Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40241454›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025

A global expert elicitation on present-day human-fire interactions.

Cathy Smith, Ol Perkins, Jayalaxshmi Mistry, Bibiana A Bilbao, Rebecca Bliege Bird, Amy Cardinal Christianson, Kayla Maria de Freitas, Wolfram Dressler, Erle C Ellis, Ludivine Eloy and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A global expert elicitation on present-day human-fire interactions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Novel wildfire regimes under climate change and human activity: patterns, driving mechanisms and ecological impacts.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Cathy SmithDepartment of Geography, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4916-7851
Ol PerkinsLeverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society, London, UK.
Jayalaxshmi MistryDepartment of Geography, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7582-3739
Bibiana A BilbaoDepartamento de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela.
Rebecca Bliege BirdDepartment of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Amy Cardinal ChristiansonIndigenous Leadership Initiative, Quebec, Canada.
Kayla Maria de FreitasDepartment of Geography, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.
Wolfram DresslerSchool of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Erle C EllisGeography & Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2006-3362
Ludivine EloyART-Dev, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Univ Perpignan Via Domitia, Montpellier, France.
Cynthia FowlerWofford College, Spartanburg, SC, USA.
Simon HaberleCABAH, School of Culture, History & Language, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Jed O KaplanDepartment of Earth, Energy, and Environment, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Paul LarisCalifornia State University, Long Beach, CA, USA.
James MillingtonLeverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5099-0001
Claudia Monzón-AlvaradoCONAHCYT - ECOSUR, Lerma, Campeche, Mexico.

Funding

European Union Horizon 2020Leverhulme Trust Leverhulme Trust: grant number RC-2018-023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human fire use contributes to fire regimes and benefits societies worldwide yet is poorly understood at the global scale. We present the Global Fire Use Survey (GFUS), an effort to elicit and systematize knowledge about fire use from experts, including academics and practitioners. The GFUS data cover the stakeholders using fire, reasons for and seasonality of burning, recent trends in anthropogenic ignitions and burned area and the presence/absence and effectiveness of different policy interventions targeting fire use. The survey garnered 311 responses for regions covering over 50% of the Earth's ice-free land, improving on the coverage of literature syntheses on fire use. Here, we analyse the data on the distribution of fire use and policy interventions. The survey suggests that the most widespread fire users are Indigenous and local people burning to meet objectives associated with small-scale livelihoods and cultural priorities, whereas burning by commercial land users, state agencies and non-governmental organizations is less widespread. Regulatory restrictions are the most common policy interventions targeting fire use but are ineffective in achieving their aims in regions with higher burned area. While community-led governance of burning is rarer, it was deemed more effective than restrictive policy interventions, particularly in regions with higher burned area.This article is part of the theme issue 'Novel fire regimes under climate changes and human influences: impacts, ecosystem responses and feedbacks'.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesFiresWildfiresHumanscontested knowledgesexpert elicitationfire policieshuman fire useindigenous fire ecologies

Identifiers

PMID40241454
PMCPMC12004094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.