Extreme Fire Events in Wildland–Urban Interface Areas: A Review of the Literature Concerning Determinants for Risk Governance

Abstract

Governance plays a critical role at the intersection of disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change (CC). As CC increases the frequency and intensity of disasters, so DRM policies must consider the potential impacts of CC and integrate climate resilience measures. Over the past decade, extreme wildfires in wildland–urban interface (WUI) areas have left devastating effects for local economies, local development, environmental protection, and the continuity of government operations worldwide, prompting all actors to work in the same direction to face its changing context. This systematic review of the literature aims to analyze the research trends on wildfire risk governance in WUI areas during 2021–2024 and to identify the key risk governance determinants, thereby offering a robust foundation to guide technical discussions and support decision-making processes in local development planning, land use regulation, and DRM. The study is based on the application of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) declaration to allow the identification, selection, analysis, and systematization of 68 articles from the Scopus database through three bibliographic search equations, which were then categorized using the software of text mining and natural language processing NLP software (VantagePoint 15.2) to identify four key pillars that structure extreme wildfire risk governance: political management, development planning, disaster risk management, and resilience management. Within this framework, ten governance determinants are highlighted, encompassing aspects such as regulatory frameworks, institutional coordination, information systems, technical capacities, community engagement, risk perception, financial resources, accountability mechanisms, adaptive planning, and cross-sectoral integration. These findings provide a conceptual basis for strengthening governance approaches in the face of increasing wildfire risk.

1. Introduction

Wildfires present a pressing global concern as they generate significant environmental, social, and economic damage [1,2,3,4], even more so when, in the last decade, a new type of extreme wildfire, with unprecedented intensity and speed, is being observed worldwide. These new events are exacerbating the vulnerability of many wildfire-prone regions, especially those with large cities and metropolitan areas at or near the wildland–urban interface (WUI) [5].

Therefore, effective disaster risk management (DRM) and its interaction with climate change adaptation strategies are important to (1) mitigate or minimize the adverse effects of a hazardous event [6]; (2) generate resilience, that is, the human system’s ability to respond, absorb impacts, face the event and recover through adaptive processes that allow it to reorganize itself, learn and change [7]; and (3) to seek sustainability, referring to the point at which the economic, social, and environmental demands of the present are balanced with those of the society in which it develops, taking care of the needs of the future. However, achieving these objectives requires solid governance frameworks that can guide the development, implementation, and monitoring of policies.

Extreme wildfire events have numerous adverse effects, among which deaths, injuries, and trauma in wildfire-susceptible communities can be considered the worst social outcomes [8,9,10]. No less important is the destruction of private property, losses to insurance companies [11], and disruption of economic activities, as well as the investment in emergency assistance [12,13], rehabilitation, recovery, and in some cases the impact these phenomena have on the displacement of people (temporary or permanent). The five most costly wildfire years in history occurred in the last decade [14,15].

Globally, fire regimes and their associated risks are evolving, driven by climate change and land use as well as human behavior in general (e.g., through anthropogenic ignitions, fuel treatment [16,17,18] and rapid peri-urban development) which are factors contributing to landscape flammability and fire impact [19,20,21,22,23]. This convolution of factors unfolds across jurisdictions and political–administrative scales that integrate multiple actors and institutions [24]. Spatially, most loss of life and homes tend to occur at the wildland–urban interface (WUI), where human settlements are located within or adjacent to flammable landscapes [25,26,27,28]. Despite the uniqueness of many communities inhabiting the wildland–urban interface, there is a quantifiable set of factors related to hazards, vulnerability, and exposure that characterize potential losses there.

In recent decades, climate change and sustained human pressure on forest ecosystems have resulted in an increase in the frequency, extent, and severity of wildfires on a global scale [29,30,31,32,33]. Global urban sprawl is expected to increase sixfold by the end of the century [34,35], thus the presence of private property on the margins of public lands and the increasing mosaic of development at the wildland–urban interface will demand high levels of social capital underpinned by the participation of individuals in formal groups, informal groups or networks in the community and in the relationships among them and with established institutions [36], vertically and horizontally, among jurisdictions, agencies, and other stakeholders that contribute to effective DRM and climate change adaptation to mitigate risks and generate resilience and sustainability.

Achieving these objectives requires strong governance frameworks that can guide the development, implementation, and monitoring of policies and requires the study and development of mechanisms and strategies that address the enormous management challenges in terms of fire mitigation and protection of exposed communities, housing, infrastructure, and ecosystems [37] and all that lies behind it such as employment and economic development, among others.

In such a complex scenario, integrating local perceptions with scientific knowledge and institutional experiences is one of the main challenges to strengthen the resilience and adaptive capacities of local communities living in or around the wildland–urban interface. Recognizing the importance of effective governance in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and promoting the active participation of multiple stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, the private sector, civil society, the academic community, and local communities, are included in the Sendai Framework for DRR. Sendai seeks more resilient communities through inclusive participation, coordination and cooperation, evidence-based approach, and responsibility and accountability.

Other international accords such as the Sustainable Development Goals contributed to DRR, especially to those goals aimed at good health, well-being and the development of sustainable cities and communities [38], achieving and maintaining water security, energy security, protecting forest health [39,40], achieving food security, promoting sustainable agriculture, and taking urgent action to combat climate change and adapt to mitigate their effects.

Then, there is a need to standardize coordination and co-production mechanisms and procedures to connect multiple horizontal (e.g., from the scale of a property to a watershed or landscape scale), vertical (from a local administrative scale to national and international), and temporal scales (considering management of past regimes and anticipation of future conditions) within a context-applicable governance framework that address risk at spatial and temporal scales [41].

Research related to different approaches to fire risk management in wildland–urban interface areas has increased in the last decade as these scenarios become more common and aggressive in terms of impacts on communities and their environment. However, research is still lacking in many countries exposed to active fires, especially in tropical regions where altered fire regimes have become a global concern due to greenhouse gas emissions and bio-diversity losses [34,42].

The study of fires in wildland–urban interface areas is still unknown in many countries where the constant hydrometeorological changes, land use patterns, trends of population dispersion, and fragmentation in cities have brought them to the point of being exposed to the need to respond to these types of risk scenarios without adequate comprehensive preparation. Therefore, [43] pose four types of new challenges for these stakeholders, not only in practice but also in academic research, that are classified in terms of (a) policy measures and tools; (b) valuation of fire, conservation, and heritage; (c) governance; and (d) knowledge. Across these four categories is the need for an integrated (cross-domain), dynamic, and place-based approach to fire risk reduction.

This article explores research trends on wildfire risk governance in WUI areas between 2021 and 2024. It identifies (a) current research trends and (b) governance determinants in fire management. The findings aim to inform public policy and support the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs and strategies for reducing vulnerability.

The manuscript is structured as follows: Section 1 presents the introduction and theoretical background on governance, risk, wildfires, and climate change. Section 2 describes the research method based on the technology watch model and the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Section 3 presents the main findings on the conceptualization of wildfires in WUI areas, extreme events, fire risk management, and governance, supported by recent scientific literature. Section 4 discusses key governance determinants grouped into four pillars, based on studies from the last four years. Of the 68 selected articles, only seven highlight the need for a holistic, territorial approach to wildfire management in the WUI, underscoring the need for further applied research. The final section presents the author’s conclusions.

2. Theoretical Framework

I.

Governance

Governance refers to the set of hierarchical and horizontal relationships, inter-organizational relationships, reduction of jurisdictional boundaries, and establishment of cooperative networks in the face of problems that require multi-scale, inter-sectoral and sometimes transnational action, involving individuals and the public and/or private organizations [44,45,46]. Ref. [24] define governance as the social and political dimensions of decision-making and decision-making at temporal, organizational and spatial scales, and management as the strategies, resources, and tangible measures that have specific policy objectives that are often directly or indirectly supported by the state [47,48,49].

According to [50] there are three different notions or sets of meanings of urban governance: (a) urban governance as a descriptor of new forms of cooperation, interaction, and decision-making on urban issues, (b) urban governance as a normative concept about how interaction, cooperation, and decision-making should be organized, a notion that informs local political circles, and (c) urban governance as an analytical concept that provides tools and theoretical categories to differentiate and understand the actual ways and means by which urban affairs in different geographical and socio-political contexts are regulated and how decisions are made.

II.

Risk governance

Risk governance refers to the structures and processes through which risks are managed and distributed across society. Ref. [51], highlights that effective risk governance requires the integration of various stakeholders, ensuring that decision-making processes are inclusive, transparent, and responsive to uncertainty, and addressing complex risks through collaborative approaches that incorporate both expert knowledge and public input.

Recent contributions to the field underscore the increasing complexity of modern risks, highlighting the need for adaptive governance frameworks capable of managing emerging and unpredictable risks in a rapidly changing environment [52]. Additionally, these frameworks must integrate the social dimension of risk governance, acknowledging the varying ways in which different social groups perceive and respond to risks, as well as the broader political and cultural contexts in which decisions are made [53].

Ref. [54] emphasizes that risk governance should be understood as a participatory and inclusive approach that incorporates social, political, and cultural dimensions in risk management and does not rely solely on technical assessments but also integrates the perspectives of vulnerable communities, who are often the most affected by risks yet the least represented in decision-making processes. Furthermore, he asserts that effective risk governance must be fair and equitable, addressing the social and economic inequalities present within communities.

III.

Wildfire Risk

Risk can be defined as the potential for adverse consequences or impacts due to the interaction between one or more natural or human-induced hazards, the exposure of humans, infrastructure and ecosystems, and the vulnerabilities of systems whose most commonly studied dimensions are hazard, exposure, and vulnerability; [55,56] adds resilience as the fourth dimension. Hazard refers to a process, phenomenon, or human activity that has the potential to cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption, or environmental degradation.

Hazards can be of natural or anthropogenic origin and can be characterized by their location, probability of occurrence, intensity or magnitude, duration, and extent; exposure is related to people and property at risk of potential loss or that may suffer damage from the impact of the hazard. Vulnerability is defined by the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system, or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard; and social resilience is defined as the community’s capacity to cope with adversity and goes beyond its original state of functioning. Social resilience is generated within relationships between humans and their environment [57,58].

Fire is the most important cause of natural disturbance [59], which influences vegetation patterns and biogeochemical cycles [60] and promotes biodiversity in fire-prone ecosystems [61]; therefore, it is part of the natural cycle, and it is necessary. Otherwise, wildfire is an intricate phenomenon that occurs at various spatial and temporal scales and has an enormous effect on terrestrial ecology and biodiversity, which can even result in the ultimate adverse effect of species extinction [10,62,63].

Wildfires are uncontrolled fires that affect forests, infrastructure and agricultural fields [45], as well as the health, life and other means of livelihood of people but also understood as a combined social and territorial process rather than an isolated process. Cross-sectoral strategies that create synergies with issues such as nature protection, energy production, and urban development are the key to reducing wildfire risk to acceptable levels [64,65,66,67].

Fire risk is defined as the probability of substantial disruptions to the normal functions of a community [68], arising from the combined effects of fire hazard, the presence of people, livelihoods, infrastructure, and assets in places exposed to fire and smoke, and there are enabling conditions characterized by socio-economic, health, and environmental vulnerability. Predominant approaches to managing wildland fire often tend to adopt a relatively simple risk assessment approach that focuses on technical issues of probability of event occurrence and often gives limited consideration to the details associated with specific contexts, including various factors, impacts, or distributions of power and authority that will support the holistic action needed to address potential risks, i.e., they do not reflect the complexity of contemporary wildland fire risk [69].

For this reason, several authors, such as [45,69] in their latest research, invite a necessary reflection on the complexity of wildfire risk and the key contribution of social and ecological diversity of fire-prone areas. The main objective of complex risk approaches is not to minimize or eliminate immediate risk (as in simple risk approaches), but to adapt to risk over time [69,70,71]. Likewise, complex risk departs from simple risk in controllability, predictability, certainty, and security, distinctive characteristics of risk management using actuarial approaches, and to this it adds the emergent nature of systems (i.e., risk circumstances that change regularly and are difficult to predict related to social and ecological conditions), thus adopting inclusive approaches to elaborate problem definitions and solutions that derive from these definitions [51,69,71].

IV.

Climate change and Extreme Events

Climate change refers to significant and persistent changes in the earth’s climate patterns over extended periods of time, typically decades or longer. These changes can manifest themselves in different ways, such as increases in average temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and increases or decreases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events [72]. Climate change is exerting widespread upward pressure on wildfires globally by increasing the frequency and intensity of fire weather, and this upward trend will increase in proportion to global warming.

An extreme weather event refers to any meteorological phenomenon that deviates significantly from typical climatic conditions in a region during a specific period. This can include hurricanes, heat waves, severe storms, intense floods, and prolonged droughts, among others [73]. The increasing use of fire for conversion of forest areas, land management, and the new agricultural frontier, [74,75] together with climate change, have increased the risks of fire-related disasters [45].

Globally, fire regimes and their associated risks are evolving, driven by climate and land-use change, as well as by human behavior in general, e.g., through anthropogenic ignitions, fuel treatment, and fire exclusion [16,17,18], and the social, environmental, and economic context in which these people live.

V.

The wildland–urban interface (WUI)

The term wildland–urban interface (WUI) refers to the area of residential development expansion near and/or within fire-prone wildlands. That is, the transition zone between forested areas and human development. It can also be understood as the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels [76]. Much of the wildfire urban interface extends outside municipal boundaries, where responsibility for fire protection is often unclear and where properties may be exposed to wildfire from a variety of sources [77,78].

Urban expansion and exploitation of nearby resources are characterized by extensive land use and land transformation, with scattered housing patterns and large-scale infrastructure mixed with natural and agricultural areas, known as interfaces [34,79,80,81,82]. The last decades show a continuous displacement of the urban population towards suburban areas and the expansion of cities towards forest areas resulting in an increase of urban fringes, either in contact or mixed with forest and rural areas [83].

The growth of these interfaces was rapidly associated with the occurrence of wildfire disasters. As a result, scientific studies on wildfire issues coupled with the expansion of residential development near and within fire-prone wildlands, i.e., the WUI, have rapidly increased in the United States [25,84,85,86,87], Canada [88,89,90,91], Australia [92], and Southern Europe [93,94,95,96], and expanded to other countries, such as Argentina [97] and South Africa [98].

Although there is no standardized methodology to define and categorize different types of urban–wildland intermixed landscapes, the literature on WUI around the world finds some common root problems [34,83] as well as the combination of complex factors such as spatio-temporal patterns of natural and other human-generated ignitions, fire spread over long distances through heterogeneous combines and terrain, extreme weather events, variation in building susceptibility and suppression capacity [99,100,101,102], and limited knowledge of political, land-planning, risk management and governance authorities on this issue.

The problem of extreme fires in WUI zones or areas is also growing in emerging and developing countries, which underlines the global problem it has become [26,34,103,104], such as the wildfires in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Brazil (2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022) where transnational scenarios have been created that pose greater coordination challenges in all risk management processes. According to [24], despite huge investments in response and suppression, wildfires are predicted to become more frequent, extreme, and devastating in the future [42,105,106,107,108,109]. Because fire-prone ecosystems cover about 40% of Earth’s surface [110], their management is crucial [111,112].

From a multi-scale view, wildfire disaster prediction is a common goal for a diverse set of stakeholders, including land managers, homeowners, conservation biologists, physical scientists, and the insurance industry. Arguably, much work remains to be done to improve the current risk analysis [99]. Based on this, the process of identifying and managing local dynamic factors (rapid population growth, rapid urbanization, economic pressures, environmental degradation and losses, global environmental change, and political conflicts), as well as their consequences presented in terms of potential damage analysis or expected losses as a result of the interaction between biophysical, social, and existing governance factors, means that there will always be more elements to consider, such as the affectation of water supply systems for communities, energy networks, governmental infrastructure (roads, bridges, facilities, utility networks, etc.), which are intended to provide basic services to the communities and the processes that support their livelihoods.

3. Materials and Methods

Methodology

The systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using the methodology proposed by [113] and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement [114] framework to ensure transparency and replicability in the literature selection process.

To analyze research trends and identify determinants of risk governance, we applied text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques using VantagePoint software Version 15.2. The corpus was processed to extract key terms, co-occurrence networks, and thematic clusters. Articles were categorized into thematic areas based on a combination of keyword frequency, term proximity analysis, and manual validation of cluster contents. This hybrid approach ensured methodological rigor and semantic relevance in the categorization process.

NLP tools also facilitated the identification of latent topics and evolution patterns in the literature, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of how risk governance in the context of extreme wildfires has been conceptualized over time.

Four phases were developed for the collection and analysis of information for this research:

• Phase I: Identification of available bibliography in the Scopus database

The first phase focused on planning the SLR through the development of the research flowchart, then the justification of the research was prepared, and the key words of the research, the objectives, the period of the study, and the scientific resources to be used and their eligibility criteria were identified. The search was limited to original articles or reviews published in the last 4 years (2021–2024) in the Scopus database and were classified according to their date of publication, authors, country of study, source, SJR, and Scimago quartile due to the high scientific quality of the publications related to the object of study, and was supported by official reports presented by global authorities on the subject. The inclusion criteria for the studies were as follows: they had to be peer-reviewed, with coverage of 4-years, and written in English because the production in Spanish is still limited.

Scopus was selected as the primary database for this SLR due to its extensive indexing of peer-reviewed journals in the fields of environmental sciences, disaster risk, governance, and social sciences. Scopus provides advanced search and filtering tools, as well as consistent metadata structures that facilitate reproducible reviews. Its comprehensive coverage of high-impact international journals has made it a preferred source for systematic literature reviews in interdisciplinary fields. Although the inclusion of additional databases such as Web of Science or Google Scholar may have broadened the pool of documents, we prioritized Scopus to maintain methodological consistency and quality control in the selection process.

• Phase II: Screening

The second phase focused on the search for information, where three equations were established as an advanced search strategy combining the keywords “extreme events”, “fires”, “urban–wildland interface”, “governance”, “risk management”, and “climate change” in the TITLE-ABS-KEY fields with three search equations. The records obtained as a result of the Scopus search were 101, after combining the keywords and limiting the search engines. Subsequently, using the PRISMA statement [114], 21 duplicates were eliminated and then 12 more articles were excluded due to lack of access. The result of the eligibility assessment was 68 articles (55 original articles, 10 reviews, and 3 books).

• Phase III: Selection

In the third phase, oriented to analysis, a total reading of the selected documents was carried out, and two matrices were prepared, one with the authors and research topics and another containing relevant information about each selected article.

• Phase IV: Vantage Point Processing

Subsequently, the consolidation matrix was processed in Vantage Point 15.2 data mining software to analyze trends and relationships in terms of research, relevant authors, and new topics of interest related to fire risk governance in WUI zones. The paper then concludes with the identified determinants and recommendations for future in-depth studies.

To facilitate understanding of the overall methodological approach, Figure 1 provides a visual summary of the four phases of the study.

4. Results

The analysis of the 68 articles selected for the development of this SLR showed an active work of researchers in the study period regarding the trends of extreme fire events as an emerging research field, fire risk management, risk knowledge, risk reduction and adaptation, and fire risk governance, especially in North America, Europe and Oceania which account for 79% of the research efforts published globally in the English language and contained in the Scopus database.

4.1. Research Trends

The aforementioned research is mostly associated with the evaluation of specific cases in countries that have historically experienced extreme wildfire events, where the United States (particularly in the states of California and Oregon) leads the list with 29.41%, followed by the European Union (with special emphasis on Italy, the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, France, and Spain) with 26.47%. At the next level are Australia 7.35%, Canada 5.88%, and Portugal with 2.44%. In addition, the literature addresses the issue at a global level, focused on the conceptualization of this new problem.

Brazil, Chile, Portugal, Iran, and South Africa were found to be of emerging interest with 1.47% each (although it is likely that there will be additional research in other languages) and several authors mentioned the challenges of cross-border coordination in complex scenarios such as extreme fire events. The geographic distribution of the literature reviewed is shown in Figure 2.

A total of 68 articles were reviewed for this study, of which 63 were published in ranked journals. Among these, 58 articles were published in journals ranked in the first quartile (Q1), 6 in journals ranked in the second quartile (Q2), and 1 in a journal ranked in the third quartile (Q3). In addition, two other articles were published in the indexed journals PNAS Nexus of Oxford Academic and in the multidisciplinary research journal Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, plus chapters in three books.

The predominance of articles from Q1 journals highlights the high quality and impact of the studies included, as these journals are generally known for rigorous peer review processes and high standards of publication. The inclusion of articles from Q2 and Q3 journals contributes to a broader perspective, ensuring a more comprehensive analysis of the existing literature. This distribution reflects a well-balanced selection of high-impact sources, further reinforcing the credibility and robustness of the findings presented in this review.

In terms of research focus, 20.59% of the research focused on vulnerability assessment, and 14.71% on literature reviews concentrating especially on the growth of the research field of extreme fire events and impacts at the sectoral level. In addition, 13.24% focused on risk management and governance risk governance as a complex and therefore globally relevant topic. The thematic focus of the selected publications is summarized in Figure 3.

Ref. [115] ratifies that this research field has grown exponentially, estimating that, as of 2021, the field has grown to over 13,000 research articles, with an excess of 1200 new articles appearing each year exhibiting distinctive characteristics of a multidisciplinary research domain and dividing research activities around (i) forest ecology and climate, (ii) fire mapping and detection technologies, (iii) community risk planning and mitigation, (iv) soil and water ecology, and (v) atmospheric sciences.

To this [37] add that wildfire management research rates have increased since 2010 in the subject of study, and reemphasize that the considerable disparities in spatial foci and countries of authorship are a strong indicator of the need for a more balanced global research effort to support overcoming the challenges that current fire management demands. They ratify that there are regions, especially in developing countries, that are known to have a high incidence of wildland fire [116] but which, to date, have received much less interest in fire management research; this applies mainly to developing countries, including most of Africa, except South Africa; most of Latin America, except Brazil and Mexico; and most of Southeast Asia. Russia is another example of a country with many areas burned annually but relatively little research indexed in Scopus.

With specific focus on WUI, Ref. [117] found that most publications from the United States, Canada, and Australia address risk mitigation for homeowners, defensible space, and fuel treatments in WUI areas, as well as the direct effects of wildfire-related damage and secondary impacts such as smoke.

4.2. Risk Management of Extreme Wildfire Events

On fire and fuels management, Ref. [10] conducted a comprehensive literature review on wildfire management strategies, covering aspects such as wildfire prediction, detection, suppression, and prevention. Ref. [118] reviewed the current understanding of the impacts of climate change on fire weather (climatic conditions conducive to wildfire ignition and spread) and the consequences for regional fire activity mediated by a variety of other bioclimatic factors (including vegetation biogeography, productivity, and lightning) and human factors (including ignition, suppression, and land use). Ref. [66] compared the approaches of local initiatives across a set of fire-smart criteria (sustainability, cost-benefit ratio, synergies and intersectoral cooperation, integration between strategic prevention planning and multiple land governance), identifying in them solutions and functional approaches to build a sustainable fuel management at landscape scale under smart fire management principles making use of private, public, and cooperative resources to activate value chains of products, by-products, and services generated by fuel management activities and their positive externalities on ecosystem services.

The research found different views of the researchers’ concept of fire risk with a bias toward the simple to a lesser extent than toward the complex, most notably the work of [69], who call for considering as an objective of complex risk management not only adaptation to risk over time, but also making risk governable and making approaches to addressing risk socially legitimate [119].

In this sense, Ref. [69] propose five principles to guide greater treatment of wildfire risk as a complex risk problem and begin to transform wildfire governance: (1) embrace plurality of knowledge and intentionally integrate perspectives other than technical expertise; (2) use inclusive, accountable, and transparent engagement strategies that incorporate collaborative learning processes; (3) include underrepresented groups in networks governing wildfire risk; (4) account for potential unequal distributions of risks and resources to address risk; and (5) reorient or rebalance investments across spatial, institutional, and temporal scales.

Likewise, the need to broaden the spectrum of research towards a holistic approach of different topics that, in sum, are connected under the framework of fire risk management and governance is confirmed, which should be considered, as proposed by [16], as adopting transparent and quantitative risk-based approaches to fire management that are combined with proposals to improve fire management outcomes.

These proposals include an emphasis on systemic and complex risk [69,120], complementary approaches focused on co-community [3], greater consideration of equity through distribution [3], greater consideration of the risk of fire management [69,120], complementary co-community-centered approaches [3], greater consideration of equity through distribution (polycentric), governance systems [121], and historical analyses aimed at identifying pathways for transformative changes in fire governance [122].

4.3. Risk Knowledge

Within the process of risk assessment and analysis, Ref. [55] presented a review of concepts traditionally related to wildfire assessment and a discussion on how to integrate these concepts with risk management to effectively connect with mitigation and adaptation efforts and proposed an integrated fire risk system (implemented in the FirEURisk Program) as a good practice of integrating risk components (including hazard, exposure, and vulnerability) and measuring them through risk indices that allow for better understanding and consideration in decision making.

Studies by [123] draw attention to the exponential growth of extreme events at the global level and the role of both national and local managers in managing them. Ref. [124] emphasize on improving fire risk modeling in WUI zones, and other authors such as [125] proposed a risk factor to identify, as they call it, “fires that matter” to differentiate recurrent fires from those that are extreme. Research was identified on relevant topics such as land management and land abandonment, the relevance of critical infrastructure protection [126] from the generation and enforcement of codes for systems such as housing and buildings, the power or electrical grid [125,126,127,128,129], and the fire safety [125], and the water grid [40,130], among others, that support water security and food security, in addition to the importance of requiring climate risk assessments of each of the above and their respective accountability.

At the sectoral level, Ref. [131] assessed the state of knowledge on wildfire-related hazards to water systems and, as a result, proposed a holistic framework to assess the interactions and feedback loops between water quality, quantity, and infrastructure hazards as determinants of water availability and access after a fire. Ref. [132] provide a holistic view of how forest and fire management intersect with human health and highlight the need for an integrated approach to conservation research, planning, practice, economics, environmental justice, and public health concerns, as well as the trade-offs that must be considered from wildfire impacts to public health. To the above, the analysis of the capabilities of the health system [10] to manage the effects of extreme wildfire events in this sector is added. On the other hand, Ref. [133] focus their contribution on the analysis of the recent dynamics of the forestry sector in Europe, outlining the complexity inherent to the environmental–economic nexus of forestry.

In addition to the above, there is a nascent branch of research which is transboundary. Extreme fires are mentioned throughout the studies related to Asia, Europe, and Latin America, where [134] highlight the need for systematic and standardized large-scale assessments to map potential transboundary wildfire hazards and risks, with the ultimate goal of targeting and prioritizing the most critical areas where specific transboundary planning and management activities are needed [41,46,134,135,136,137] to ensure timely and quality response and governance of the involved States.

4.4. Risk Reduction and Adaptation

In terms of approaches, the following are highlighted in this research: (i) Environmental justice approach proposed by [125], which proposes four specific actions to serve environmental justice including the following: consideration of differential impact when managing fuels; recognition of cultural, linguistic, and perception differences during planning periods and emergencies; incentivizing, and increasing access to other risk mitigation efforts; (ii) Anticipatory adaptation approach applied to wildfires proposed by [67] that would decouple management decisions from expectations based on past observations and consequently generate greater flexibility to adapt to future trajectories of change, and also, with the transformative adaptation approach proposed by [5], highlight that resilience to wildfire requires a radical socioecological transformation that includes, for example, the political economy of land use, institutional cultures and nature values [138]; and (iii) Anticipatory approach proposed by [24,139], referring to management and governance processes proposing to move from a top-down command-and-control approach to proactive adaptation at the local scale, at all levels and scales.

With a focus on risk prevention, Ref. [130] argue that, to improve wildfire resilience and prevention within integrated fire management, a combination of a holistic and cohesive approach, adaptive management, and resilient landscapes through stakeholder engagement is necessary.

Regarding mitigation and adaptive management, Ref. [140] proposed a “menu” of adaptation strategies called the Adaptation WorkBook, with nested approaches and example tactics, to assist with the exploration and selection of adaptation actions, aimed at fire managers and risk managers in climate change adaptation on this topic, which was developed to provide a full spectrum of possibilities encompassing the concepts of resistance, resilience, and transition, and provides logical connections between concept and action. Likewise, Ref. [141] presented a decision-support toolkit, the Macro Adaption Resilience Toolkit (MART), which is designed to explicitly address and overcome the emerging tensions associated with community-level climate adaptation policy development and the continuing and varied concerns about residents’ quality of life.

Ref. [142] developed the Integrated Risk Communication Model, which consolidates existing theories on the factors that influence adaptation behaviors and develops an Integrated Risk Communication Model based on five groups (risk perception, coping assessments, perceptions of social norms, responsibility and perception of climate change) to motivate people to adopt behaviors. The above is connected with what [128] define as the four fundamental resilience properties of a network (anticipation, absorption, recovery and adaptability) after damaging events and proposes three categories of action (technological innovations; better management of network infrastructure and surrounding vegetation; and land use policy and electrical infrastructure located away from hazardous areas) as part of the solutions to challenge existing wildfire risk governance systems, positioning resilience as a high priority for the sectors involved.

Ref. [69] criticize the application of centralized command and control governance systems that rely on judgments made by trained experts through a “chain of command” designed to increase efficiency, but which in complex scenarios may overwhelm their decision-making and on-the-ground action capacity.

Another issue raised that is of significant importance is social capital in adaptation and disaster risk reduction. According to [142], psychological factors that can motivate climate adaptation and DRR behaviors include risk perception, coping evaluations, perceptions of social norms, perceived responsibility, and perceptions of climate change [143,144,145]; the integration of local knowledge is necessary to avoid processes of local disempowerment and increased distrust of professional land and fire managers [146].

In terms of policies and regulations, relevant topics were identified such as the integration of the disaster risk reduction approach in land use planning, developed by [147] and the key factors in the design of public policies for the development of smart solutions for wildfire management studied by [4]. In the first, it is argued that spatial planning can help implement wildfire risk reduction considerations in a territorial manner across the WUI and that, although emergency managers are urged to consider spatial planning as a risk reduction measure, these professionals often lack adequate spatial planning knowledge and the authority to make land use decisions so that integration of efforts is essential. In the second, the authors analyzed wildland fire risk policies in six countries, based on key policy issues, policy objectives, policy instruments and implementation mechanisms in legally binding legislation and non-binding programs, highlighting regional variations and the need for an integrated management strategy, concluding that it is essential to develop a comprehensive policy approach to mitigate wildland fire risks and promote sustainable management practices based on key discussion factors.

4.5. Risk Governance

Although disaster risk management (DRM) and risk governance are often used interchangeably, they represent distinct but complementary approaches. DRM primarily focuses on the preparedness, response, and recovery phases after a disaster has occurred, often led by centralized emergency management systems. In contrast, risk governance refers to a broader, continuous process that includes the identification, prevention, mitigation, and long-term adaptation to risks. It emphasizes multi-actor participation, cross-sectoral coordination, and decision-making at multiple scales, aiming to address the root causes of vulnerability and build systemic resilience over time.

To conceptually frame this analysis, it is useful to draw on key governance theories such as adaptive governance, which emphasizes iterative learning, flexibility, and resilience in the face of complex and uncertain risks; polycentric governance, which highlights the importance of multiple, overlapping centers of decision-making and the distribution of authority across levels and sectors; and co-governance, which focuses on the collaboration between state and non-state actors in managing shared risks. These theoretical approaches help illuminate how wildfire governance can be more responsive, inclusive, and effective in contexts where traditional top-down systems often fall short.

Risk governance systems are often fragmented, decentralized, and underpinned by informal linkages between risk mitigation planning processes at the local level [78]. Ref. [69] presented examples of governance models that consider shared power and responsibility for wildfire risk among stakeholders and build on diverse local contexts and knowledge such as the Fire Adapted Communities Network (FAC Net) and the Indigenous Peoples’ Burn Network (IPBN).

In the case of fire risk governance in WUI areas, the authors highlight the need to increase risk awareness and translate knowledge about integrated wildland fire management into effective practices at different scales and sectors where locally responsive governance approaches that go beyond centralized state-led arrangements are required [24,27,148,149,150,151,152,153], with greater stakeholder involvement and collaboration among stakeholders to share responsibilities and knowledge and thus contribute to making wildfire prevention more attractive and implementable by society, landowners, civil protection and policymakers [130].

Ref. [69] criticize the application of centralized command and control governance systems that rely on judgments made by trained experts through a “chain of command” designed to increase efficiency, but which in complex scenarios can overwhelm their decision-making capacity and field action. Therefore, as indicated by [46], it is essential to increase and maintain the human capital of disaster risk reduction organizations, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to promote the development of intergenerational capacities and the training of organizations and institutions, such as NGOs, universities, social movements and neighborhood associations.

At the wildland–urban interface level, Ref. [124] state that the complexities and ambiguities of wildland fire risk management challenge existing institutions of territorial development, biodiversity conservation, and wildland fire risk governance, so integrated wildfire risk management should facilitate and promote community initiatives to implement fire risk reduction measures in different landscapes and the WUI, including the use of nature-based solutions. It is also important to consider that, in the post-disaster recovery phase, risk reduction measures are often foregone due to place attachment, the desire to return to “normalcy” through rapid reconstruction, and the perception that risk has decreased in the area, among other factors [154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161].

However, this research supports the finding of [24] that the governance of extreme fire events as an emerging field of study still lacks consistent definitions, precision, and a systemic approach to the development of the knowledge based on wildfire governance due to biases towards the specific branches from which the research is conducted. Different terms associated with governance were found in this SLR without conceptual development such as sectoral governance [120], settlement governance [162], environmental governance [163], local land use governance [66], governance determinants, and inter-scalar governance and governance regimes [67].

The Figure 4 illustrates six dominant governance approaches—multilevel, anticipatory, regional, climate, collaborative, and landscape governance—based on a systematic literature review in the context of extreme wildfire events (2021–2024). These approaches reflect the diversification of governance frameworks applied to wildfire risk management, emphasizing coordination across scales, integration of predictive tools, and participatory models that incorporate climate and land-use dimensions.

The concept of governance in the context of extreme wildfire events can be enriched by integrating several established governance theories. Adaptive governance emphasizes the need for flexible and dynamic responses to complex environmental challenges, such as extreme wildfires, where uncertainties and rapidly changing conditions prevail. This approach advocates for continuous learning, iterative decision-making, and a focus on resilience, all of which are essential when dealing with wildfires exacerbated by climate change. By incorporating feedback mechanisms and adjusting policies based on emerging data and local experiences, adaptive governance provides a pathway for more effective and responsive wildfire management strategies.

Another relevant theory is the polycentric governance, which highlights the importance of multiple, interconnected decision-making centers operating at different levels and scales. In the context of wildfire risk governance, polycentric systems foster collaboration across various stakeholders, including local communities, governmental authorities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. This decentralization of authority allows for more tailored, context-specific solutions while promoting collective action and shared responsibility. Lastly, co-governance refers to the shared governance of resources and risk management, particularly in contexts where state and non-state actors collaborate. In the case of extreme wildfires, co-governance can help integrate scientific knowledge with local and indigenous expertise, ensuring that policies and practices are both scientifically grounded and socially acceptable. The combined application of these governance theories can enhance the effectiveness of risk management strategies, ensuring that responses to extreme wildfires are adaptive, collaborative, and inclusive.

5. Critical Analysis and Research Gaps

While the studies reviewed in this literature provide valuable insights into wildfire governance, several key issues and inconsistencies have emerged that warrant critical attention. These debates highlight the complexity of managing wildfire risks and the challenges of applying governance frameworks to extreme fire events.

5.1. Conflicting Perspectives on Governance Models

A prominent theme across the literature is the application of different governance models, such as adaptive governance, polycentric governance, and co-governance, to the management of wildfire risks. On one hand, studies advocating for adaptive governance emphasize its flexibility and responsiveness to changing environmental conditions, allowing decision-making processes to evolve in real-time as new information becomes available [24]. However, other studies suggest that such models may not be fully effective in regions with centralized and rigid governance structures [5].

This inconsistency calls into question whether adaptive governance can be practically implemented across all contexts, especially in areas where political and institutional frameworks are less flexible. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of polycentric governance in wildfire management, particularly in cross-border areas, where coordination between multiple levels of government can be difficult to achieve [164]. This leaves open questions about the feasibility of implementing such models in diverse contexts.

5.2. The Role of Community Involvement in Wildfire Management

Another debate centers around the role of community involvement in wildfire risk management. Several studies stress the importance of engaging local communities, leveraging their knowledge of local ecosystems to inform fire prevention strategies [165]. These studies argue that community-based management can improve preparedness and response during wildfire events. However, other research highlights significant challenges in integrating local knowledge into formal governance structures.

These challenges include differences in priorities, a lack of trust between local communities and government institutions, and the difficulty of scaling local solutions to larger, more complex wildfire events [141]. This dichotomy suggests that while community involvement is valuable, its integration into governance systems needs to be more thoroughly explored, particularly in terms of how to effectively bridge the gap between local knowledge and institutional decision-making.

5.3. Unresolved Debates on Risk Management and Adaptation

There is also an ongoing debate about the balance between risk reduction and adaptation strategies in wildfire management. Some studies suggest that significant efforts should focus on reducing the underlying causes of wildfire risks, such as land use change and poor fire management practices [40].

Others, however, advocate for a stronger emphasis on adaptation, arguing that it is impossible to eliminate wildfire risks entirely and that communities should be prepared to respond and recover from inevitable fire events [166]. This divergence in focus underscores the tension between proactive risk management and reactive adaptation, with no clear consensus on which strategy is more effective in managing extreme wildfires in the long term.

5.4. Research Gaps in Cross-Border and Transboundary Governance

While much of the wildfire governance research has been conducted in regions with well-established fire management systems, there is a noticeable lack of studies focusing on transboundary governance in areas affected by wildfires that cross national or regional borders. Given the global nature of wildfire threats, especially in regions like the Amazon and Mediterranean Basin, further research is needed on how governance systems can be coordinated across borders to address the shared risks of extreme wildfires. This gap is particularly relevant in light of recent catastrophic events where neighboring countries have faced similar wildfire threats but have struggled with coordinated responses due to political and logistical challenges [5].

5.5. The Need for Longitudinal Studies and Improved Data Integration

Finally, many of the studies reviewed lack longitudinal data that would help assess the long-term effectiveness of wildfire governance models. While much of the existing research focuses on short-term outcomes, there is a need for studies that track the evolution of wildfire risk management strategies over time, particularly in the context of climate change. Additionally, the integration of big data and machine learning techniques for real-time wildfire prediction and monitoring is an area that remains underexplored. The integration of such technologies could greatly enhance the effectiveness of both fire prevention and response strategies.

6. Discussion

Different actors working at different scales and sectors share similar decision-making contexts when it comes to extreme wildfire crisis management, and this becomes even more relevant when lives are at stake, so the management of extreme fire events in WUI zones is a key issue.

In this section, we discuss the role of governance of extreme fire events in four pillars: i. Policy and regulatory management, ii. Development management and planning, iii. Integrated risk management, and iv. Community and institutional resilience management, which are supported by ten governance determinants identified through our research which provide insights into how wildfire risk governance can be operationalized in WUI areas to enhance both preparedness and protection (Figure 5).

Pillar 1: Political management

Political management is a fundamental pillar in the governance of risks associated with extreme wildfire events, especially in WUI areas. Ref. [24] argue that policies and regulations should not only address the immediate aspects of response and recovery but should incorporate a comprehensive vision that fosters prevention, mitigation, and long-term resilience to these events.

This pillar addresses the institutional and regulatory aspects that affect the governance of extreme fire events in WUI areas. The key determinants that influence this governance are interconnected and the decisions of each affect the individual outcome of each of them. These determinants are political will and legitimacy, existing policies and regulations, accountability and transparency, and transboundary issues.

Determinant 1: Policy and regulatory management.

Policy management and regulatory development regarding extreme wildfires has become a relevant issue within the public safety and sustainability agendas at a global level, given the increasing impact that these events have on exposed communities (lives, ecosystems, and economic development), and require a comprehensive approach that not only considers immediate disaster actions, but also promotes prevention, resilience, and adaptation to climate change. The creation of flexible regulatory frameworks, adequate resource allocation, and accountability are essential to improve the response to these events in order to reduce risks and increase the resilience of affected populations.

According to [4], the response to extreme wildfire events must be addressed in a comprehensive manner, considering both public policies and regulatory strategies to mitigate and manage these disasters in the short, medium, and long term, but also defining mechanisms to prepare for future events and aligning climate change, forest protection against wildfires, and disaster management policies with a clear vision of territorial resilience. However, integrating these policies is not an easy task due to the different approaches and interests of the sectors that lead their implementation.

Therefore, the crucial issues that require rules and regulations for wildfire risk management, especially those where its impact and effects can reach the communities, were grouped into four categories: (i) Wildfire risk management plans, (ii) Sectors, (iii) Land use, and (iv) Financial protection mechanisms. These categories are illustrated and further developed in Figure 6.

Ref. [43] point out that one of the persistent weaknesses in wildland fire management is insufficient financial resources and lack of adequate allocation for preparedness, especially in terms of equipment, training, and technology. Public policies should encourage collaboration between governments, the private sector, the academic sector, and local communities to establish financial protection mechanisms and ensure that investments in prevention and mitigation are sustainable in the long term. Ref. [129] add to the discussion accountability and transparency in the management of these resources as an essential component that guarantees public confidence, and the effectiveness of the policies implemented.

Determinant 2: Political Will and Legitimacy

Political will is a determining factor in extreme fire governance and disaster risk reduction, especially in WUI areas, where the interaction between natural ecosystems and urban areas increases the complexity of risks and multiple scales of decision-making come into play. Ref. [50] indicates that political will should be seen as a dynamic process, involving the ability of governments to adapt their policies to new realities and change their approach according to the emerging needs of the territory, without losing sight of the long-term goals of sustainability and resilience.

According to [163], political will, beyond referring to the capacity of leaders to make decisions, focuses on their willingness to prioritize these events in government agendas, allocate adequate resources, and ensure cooperation between the different institutions involved. In this context, political will must be translated into long-term commitments, both in the creation, implementation, and permanent evaluation of prevention, mitigation, response preparedness, and institutional strengthening policies. However, as indicated by [43], political will can be volatile and depend on external factors such as social pressure, economic interests, image, and the immediate effects of disasters, which sometimes limits the adoption of sustainable preventive approaches.

The implementation of effective policies and regulations is strongly conditioned by the political will of governments and the capacity of institutions to enforce such laws. Ref. [163] note that the lack of coherence between urban development and environmental protection policies, especially in WUI areas, has generated a mismatch that increases vulnerability to extreme wildfires. It is crucial that regulatory frameworks be dynamic and flexible to adapt to climate and social changes, and that they promote investment in green infrastructure and the sustainable management of natural resources. Likewise, interinstitutional coordination is one of the major weaknesses identified by [161], who argue that the lack of a unified approach between sectors such as the environment, agriculture, and civil protection is a factor that hinders the effectiveness of the response to these catastrophic events.

The analysis by [69] reinforces the above idea by highlighting that weak political will can lead to a reactive policy, in which action is taken only after fires have caused significant damage. To reverse this trend, political will must be directed towards the creation of comprehensive policy frameworks that link urban planning with climate risk management, which will ultimately earn decision-makers the recognition of their constituents [167]. It is therefore essential that governments take a proactive approach, with public policies that not only mitigate the immediate impacts of fires but also promote climate change adaptation and long-term sustainability. This approach requires a commitment from leaders to invest in preventive strategies, such as regulating vulnerable areas and creating fire-resistant infrastructure, and to secure the necessary funding to implement them.

Likewise, Ref. [168] emphasize that political will must extend beyond national borders, especially in border areas or in regions where wildfires affect multiple countries, a trend that has intensified in the last decade at the global level. For these authors, it is essential that governments cooperate across borders, share information, and work in a coordinated manner in the design, approval, implementation, and evaluation of policies to reduce the risks and impacts of transboundary wildfires. Political will cannot be limited to a single nation or region, but must encompass coordinated action at the international level to address wildfires as a global problem, especially in the context of climate change.

In terms of inclusion, Ref. [168] add that political will must be accompanied by an inclusive governance approach, where local communities have an active role in decision-making. Policies must be tailored to local realities, and authorities must work closely with communities to ensure that solutions are culturally appropriate and effective. Ref. [169] also stress the importance of strengthening institutional and community capacities to respond to fires effectively, as the lack of human, technical, and financial resources can hinder the implementation of prevention and mitigation policies. Therefore, political leadership should involve the training of local actors, the creation of adequate infrastructures, and the establishment of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure the success of implemented strategies. Figure 7 summarizes the key dimensions and challenges associated with political will as a determinant of wildfire risk governance in WUI areas.

Determinant 3: Accountability and transparency

Accountability and transparency are essential elements in the management of extreme wildfire events, as they ensure the proper use of resources, public confidence, and the effectiveness of implemented policies. According to [69], the lack of clear accountability mechanisms in wildfire risk management strategies can lead to inefficient resource allocation and low public trust in the responsible authorities.

Transparency in decision making and resource allocation is critical to ensure that policies are effectively implemented and that affected communities have access to information on risk management processes and outcomes. In this way, accountability focuses not only on immediate responses to fires, but also on the use and justification of public and private resources involved in preparedness, response, and post-disaster recovery. Ref. [24] emphasize that accountability in wildfire governance also implies the ability of authorities to evaluate and adjust their policies based on the results of their implementation. Permanent feedback is fundamental for learning by promoting the adaptation of strategies in the face of recurrent extreme events.

In this sense, Ref. [70] suggests that wildfire risk governance should be understood as a dynamic process, where accountability not only responds to traditional standards of transparency but also includes a dimension of social resilience where local communities should be part of decision-making, allowing greater participation in the identification of risks, the planning of prevention measures, and the evaluation of results. Accountability is not limited exclusively to state authorities but must also involve local actors, thus sharing responsibility and facilitating the implementation of adaptive strategies that are contextualized with the territory.

Refs. [170,171], on the other hand, address the importance of accountability in the context of collaborative governance. Ref. [170] highlights that, in the case of extreme wildfires, transparency in cooperation between public and private actors is essential to avoid resource diversion and ensure efficient management.

Accountability in the public and private sectors can be complex due to the different interests and priorities of the actors involved, but their effective coordination is crucial for an adequate and efficient response. Ref. [171], meanwhile, highlights the need for oversight mechanisms to ensure that resources are used equitably following social justice principles, especially when it comes to the distribution of post-disaster recovery funds. This is particularly relevant in areas where the most vulnerable communities may be the least favored in the allocation of resources.

Along the same lines, the approach of [69] on the importance of transparency in the management of public and private funds stresses that accountability must go beyond the monitoring of direct expenditures to include the auditing of policy decisions, budget allocations, and recovery processes. Transparency not only builds trust but also ensures that resources are used efficiently and aligned with social and environmental priorities. Accountability mechanisms should be designed to facilitate public participation and monitoring of fire management, allowing for early detection of problems and adjustment of policies when necessary, favoring more effective and equitable governance.

Determinant 4: Cross-border issues

Extreme wildfire events in transboundary areas have become an increasing challenge for disaster risk governance, given that fires do not recognize political boundaries, and their effects can spread to multiple countries or regions. Wildfires in transboundary areas require governance approaches that integrate not only national but also international actors, given the magnitude and complexity of the risks involved [135].

Responses to these events require smooth coordination between governments, international organizations, and private actors, which implies overcoming sovereignty barriers, national interests, and differences in response capabilities. Cooperation in these contexts must be multidimensional, involving both pre-fire prevention, mitigation, and post-fire recovery, since the consequences of these events can affect ecosystems, the economy, public health, and the safety of citizens in different countries.

One of the main challenges in transnational wildfire governance is the lack of a common institutional infrastructure and coordination mechanisms between neighboring countries, which can delay response and increase vulnerability. Ref. [134] highlight that disparity in fire management policies and strategies among countries in the same region may be one of the causes of incoordination.

While there are international frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework, that seek to foster transnational collaboration on climate change and disaster risk reduction, the implementation of these policies at the local level remains fragmented and, in many cases, insufficient. This is reflected in differences in legislation, monitoring systems, response approaches, and levels of investment in preventive measures, creating gaps in regional resilience to extreme wildfires.

In this context, Ref. [41] argue that one of the main barriers to transnational cooperation is the lack of trust between countries, especially when wildfires affect multiple nations and each has its focus, priorities, and resources. Transnational fire governance requires a framework of mutual trust, which allows countries to collaborate without fear of competition or the perception that resources and efforts will not be distributed equitably. In addition, this framework should ensure transparent management of fire risk information, availability of resources, and response capabilities, framed within relationships of transparency and trust in information for decision-making that promote effective cooperation and reduce conflicts among the actors involved.

Another important challenge is the harmonization of national fire risk management strategies and policies. According to [45], the management of transnational wildfires requires a common policy that not only addresses prevention and mitigation but also restoration of affected ecosystems and adaptation to climate change. However, national policies are often focused on country- and sector-specific interests, such as natural resource protection, economic development, or public safety, which can make it difficult to create concerted regional strategies. The lack of a common approach can lead to duplication of efforts, lack of shared resources and, ultimately, a less effective response.

On the other hand, wildfire management in border areas faces the challenge of managing the social and economic vulnerability of communities affected by disaster events. Ref. [135] emphasize that rural populations and vulnerable areas in transboundary regions are often the most affected by these extreme fires, not only because of direct exposure to fire, but also because of the lack of adequate emergency services, infrastructure, and resources for recovery. This challenge is even greater when fires cross borders and affected communities do not receive assistance or cannot access resources available on the other side of the border. This exposes the need for an inclusive governance approach that considers the needs of the most vulnerable communities in these territories, promoting equity in the distribution of resources and disaster response.

Transnational cooperation must also be accompanied by a proactive approach to research and development. Therefore, Ref. [134] suggest that it is essential to invest in shared monitoring systems, information exchange platforms, and the development of predictive models that allow countries to anticipate wildfires and make preventive decisions. Research in early detection technologies, warning systems, and resource management is essential to strengthen the region’s resilience to extreme fires. Strong cooperation based on knowledge and technology sharing, and political will are necessary to cope with this type of event.

Pillar 2: Development Planning

Development planning plays an essential role in disaster risk management, including extreme wildfire events. According to [172], the integration of risk in development planning makes it possible to anticipate and reduce social and territorial vulnerabilities to extreme events, under an approach that must consider both environmental characteristics and the social and economic dynamics of urban and rural areas to design effective mitigation and prevention strategies. In wildland–urban interface areas, urbanization, unplanned land use, and even land abandonment [134] significantly increase the risk of fires, exacerbating the impacts on the most vulnerable communities.

This pillar addresses land use management as a determining factor in the governance of extreme fire events in WUI zones, associating it with all the aspects involved in the process.

Determinant 5: Land Use Management

Urban sprawl in areas of high fire risk creates an environment of even greater vulnerability, requiring more rigorous planning and greater coordination between development and risk management policies [126,127]. Land use management seeks to balance human interests with environmental protection, promoting orderly and sustainable development through the development of actions and decision-making aimed at organizing, regulating, and planning how land is used in a given territory, and is therefore key to reducing the exposure and vulnerability of populations to extreme fire events.

Through land-use management, it is possible to implement preventive measures such as the creation of firebreaks, risk zoning, and the protection of key natural areas, as well as the involvement of local communities in decision-making, ensuring that the ecological characteristics of the areas and the needs of vulnerable populations are respected.

Policies and instruments for land-use management must integrate ecological and socioeconomic criteria that guarantee inclusive and environmentally friendly development, considering climate dynamics and impacts on biodiversity [40,125] in addition to the inclusion of clear measures for risk reduction that include investment in resilient infrastructure, the implementation of early warning systems, and the promotion of sustainable land-use practices [173]. In addition to technical approaches, the integration of risk management into urban design must address social issues such as equity in access to information and resources, promoting the active participation of vulnerable communities [10,162].

On the other hand, coordination of efforts between different levels of government, civil society, and the private sector is necessary in the identification of land use management needs, the design of policies and instruments, the execution of management plans (or similar) and their evaluation. It is therefore necessary to define responsible planning teams and land use regulation control teams.

According to [66], training development planners with a multidisciplinary approach and a solid understanding of the risks associated with wildfires can ensure a global and strategic perspective. Such an approach should consider risks as an integral part of prospective planning, and not as an isolated or reactive factor, allowing a broader view of the potential impacts of fires on the future of communities and the environment.

Pillar 3: Integrated Risk Management

The management of extreme wildfire risk is a determining factor in ensuring the resilience of communities and ecosystems in the face of increasingly frequent and severe disasters, which requires an integrated, multidimensional, and multiscale vision that considers the ecological, social, and economic aspects of the affected territory, considering the vulnerability of communities in WUI zones, the capacity of ecosystems to resist and recover after fire, and where wildfire risk is particularly high [67].

According to [4], extreme wildfires, intensified by climate change, not only affect the natural environment but also put human safety, infrastructure, and economic development at risk. Risk management involves a comprehensive approach that encompasses risk awareness, risk reduction, preparedness, response, and recovery from catastrophic events, all of which require informed decision-making involving both local and national authorities, as well as community stakeholders and their interaction with other management models or systems. To effectively address this risk, governance is required that considers three key determinants, which are developed below: water management, ecosystem management, and research and development (R&D). These interrelated components are essential to design strategies that not only prevent fires but also strengthen the resilience of affected communities and ecosystems.

Determinant 6. Water management

Water management is a crucial component of wildfire risk governance, as the availability and distribution of water resources have a direct impact on the frequency and intensity of wildfires. According to [40], the lack of adequate management of water resources in wildfire-prone areas can exacerbate the vulnerability of ecosystems and communities. Water management in these areas refers not only to fire prevention through the creation of protection zones and vegetation management but also to the regulation of river and reservoir flows, which are essential for maintaining moisture in soils and vegetation.

In addition to its direct relationship with wildfires, water management also has significant implications for the governance of risks associated with floods, drought, and landslides. Ref. [174] argue that, in regions affected by prolonged droughts, water scarcity can increase the dry fuel load, favoring the spread of more intense fires, and [5,175] indicate that water scarcity hinders the capacity to respond to fires, since water resources are essential for both fire prevention and fire suppression. Therefore, in WUI, efficient water management should include watershed restoration and the implementation of infrastructure to store and distribute water during periods of drought.

Ref. [164] point out that poor water management can exacerbate these risks in an interconnected manner, as overexploitation of water resources and alteration of river channels can lead to an increase in the frequency of floods and landslides in mountainous and urban areas. Droughts, exacerbated by inadequately managed water scarcity, can in turn increase the fragility of ecosystems and infrastructure, reducing the capacity of soils to withstand intense rainfall and increasing the risk of landslides. Figure 8 illustrates how inadequate water management can exacerbate interconnected risks, including wildfires, floods, droughts, and landslides.

Determinant 7. Ecosystems Management

The management of ecosystems, particularly forests and natural areas near urban areas, plays a critical role in fire prevention and mitigation. According to [166], an integrated ecosystem management approach not only focuses on biodiversity protection, but also on reducing fuel loads in forests, restoring native vegetation, and implementing sustainable forestry practices. These strategies can significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic fires by reducing fuel material in forest areas and maintaining an ecological balance that favors ecosystem resilience to extreme events [24,41,166].

In WUI, ecosystem restoration and conservation should be a priority, not only to reduce the risk of fire but also to improve the resilience of ecosystems after a fire. These processes play a crucial role in the recovery of fire-damaged ecosystems and in building resilience to future extreme events. Ref. [165] argue that habitat restoration interventions, such as reforestation and natural regeneration, not only enhance biodiversity, but can also improve the ability of ecosystems to withstand and recover rapidly after fire. These strategies contribute to the restoration of essential ecosystem services, such as water cycle regulation, erosion protection, and soil conservation, which are key factors in preventing landslides and fire spread in vulnerable lands.

Similarly, ecosystem management must go hand in hand with the integration of an adaptive approach to climate change, which is why [5] points out that fire patterns are being altered by climatic variations, which means that traditional fire management strategies must be adjusted to cope with more extreme and frequent events. This requires a flexible vision that can adapt to new conditions and anticipate changes in fire intensity and frequency. Ref. [176] argue that an approach based on adaptability and constant monitoring of environmental conditions allows risk managers to adjust management policies and practices in real-time, thus improving the ability of communities and ecosystems to cope with fires.

Determinant 8. Research & Development

The management of extreme fires, exacerbated by climate change, requires a robust, multidimensional research and development (R&D) approach to disaster risk management in WUI to improve both predictive capabilities and response strategies.

According to [142], wildfires are rapidly evolving in intensity and frequency, putting communities and ecosystems at risk, and R&D in this area is currently focused on developing advanced tools to predict, detect, and mitigate these events, although due to the complex and multidimensional nature of extreme wildfires, the integration of climate science, ecology, engineering, and social sciences should be considered in the analysis not only of firefighting technologies but also of underlying factors such as land use, territorial planning, and climate change adaptation policies [24,40].

Applied research is key to generating knowledge that can be used for the design of early warning systems, the development of predictive models of fire behavior based on artificial intelligence and real-time monitoring technologies, and the use of technologies to monitor ecosystem conditions, as well as for innovations in fire suppression techniques that facilitate response and protection of exposures. In addition, applied research in areas such as post-fire ecosystem regeneration or the adaptation of fire management models to new climatic realities can provide more effective and durable solutions for WUI areas.

In recent years, technological advances have been fundamental to R&D in the field of extreme fire management. Ref. [162] note that the use of emerging technologies, such as remote sensing, drones, and predictive modeling, has revolutionized the way fires are managed. Research in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning has enabled the creation of more accurate predictive models that simulate the spread of wildfires under various climatic and geographic conditions. In addition, satellite and terrestrial-monitoring systems, fed by real-time data, allow authorities to anticipate and react to wildfires before they become catastrophes. In this sense, technological R&D not only improves predictive accuracy but also optimizes the allocation of resources during response operations.

However, R&D should be complemented with a collaborative approach that integrates scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge of local communities, based on social research and the development of public policies oriented to community participation. Ref. [37] argue that wildfire management should be based on a deep understanding of the social dynamics and factors that determine local responses to disasters. Social research within R&D allows the development of prevention strategies that involve communities in decision-making, fostering a culture of wildfire resilience. Awareness and education programs, supported by research data, are essential to strengthen the capacity of local populations to prevent fires and to adopt self-protection measures.

Pillar 4. Community and Institutional Resilience Management

Community and institutional resilience are key aspects of risk governance, especially when dealing with adverse events such as natural disasters, socioeconomic crises, or pandemics. Nowadays, risk management is considered a dynamic process that involves both communities and institutions in charge of protection and public welfare. According to [177], resilience refers not only to the capacity to withstand the impact of disasters but also to the capacity to adapt and recover affected systems. Thus, determinants such as education, inclusive community participation, and capacity building play a fundamental role in building robust resilience that translates into effective risk governance.

This implies the implementation of comprehensive strategies that strengthen both the social and organizational structure of communities, as well as governmental and private institutions in charge of risk management, in addition to strengthening the links between actors. This pillar includes as determining factors: community education and participation, and the strengthening of local capacities to build sustainable and effective resilience that integrates both local and technical knowledge, promotes cooperation among diverse actors, and guarantees an equitable approach to risk management.

Determinant 9: Education and community participation

Policies, plans, strategies, and instruments, as well as any risk management process, should be designed in a way that promotes social equity, considers existing inequalities within the community [141], and is flexible and adaptable to adjust to changing social, economic, and environmental conditions, as suggested by [161], including the integration of vulnerable groups, such as women, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities, into decision-making processes to ensure a more agile and effective response to emerging challenges, ensuring that policies are relevant and effective over time.

Because of this, education and inclusive community participation are essential for communities to understand the risks they face in extreme fire event scenarios near WUI and to be empowered to make informed decisions, but that understanding also depends on community participation, the interest of the parties to interact, contribute constructively, and reach agreements. In this sense, inclusive community participation provides the guarantee that all voices are heard and considered on an equal footing.

Education, understood in a broad sense, should not only be technical but also social and cultural since the capacity of a community to face disasters also depends on its understanding of the local context and the way it interacts with risk factors [172]. Here, the contribution of geography as part of a basic education is relevant due to its ability to develop in people a comprehensive understanding of space and the processes that occur around them, fostering a critical awareness of the natural, social, and cultural environment in which they live. They learn to interpret maps, understand climatic and geographic phenomena, know the distribution of resources and populations, and explore how human activities affect their surroundings and the environment, which promotes critical thinking, their active participation in important issues for society, and addresses the challenges of the future.

The exchange of knowledge and experiences between local communities, risk management experts, development planning experts, and environmental managers is another key component in resilience. Ref. [172] stresses that the integration of local knowledge with scientific knowledge is a key strategy to improve the understanding of risks and the implementation of solutions adapted to the local context. Communities, having in-depth knowledge of their environment and its dynamics, can provide practical and effective solutions that complement the technical and scientific information coming from institutions. This collaboration can result in the design of more effective prevention and mitigation measures and can help to adapt global risk management approaches to local realities.

Ref. [10] emphasize that inclusiveness in participation not only improves emergency response capacity, but also strengthens social cohesion and promotes a sense of shared responsibility. Through participation in decision-making processes, communities not only acquire skills to cope with risks, but also feel an integral part of and take ownership of the risk management process. Ref. [123] stress that the effective participation of communities in the planning and execution of resilience policies is a factor that strengthens their capacity to manage their own risks, generating a sense of ownership of the strategies adopted.

Determinant 10. Capacity building

Risk governance plays an indisputable role in institutional resilience, as it defines the frameworks for action and the responsibilities of the different entities involved in fire risk management. Ref. [174] suggest that effective governance implies the creation of collaborative networks between public, private, and civil society actors. This not only facilitates the implementation of more effective policies but also promotes an inclusive approach that allows all stakeholders to have a voice in decision-making processes. However, for this articulation and harmonization of interests and mandates to work, it is essential to strengthen the capacities of the system in which they interact.

According to [124], institutions must be adequately equipped, both in terms of human and material resources, to coordinate effective responses to emergencies. This implies, among other things, the training of specialized personnel, the establishment of clear action protocols, and the creation of governance structures that allow for an agile and efficient response. In this regard, Ref. [174] emphasize that institutions must be prepared not only to manage the immediate response to a disaster but also to lead prevention and recovery efforts, integrating social and environmental concerns into their wildfire risk management policies.

Capacity building also involves improving the infrastructure and technology used in wildfire risk management. According to [141], in the context of extreme fires, institutions must have robust and up-to-date information systems, such as early warning systems, monitoring platforms, and real-time data analysis, to be able to anticipate and manage disasters proactively. However, this is not useful if there are not enough specialized personnel, properly linked and remunerated.

Collaboration between different levels of government (local, regional, and national) is also important, as indicated by [161], who suggest that multilevel governance can improve inter-institutional coordination and facilitate the implementation of more effective risk management policies. Although in decentralized management systems, this may become a challenge, it is necessary to have agreements such as protocols, binational agreements, memorandum of understanding, etc., that have official recognition, as well as the human, technical, technological, and financial resources and political backing to implement them.

7. Policy and Practical Implications

Based on the governance determinants identified, we suggest several actionable strategies: integrate wildfire risk into land-use planning, promote cross-sectoral coordination among key agencies, and strengthen local capacities through training and community engagement. Additionally, transparent institutions and knowledge co-production mechanisms can improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of wildfire governance.

8. Study Limitations

One limitation of this review is the exclusive use of the Scopus database, which may have resulted in the omission of relevant studies indexed in other databases such as Web of Science or Google Scholar. While this approach ensured methodological rigor and consistency, future studies could benefit from multi-database searches to expand the breadth of coverage, particularly regarding grey literature or regional case studies that may be underrepresented in Scopus.

9. Conclusions

Through this SLR, it was possible to understand the multiplicity of environmental, social, economic, operational, and logistical variables associated with communities located in the WUI. These underlying risk factors contribute to the complexity of the problem and must be considered in wildfire management strategies. Risk governance in this field, therefore, requires an approach that goes beyond the simple definition of complex risk and the question of whether risk management systems are prepared for crisis situations at this level of complexity—often assumed to be the new normal.

The studies on extreme wildfire events included in this research focus particularly on the analysis of wildfire threats in specific areas. The findings show progress in recognizing the complexity of extreme wildfire risk, incorporating contemporary risk theories such as complex risk, adaptive management, and resilience theory. In terms of governance, although the concept is frequently mentioned in the literature, only three studies develop it in depth, primarily through the lens of adaptive governance theory. This reveals an opportunity for researchers in wildfire risk governance to adopt and integrate complementary approaches.

Governance in extreme wildfire events is widely recognized as a relevant and emerging area of study. However, research efforts remain concentrated in industrialized countries with a historical exposure to such events, revealing a significant gap in the understanding of governance dynamics in countries that have also experienced globally significant wildfires during the study period.

This study contributes to these efforts by proposing four core pillars for the governance of wildfire risk in extreme fire events: i. Policy and regulatory management, ii. Development management and planning, iii. Integrated risk management, and iv. Community and institutional resilience management. These pillars are supported by ten key determinants: 1. Political management; 2. Political will; 3. Accountability and transparency; 4. Transboundary issues; 5. Land use management; 6. Water management; 7. Ecosystem management; 8. Research and development; 9. Education and community participation; and 10. Capacity building.

Finally, researchers often refer to risk managers, civil protection agencies, NGOs, the private sector, and communities as passive recipients of academic and institutional knowledge. However, addressing the challenges posed by extreme wildfire events—and the complex intersystem interactions revealed in this study—requires a shift toward the co-production of knowledge. This approach would help generate scientific and experiential evidence that supports informed decision-making in the face of the multifaceted threats affecting WUI areas.