priorities (biodiversity conservation, economy, human health, or water; Fig. 3a), attributed a lower priority ranking for the fire management goal of protecting water resources (Fig. 3d), and tended to undervalue the importance of fire use (Fig. 3f). Regarding general priorities, people with higher income and educational levels prioritized biodiversity conservation more than people with lower educational levels and income (Fig. 3b and c). Within fire management goals, people with higher educational levels prioritized the conservation of biodiversity and its traditional use more than people with lower educational levels (Fig. 3e). Similarly, people with higher educational levels valued the importance of fire use more than people with lower educational levels (Fig. 3g).

Fig. 3.

Relationships between socioeconomic characteristics (age, educational levels, and income) with the probability of rural interviewees and environmental specialists prioritizing general priorities (a, b, c), fire management goals (d, e), and judging fire use importance (f, g) in the Brazilian Cerrado savannas. The probabilities indicate the likelihood that individuals with varying levels of socioeconomic characteristics prioritize general priorities, fire management goals, or judge fire importance use. Higher probabilities indicate a greater likelihood of prioritization or valuation. Fire importance scale: 1 = nothing important, 2 = little important, 3 = neutral (indifferent), 4 = important, 5 = very important; Age scale (years old): 1 = 18–24, 2 = 25–34, 3 = 35–49, 4 = 50–64, 5 = more than 64; Income level scale: 1 = R$501–R$1,000, 2 = R$1,001–R$2,500; 3 = R$2,501–R$5,000, 4 = R$5,001–R$10,000, 5 = R$10,001–R$20,000, 6 = Above R$20,000; Educational level scale: 1 = illiterate, 2 = literate, 3 = fundamental school, 4 = middle school, 5 = bachelor, 6 = MSc, 7 = PhD.

(0.34MB).

We assessed the attitudes of rural residents regarding fire use frequency, applying early dry season fires, and avoiding late dry season fires (Q4). Most rural interviewees (70.83%) responded that they did not use fire for farming in their properties, but for those who did, most (57.14%) used it every year. Regarding the use of early dry-season fires, most (54.17%) rural residents said they would (or maybe) apply these fires on their land, but a high percentage said they would not (45.83%). Most (87.50%) rural interviewees answered that they avoid—or would possibly avoid—late dry-season fires.

We also asked specialists about fire use’s importance for biodiversity, fire regimes’ effects on ecosystems, and IFM (Q5). Most environmental specialists judged current fire regimes (63.27%) and frequent late dry-season fires (83.67%) are detrimental to the Cerrado ecosystem, that frequent early dry-season fires are beneficial (59.18%), and agree that fire is essential to Cerrado biodiversity (91.84%). Most specialists approved the use of IFM in protected areas (91.84%) and private areas (79.59%). Similarly, most (65.31%) considered the current (back in 2021) IFM good or excellent.

Forty-four environmental specialists suggested improvements to the IFM conducted in Cerrado. We summarized their suggestions into nine separate and applied statements and classified them into five key themes: social mobilization and education, research and development, laws and regulation, budget funding, and surveillance (Table 1). Most of the suggestions (five) were related to social mobilization and education of critical actors involved with fire management (Table 1). In the next section, we discuss how the implications of our survey and questionnaire results relate to the specialists’ suggestions.

Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach and Bayesian modeling of an extensive survey in Cerrado, we show minor differences between rural residents and environmental specialists in prioritizing fire management goals (Q1). However, rural residents undervalue the importance of fire use compared to environmental specialists (Q2). The main differences in the prioritization of fire management goals were driven by people’s socioeconomic characteristics (age, educational level, and income), while the judgment of the importance of fire use was also driven by people’s environmental awareness (Q3). Most rural interviewees affirm they rarely use fire, but most have positive attitudes in prescribing early dry-season fires and avoiding late dry-season fires (Q4). Most environmental specialists agree that fire is essential to Cerrado’s biodiversity but that current fire regimes and frequent late dry-season fires are detrimental to the ecosystem (Q5). Moreover, most specialists approved the application of IFM in protected and private areas (Q5).

The results show that we should expect minor tradeoffs in prioritizing fire management goals between rural residents and environmental specialists. This finding reveals a fruitful path for implementing a larger-scale IFM in the Cerrado, aligned with local community needs and avoiding conflicts (Eloy et al., 2018; Mistry et al., 2019). Before the approval of Law 14944/2024, IFM in Cerrado’s native vegetation was only permitted in protected areas (indigenous lands and conservation units), which cover less than 10% of Cerrado’s area. After the approval of Law 14944/2024, IFM in Cerrado’s native vegetation can include private areas for greater efficacy (De Marco et al., 2023) since fires and other related threats (e.g., climate change) do not respect land ownership. Accordingly, most environmental specialists agreed that IFM should occur in private areas and that current fire regimes are detrimental to the Cerrado. Despite negative perceptions towards the use of fire by rural residents, we should not expect high resistance to their participation in fire management. Most interviewees had positive attitudes about prescribing early dry-season fires, which are much less intense and easier to control. They also favored avoiding late dry-season fires, which are much more intense and harder to control. However, rural people should receive more training and technical assistance to use fire in their private areas for sustainable outcomes (as second and fifth suggestions in Table 1). Including rural people in fire management planning and execution should change their negative perception of fire and improve fire management overall, as shown elsewhere (Laris, 2011; Oliveira et al., 2021).

We note that interviewees’ responses may be untruthful regarding fire use and controversial fire management goals (such as those for farming and pest control), underestimating potential tradeoffs in fire management goals. We also show that disagreements might occur while managing fire to decrease economic costs and health issues since rural interviewees are inclined to attribute a higher priority ranking to these goals than environmental specialists (Fig. 1b). The same can occur in scenarios when fire management should address the needs of traditional communities while using the biodiversity. However, managers can mitigate these potentially divergent priorities by engaging the people affected and democratizing the discussion about fire management decisions (first suggestion in Table 1). Thus, transparent fire management plans with maximum public participation might be the best approach to resolving future fire conflicts and finding optimal solutions, possibly discussing within Working Groups (third suggestion, Table 1). These working groups can have broader and long-term impacts by planning their annual activities for IFM on national and state scales, such as the newly created National Committee of IFM by Law 14944/2024. Managers and researchers should also consider and test the effects of traditional practices on each fire management goal (Coughlan, 2015; Russell-Smith et al., 2013). Other sources of sociocultural perspectives usually result in better fire impact prevention, reduction, and mitigation strategies (Vázquez-Varela et al., 2022).

Many have stressed the importance of changing the public’s negative perception of fire use (Scott et al., 2016; Seijo et al., 2020). However, our results show that fire per se is still stigmatized in the public culture, mainly among those living in rural areas and not having higher education opportunities. Even inside environmental agencies, some participants undervalued the importance of fire use for biodiversity and condemned the IFM. Our results suggest that deep psychological constructs about the environment (e.g., environmental awareness) do not always reflect in understanding the fire’s role in the Cerrado. Surprisingly, socioeconomic characteristics (i.e., age and educational level), but not environmental awareness, are the main drivers of the different social actors in prioritizing fire management goals and recognizing the importance of fire use. Accordingly, highly educated people ranked fire management goals to conserve biodiversity and protect its traditional use higher. Thus, like other studies in tropical fire-prone regions (Archibald, 2016; Aslan et al., 2020; Bizerril, 2004; Ford et al., 2021), we show that knowledge about the ecosystem’s natural dependence on fire and how better fire management can benefit land management and ecosystem services may enhance the predisposition of landowners to cooperate in fire management policies. These results align with specialists’ suggestions to improve fire awareness policies and mobilize and educate key actors (Table 1, suggestions 1–5).

Media and fire use criminalization often depict fires as destructive events, shaping people’s perceptions (Pivello et al., 2021; Roos et al., 2016) and strong negative emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, and guilt) related to fire use (Ghasemi and Kyle, 2021). Thus, the law approval to regularize the IFM nationally in Brazil (Law 14944/2024) has the potential to change these perceptions and reinforce the best practices of fire, especially in private areas, avoiding uncontrolled and large wildfires (Pivello et al., 2021). This law should also encourage other states to create legal procedures and state-level IFM policies to regulate and improve fire use effectively. These mechanisms can include, for instance, an analytical system management (as sixth and eighth suggestions, Table 1), designed to address the needs of both private and public land managers. Standardized procedures and minimum criteria can speed up burning licenses and improve the surveillance of legal and illegal fires (sixth and seventh suggestions, Table 1). However, local specificities, such as topography, vegetation, habitat sensitivity, and land use, must be considered when planning and licensing the use of fire. Therefore, more investments are necessary to cope with all the needs of public and private areas (Oliveira et al., 2021), such as increasing the numbers of field staff and improving management and planning (technology) structures (eighth suggestion, Table 1).

Despite the increasing knowledge of the effects of timing and frequency of fires on biodiversity (mainly plants) (Rissi et al., 2017; Rodrigues and Fidelis, 2022; Rodrigues et al., 2021), environmental specialists acknowledge the lack of scientific studies to base the best practices of IFM (Table 1, ninth suggestion) and create optimal or sustainable fire regimes to achieve fire management goals. Accordingly, we found little consensus in environmental specialists’ perceptions about the effects of early dry season fires in the Cerrado (Appendix S3), indicating that fire effects can vary among species and regions (Gomes et al., 2018; Mistry, 1998). However, most specialists agree that frequent late dry-season fires harm the Cerrado ecosystem, especially those uncontrolled. This perception aligns with studies reporting the adverse effects of frequent late dry season fires for some species and ecosystem services and why most fires are prescribed in the early dry season in the scope of IFM (Batista et al., 2018). Notwithstanding, few studies have considered the spatio-temporal ecological effects of various characteristics of fire regimes (pyrodiversity, e.g., frequency, intensity, timing, and extent) and their interactions with the biota and human communities (Durigan, 2020; Gomes et al., 2018). Specifically, we still need to consider the spatial heterogeneity and understand how fire regimes drive the short- and long-term ecological mechanisms and processes involved in the taxa responses, especially animals. Thus, researchers and fire managers should receive more incentives to monitor large-scale and long-term ecological responses and increase scientific knowledge to inform fire management decisions in fire-prone habitats, including the proper use of prescribed fires.

Our results bring valuable insights into rural residents’ and environmental specialists’ perceptions of fire management goals. Despite some differences, rural interviewees and specialists independently ranked pest control and farming as the lowest priority and protecting water resources and biodiversity conservation as the most important to prioritize compared to other fire management goals. Stakeholders and researchers can prioritize these fire management goals and seek partnerships with convergent social actors to implement more effective plans and activities. Using this prior knowledge, stakeholders and local communities may decide on different priorities and solutions depending on the landscape and social contexts, such as land use, conservation degree, and original native vegetation (Williams et al., 2017). Specialists also indicated that IFM should be implemented in fire-prone vegetated regions and all protected areas in Brazil (Table 1, fourth suggestion). For instance, in fire-sensitive vegetation (e.g., forests), land managers should prioritize fire exclusion, prevention, and firefighting when wildfires occur. By implementing the National Policy of IFM, several (if not all) of the environmental specialists’ suggestions could be accomplished, benefitting the Cerrado and other ecosystems. Other national, transnational, and intergovernmental agencies (e.g., Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization) can follow similar policy directions toward integration and resilience to achieve even more positive outcomes. For IFM to be fully integrated worldwide, all critical actors from public, private, and non-governmental sectors must gather forces to achieve convergent goals to create more sustainable fire regimes for people and nature (Gillson et al., 2019; Kelly et al., 2020).

This research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.