The Role of Traditional Fire Management Practices in Mitigating Wildfire Risk: A Case Study of Greece

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of traditional fire management practices in the general mitigation of wildfire risk in Greece. Major emphasis was placed on assessing people’s opinions about the perceived effectiveness of traditional fire management strategies that were historically and culturally employed by local communities—such as weather condition monitoring, prescribed burning, proper land use planning, and mosaic burning—in the general mitigation of wildfire risks. An online questionnaire was used to collect data from 397 environmental experts in Greece. The study shows that traditional fire control methods reduce wildfire risk. First, weather monitoring was found to be crucial to wildfire forecasting and prevention. The results showed that early warning, successful firefighting, and fire prevention depend on meteorological data. Additionally, prescribed burning was revealed to have reduced wildfire risk. Respondents accepted that they could reduce unprescribed fires, protect natural ecosystems, remove wildfire-prone areas, and regulate flame intensity. This suggests that scheduled burning in Greece may reduce wildfire damage. The study underlines the importance of including conventional fire management in the wildfire mitigation strategy of Greece. The aforementioned activities may help the environment and civilization progress by safeguarding ecosystems and reducing wildfire damage. These techniques, combined with community engagement and improved early warning systems, may help manage climate change-induced wildfires. Overall, the study contributes to wildfire management in Greece and other Mediterranean countries. The study emphasizes the need to incorporate traditional fire practices into Greece’s wildfire risk reduction strategies. Taking into account the success rates of these practices in other areas, as well as Greece’s old tradition of conducting fire, this paper stresses that further studies and policy developments be made in order to reinstate these practices in today’s wildfire management.

1. Introduction

Wildfires are increasingly becoming a global problem, mainly because of climate change, which is responsible for the rising frequency and intensity of their outbreaks. This is especially true in the Mediterranean region, where fire is a fire in the landscape, both ecologically and culturally [1,2]. Due to climate change, wildfires have greatly increased in the Mediterranean basin, particularly Greece, burning property, killing people and animals, and affecting ecosystems [3]. The rising severity of fire seasons may increasingly threaten the suitability of current fire suppression strategies to deal with the emerging risks [4,5]. Many regions of the world, such as California, Australia and parts of Africa, have started to use prescribed burning more readily in order to reduce fires. However, Greece has found it difficult to blend traditional practices with current fire management strategies. Fire, for a long time, has played an important ecological role in the Mediterranean. For centuries, humans have interacted with their environment, creating a precedent which has led to the maintenance of biodiversity, improvement in the landscape and regulation of vegetation through the creation of different fire regimes. The cultural and knowledge system of the people in the area is reflected in traditional Greek fire management practices, mainly in response to agricultural and pastoral needs. As techniques for suppressing fire became more common in the 20th century, traditional methods of fire management started to decline [6]. The changes in fire management, prescribed mainly by modern science and technology, may have contributed to the increasing mismatch between wildfire risk and current management in Greece. This suggests that it would be useful to reflect on the historic and traditional fire management practices in Greece and their significance today [7,8].

Fire management in Greece has been linked to local cultures and their relationship with the environment as fire was not just suppression. According to historical evidence and oral tradition, many Greek communities used fire to clear the land for agricultural production, grazing, and overall ecosystem management. The intensity of these practices was localized, relying on an intricate understanding of the land, climate and fire behavior [9]. For example, using prescribed burning helped to prepare agricultural fields, prevent larger wildfires and promote biodiversity. Local communities, which know their landscapes intimately, usually manage such activities. Nonetheless, in the present day, Greece largely favors a ‘suppress’ over ‘use’ approach to fire management in a centralized manner [10]. Are traditional ways of knowing useful in wildfire risk mitigation strategies (and adaptation) in light of this shift? In many countries like Australia and Canada, an increasing widespread recognition of the importance of traditional fire management practices is taking place, and success is being recorded in their reintegration in contemporary fire management. Traditional fire management practices can lower the intensity of wildfires. These practices can help build resilience and combat climate change by reducing plant material that can catch fire. Although research shows that traditional fire management is critical in the Australian savannas and Canadian forests, there are few studies on the application of such practices in Mediterranean systems (Greece in particular). The incorporation of local knowledge found in rural communities across Greece can potentially help adapt fire management practices to the wildfire risk and climate change the country is facing.

In Greece, the perception of fire has always been cultivated through a mixture of traditional and contemporary views. In some parts of the Mediterranean, there has been a rise in prescribed burning resource management in recent decades. However, Collins [11] notes that in most instances where prescribed burning has been undertaken, the emphasis has leaned towards the modern fire risk management approach, which has not necessarily paid attention to the cultural significance of fire in Mediterranean landscapes. The purpose of prescribed burning is to set fires intentionally and control them. It minimizes the fuels present and reduces the intensity of wildfires. But this differs from the traditional community fire practices that once occurred all over Greece. Fire management presently is a globally intense challenge because of climate change and the increasing frequency of wildfires [12]. Exploring the cultural context of fire and its uses in Greece is significant. This study aims to examine how traditional Greek fire practices can help reduce fire risk in modern Greece. The Australian or Canadian prescribed burning systems that we often read about are in fact Greek prescribed burning, which has long been based on local ecological knowledge, community initiatives and cultural norms [13,14]. In British Columbia, Canada, a study by Bayham et al. [12] recommended that prescribed burning, proactive fire prevention, and improved fire management collaboration with First Nations (Indigenous peoples) be given top priority. Despite recent studies on traditional fire risk management strategies, very few have been conducted in Greece. This study examined traditional fire use in Greece, the involvement of local communities in the implementation of such management, and the potential of repeated application of these practices to contemporary wildfire risk management in Greece. By looking at the history of fire management, this study adds to the global conversation about the relevance of traditional knowledge in fire management.

The research focused on the following questions: When and where were fire management practices implemented in Greece? What part did local communities play in their regional implementation? In what ways do modern beliefs about fire management in Greece relate to traditional practices? Can today’s wildfire risk mitigation efforts adapt to these practices? This study does not check how well these changes reduce wildfire risk, but it does assess whether residents believe they will work. Some of the assessed techniques include traditional and local knowledge that resembles techniques used in other regions, but this assessment does not provide an indication of their effectiveness concerning wildfire risk. The results of this research will clarify the effect of traditional fire management in the Mediterranean context as well as the way modern fire management may benefit from a more holistic context-informed approach. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the relevant literature involving the history of fire management in Greece with much focus placed on traditional methods. The purpose of this section is to examine the way people perceive fire management practices in historic Greece. In line with the findings of the study, Section 4 comprises perceptions over the prescribed burning and traditional fire practices, while Section 5 concludes with suggestions for incorporating traditional fire practices into contemporary fire management practices in Greece.

1.1. Purpose of the Study

This study examined the role of traditional fire management practices in the mitigation of wildfire risk in Greece. The study examines people’s opinions on the effectiveness of traditional and local fire management practices, including prescribed burning and land use planning. Although traditional fire management is often considered from a perspective related to Australia and Canada, the Greek context equally offers space to consider fire management from a local Greek perspective. The historical uses of fire in Greece and their ecological, social and cultural significance were also explored. Furthermore, the way these uses are employed to manage landscapes and mitigate fire risks were evaluated. This study sought to understand if the re-integration of such techniques into current fire management systems could be a response to the rising wildfire threats in the Mediterranean region. The views of the public on the traditional practices of fire management and the prospects of their reintegration in fire management in Greece were also examined.

1.2. Research Objectives

• To assess the influence of monitoring weather conditions towards mitigation of wildfires.
• To evaluate the role played by prescribed burning in the mitigation of wildfires across Greece.
• To assess the effect of land use planning in enhancing the general mitigation of wildfires across Greece.
• To identify the different benefits of mosaic burning and their effect in the mitigation of wildfires across Greece.

1.3. Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. (H1). 

There is a significant influence of monitoring weather conditions on wildfire mitigation.

Hypothesis 2. (H2). 

Prescribed burning is highly important in wildfire mitigation across Greece.

Hypothesis 3. (H3). 

The effects of proper land use planning significantly enhance the general wildfire mitigation across Greece.

Hypothesis 4. (H4). 

The benefits of mosaic burning have a positive effect on wildfire mitigation across Greece.

2. Literature Review

2.1. History of Traditional Fire Management in Greece and Mediterranean Landscapes

For many centuries, the management of the Mediterranean landscape has relied on the fire management practices that Greeks have always used. Fire has been used since ancient times as some Greek communities utilized fire to clear land for agriculture, reduces fuel loads and manage forests. The Ancient Greeks recognized, that fire could help make land more productive, which was important for both growing crops and grazing [1,15]. Prescribed burning is an example where burning was used in places like Crete, Thessaly, and Peloponnese to prevent the forest encroachment of pasture [3,4]. Fire was necessary for cultivating and maintaining Greek ecosystems. Consequently, the early practices implemented by Greeks for managing fire were critical in ensuring the survival of their agricultural communities [6,10].

In the Byzantine Empire, fire control became more formalized. As the empire grew, fire was used for farming and for defense on the battlefield. Prescribed burns were carried out to protect the settlements as well as for other reasons. On top of that, fire played a part in growing rituals and ceremonies because of the religious impact and the cultural significance it entailed. In religious contexts in Greece, fire was utilized for purposes of purification, which became linked to the use of fire through practice in the management of all-natural resources. During the Ottoman period in Greece, fire management strategies persisted, especially in rural areas. In more isolated regions, communities continued the use of fire for various purposes. Farmers and shepherds used fire to clear the undergrowth so that the grazing areas could be opened up and the ash produced by fires could enhance soil fertility. In particular, in hilly areas with limited productive land, such practices were essential for sustainability in pastoralism and agriculture [16,17]. On the other hand, as the state began to exert greater control, fire management would become more centralized and local control would decline, especially in urbanized areas.

After Greece gained its independence, the modern state instituted more standard forms of wildfire management using organized suppressors and suppression techniques. Until the mid-20th century, many rural communities continued to rely on traditional fire management techniques. People thought these methodologies helped to lower the threat posed by massive forest fires, which were becoming more potent due to urban development and industrial expansion [17,18]. Cretans and other rural populations have used fire as a tool to manage land for centuries, and fire is perfectly integrated in their farming systems. Although there was a shift in the 20th century towards the use of more modern fire suppression solutions in some countries, evidence is coming to the fore that such fire use is important to maintain forests and ecosystems and has a role in fire management [19,20]. By the late 20th century, increasing severity of wildfires spurred a revival of interest in historic fire management practices due to climate change and human encroachment. Studies started to show that places which had high fire management levels faced lesser catastrophic fires than the places which had only modern suppression methods [21,22]. In Crete, research indicated that traditional fire management was effective in reducing the rate of wildfires, thus protecting biodiversity and agricultural land [22,23].

Greece is now once again acknowledging the importance of harmoniously combining traditional fire management techniques with contemporary wildfire mitigation strategies. Prescribed burning is an old practice that is now a key element in wildfire management in Greece and the Mediterranean. According to studies, prescribed burns have helped reduce fuel loads and wildfire risk not only in Greece but also in other Mediterranean countries [24,25,26]. One research study revealed that fire management which incorporates traditional methods along with scientific strategies is evidently more efficient compared to exclusively modern and scientific methods. According to studies, traditional fire knowledge can enhance the ability to resist wildfires. In the countryside, villagers who make fire help communities to better manage and adapt fire [27,28,29]. This means that we can use this in today’s setting while respecting nature to facilitate a fire regime which can better adapt to climate change and urbanization challenges [30,31].

2.2. Land Use Planning and Building Design

Land use planning and building design may protect houses and other structures from wildfires and ember penetration [17]. Many nations’ planning rules and standards involve wildfire mitigation. However, not all areas have the regulatory framework to mandate these steps [24]. Planning and building design requirements include dedicated water supplies for fighting fires, buffer zones (defensible space) between buildings and burning vegetation, building construction standards for walls, windows, roofing, and deck materials, sufficient access and egress for firefighters and others, and adequate road infrastructure [6,28,29,30].

If there are no flames or embers within 40 m of a home, house ignitions are unlikely to happen [31]. According to Zikeloglou et al. [32], this region around the house is known as the “home ignition zone” or defensible space if any vegetation has been removed or altered. According to studies comparing houses that have been destroyed by wildfires and those that have survived, homes are more likely to survive if there is defensible space [13,21]. Additionally, well-spaced retained trees and shrubs provide less risk than the same cover of trees and shrubs in a few clumped patches. For a home to survive a wildfire, defensible space has also been shown to be just as crucial as building layout and architecture [33].

Broadly speaking, land use planning and building design regulations are limited to newly developed areas and home renovations. Although local governments are not regularly monitoring compliance, these procedures must be maintained for the duration of the development [31]. There are no retroactive regulatory limitations for construction in wildfire-prone regions. Existing homes and buildings that were constructed before these laws came into effect are not required to adhere to building and planning codes. According to Nikolakis et al. [17], many homes and other buildings that are still standing in wildfire-prone regions do not adhere to the most recent construction codes.

Studies evaluating the efficacy of building design provisions are quite rare [10]. The country fire authority examined home losses of development applications that were reported to them during the Black Saturday fires in Victoria. Six of the 51 properties that made up the fire area’s 1% had been destroyed and had not been reported to the country fire authority. Data on 2131 properties lost in the Black Saturday fires were also analyzed by the Victorian building commission. Of these, 8% (177) had to be constructed in accordance with the Australian standard AS3959, construction of buildings in Bushfire-prone areas [24,34]. In western Australia, on February 6, 2011, a fire destroyed 71 dwellings, none of which had been constructed in accordance with AS3959 standards [16,35].

2.3. Prescribed Fire as a Mitigation Strategy

Prescribed fire refers to the intentional setting of fire in a region in compliance with relevant rules and regulations to enhance ecosystem health and lower fuel loads and wildfire risk in areas that are particularly susceptible [4,36]. Agricultural burning, which is the deliberate burning of crops for objectives other than managing wildfires, is not referred to as prescribed fire in this context. The Forest Service United States, Department of Agriculture (USDA), states that prescribed fires have the potential to lessen catastrophic wildfires while enhancing the health of ecosystems because they: remove unwanted species that endanger native species in an ecosystem; minimize the spread of pest insects and disease; reduce hazardous fuels, protecting human communities from extreme fires; improve habitat for threatened and endangered species; recycle nutrients back into the soil; and encourage the growth of trees, wildflowers, and other plants [34,37,38].

Skiba [16] noted that since 1984, the interagency Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) program in the United States has tracked the perimeters of fires that have spread to 1000 acres or more in the western region and 500 acres or more in the eastern region. These show that the yearly prescribed fire area in the US related to fire control has grown over time. Prescribed fire was used to 136,000 acres of land in 1984; the year the database’s records were first created. This amount rose to 816,000 acres in 2019 [21]. It should be emphasized, however, that this database is not complete since there is not a national repository of prescribed fire data that offers temporal and geographical information [39].

MTBS is helpful for tracking patterns in burn size and intensity over time, but since it only captures major fires, it probably underestimates the actual amount of burn land. The Coalition of prescribed Fire Councils estimates that, based on state permitting data, 10,000,000 acres were exposed to prescribed burn in the same year, in contrast to MTBS’ 816,000 acre for 2019 [2]. To determine the precise amount of prescribed fire intended for fire management in the United States, a centralized database including information on prescribed burn location, size, and perimeter is therefore required [40]. An estimated 38% to 51% of California’s scheduled acres for burning were actually burnt between 2013 and 2018. The bulk of the acres planned by the U.S. Forest Service over this six-year period, or around 93% of the total, were under federal control [41]. But in January 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture unveiled a brand-new government program that calls for using prescribed burn techniques more often on federal lands [31].

Greece features a variety of woodland and rangeland ecosystems, many of which rely on fire [2,6]. The Southeast acknowledged this reliance and created a comprehensive, mandated fire program for all kinds of ownership [40]. The effects of various fuel types and treatments on lowering the danger of wildfires also vary. Rapid wildfire suppression is made possible by the Southeast’s regular use of prescribed fire, which usually makes considerably lighter fuels accessible in forest regions [42]. Numerous studies demonstrate how successful prescribed fire is in the Southeast in preventing the tremendous accumulation of fuels from becoming a possible wildfire firestorm [21,43].

Prescribed fires are typically lit when the weather is right, smoke production (fuel consumption) is low, air conditions allow for sufficient smoke dispersion, and wind patterns allow smoke to move away from sensitive areas, such as populated areas, hospitals, schools, and roadways, in order to prevent negative effects [10]. Prescribed fires are usually allowed during non-summer months in order to prevent dangerous exposures from smoke levels exceeding specified air quality requirements [16]. In order to safeguard the surrounding people from any negative health effects, a number of laws, policies, and long-term land management techniques are already in place with the goal of limiting the smoke consequences from managed fire operations [6]. When performing prescribed fires, federal land management organizations adhere to regulations and are educated in smoke management techniques [10].

2.4. Traditional Fire Management as a Solution

Setting traditional fire management in the context of wider environmental decision-making is meaningful and insightful. Decision makers’ ontologies constitute the foundation for environmental concerns, their nature, and their acknowledgment [44,45]. Upon recognition of an issue, a risk assessment is conducted, and possible solutions are assessed, using current knowledge and technological resources [46]. The range of fire control measures, including mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, and status quo fire suppression, are assessed. When an intervention was proven successful in the past, it takes precedence. Room is made for actions other than fire suppression when the intervention has proven unsuccessful, or the issue is unclear.

The reality of fire and its control are understood via numerous knowledge systems. The epistemologies of traditional and western scientific knowledge systems vary in how knowledge is discovered or comprehended [10]. In order to comprehend and manage ecosystems and natural resources more effectively, there has been a growing emphasis on combining western and traditional knowledge. Ecological science is becoming more and more focused on resilience theory, holistic systems thinking, and social–ecological systems [4,47].

Indigenous science and knowledge systems are often handed down orally through generations and are more experiential, localized and holistic. Both aim to comprehend things via the observation of cause and effect; yet, cooperative methods face difficulties due to the epistemological distinctions [2]. Due to unequal power relations, mistrust of indigenous knowledge, and the etic approach of western research, traditional knowledge holders may be reluctant to work together [41]. By incorporating ideas from both indigenous and western scientific paradigms and giving indigenous community involvement in the application of knowledge priority, traditional fire management has, in reality, allayed these worries. Consequently, this makes it possible to develop approaches for solving fire control issues on a larger scale [31].

Traditional fire management techniques have a number of perceived and actual hazards [6]. According to Skiba [16], mainstream fire management is often risk adverse. Instead of considering possible long-term ecological advantages, decision makers choose to prevent short-term danger [6]. Actors in fire management use mental shortcuts that lead to systemic bias and a misalignment of goals and procedures [22,23]. The precautionary principle is often used, framing the lack of fire as a “safe alternative” to “risky” recommended burning behaviors. There is also a strong tendency towards status quo bias, when land managers take more blame for the unfavorable results of purposeful interventions—such as damage from an escaped prescribed burn, than for the unfavorable results of “doing nothing,” such as wildfires brought on by climate change. Another factor is regretting theory, which directs land managers to minimize possible losses as opposed to maximizing the net worth of the decision. Innovative strategies and procedures for fire control are hindered by these mental shortcuts [24]. Numerous locations still use indigenous peoples’ fire control techniques. indigenous and western knowledge systems are sometimes integrated in traditional fire management practices [48]. Sharing knowledge between generations is a crucial part of attempts to support the resurrection of traditions when knowledge and practice have been abandoned. Restoring the health of the land, upholding customary rules, and fostering cultural connectedness and well-being were among the community aims for a traditional fire management program in British Columbia, Canada [17]. According to Kelp et al. [49], knowledge of fire is epistemologically grounded in a relationship to location. In traditional epistemologies, human behavior is often led by the land, while western methods are usually driven by science, politics, and financial incentives [50].

2.5. Wildfire Mitigation and Adaptation

According to Jaffe et al. [40], adaptation is defined as “the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities,” whereas mitigation is defined as “the lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters” [21]. Since hazard reduction is not an option in this situation, for example, with respect to purely natural disasters like earthquakes, impact reduction is the goal of both adaptation and mitigation [48]. Comparatively, adaptation is defined as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects”, while mitigation is defined by Penman et al. [33] as “the human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases,” thereby reducing climate change (the hazard) [45].

Pandey et al. [51] notes that both wildfires and climate change are examples of man-made hazards that may be mitigated by human action, which makes them more alike than just natural catastrophes. We use the word “mitigation” to refer to actions targeted at lowering the intensity of wildfire danger via fuel management, drawing an analogy with the climate change paradigm presented by Zirogiannis [52]. For this reason, in this study, “adaptation” refers to any activity taken to lessen the exposure and susceptibility of people and property to wildfires [51,53]. Even while certain specific activities may contribute to both adaptation and mitigation, this does not compromise the heuristic strength of the mitigation-adaptation dichotomy [41,54].

Zikeloglou et al. [32] noted that the primary goal of wildfire policy was damage reduction, but it is now mostly hazard reduction because of the recent shift in emphasis from suppression to prevention. Naturally, reducing wildfire damage involves both adaptation and mitigation, thus choosing the best damage reduction approach for a given situation necessitates determining how best to combine the two [14,22,49]. Mitigation immediately reduces forest damage by decreasing the area burned. Forest-oriented policies may have shifted their attention to mitigation as a result of the clearer, direct connection between mitigation and preservation of forest interests [24]. Naturally, mitigation also subtly helps to safeguard local businesses, residents, and their possessions by creating landscapes that are fire-resistant. Nonetheless, given the closer connection to the relevant damage, it is likely that policies meant to safeguard local infrastructure and residents have concentrated on adaptation strategies that lessen their exposure to wildfires and their sensitivity to them [10,55].

Fire management (FM) techniques such as prescribed burning (PB) can be applied either as a stand-alone technique or in conjunction with mechanical treatment and grazing [41,51]. These approaches depend on a variety of factors, including fire management goals, forest types, location, fire regime, potential restrictions, and the various fine and broad spatial and temporal scales at which traditional fire management is applied [8]. In addition to influencing fire behavior, decreasing the likelihood of a fire starting, and improving fire resistance across a given landscape, it also lessens the intensity of fires and their damage. In addition to being an extremely precise management tool, PB is both science and technique [1,21,22,50].

Significantly less PB exists in many parts of Europe, and adoption of the technique has not advanced very far across the continent, despite the fact that increased PB is required to provide a variety of public benefits, including reduced wildfire hazard, improved forest resilience, and biodiversity conservation [54,56,57]. Actionable science will be promoted, and future research syntheses will be made easier with a move to “knowledge” and enhanced reporting procedures to revitalize PB science and provide minimal reporting requirements for PB experiments. Though they may provide reliable information regarding the influence of fire on soil qualities and impacts on trees, organized field PB studies have sadly been rare in Mediterranean ecosystems up to now [2,34,41].

2.6. Current State of Greece in Fire Management

The biggest and most populated Greek island, Crete, is situated 160 km off the mainland in the southernmost point of the Aegean Sea. With 623 thousand residents, the island occupies 8336 km², or 6.3% of the overall land area in Greece.

Table 1. Number of fires and burned areas (ha) from 2019 to 2023 on Crete Island.

Year	Number of Fires (Area in ha)						Burned Area (ha)
	Total	<1 ha	1–5 ha	5–100 ha	100–500	>500 ha	Total	Wooded	Non-Wooded
2023	94	82	10	2	0	0	159.14	142.29	16.85
2022	81	59	12	7	0	3	1119.99	929.89	190.1
2021	166	141	14	11	0	0	289.49	208.63	80.86
2020	71	62	6	2	1	0	209.56	203.21	6.35
2019	65	52	7	6	0	0	187.87	139.04	48.83

Source: Authors’ editing from country reports for Greece—Annual Fire Reports [58] for Crete.

illustrates the number of fires and burned areas (ha) from 2019 to 2023 through inspection of forest policy implementation as printed in the country report for Greece—Annual Fire Reports [58] for Crete.

The fact that Crete has fallen within interquartile range in Greece or higher for a number of years indicates that the wildfire issue is just as significant for Crete as it is for the rest of Greece (Figure 1) [58,59,60]. Crete features a high terrain with height variations of up to 2456 m above sea level in addition to its pyrophilic environment [1]. The island receives 878 mm of rain on average year, with a decreasing gradient from west to east. According to Thacker et al. [41], it varies from 440 mm/year in the eastern portion of the island to more than 2000 mm/year in the western mountainous sections.

Zones of significant flooding are across the island with regions situated close to highways and towns, potentially resulting in possible damage to livelihood after a wildfire event [10]. Future rainfall patterns are predicted to interfere with soil erosion processes and result in less rainfall but more intense rainfall events, making both urban and rural/mountain parts of Crete vulnerable to severe floods [11,61]. Low annual rainfall combined with high water demand may have a major impact on water and land degradation, according to the water and land resources degradation index (WLDI) for Crete. A deficit in water budgets stresses agricultural productivity, tourism, and the general well-being of Cretans [62,63]. Degradation of land occurs primarily in areas with high agricultural and tourist activity, and climate change affects water availability [2,16,22,23].

Over the last 10,000 years, agricultural practices and pastoralism have had a significant human impact on the heterogeneity of the Cretan environment. Due to agricultural intensification and rural desertion, land use and land cover (LULC) changed after the 1970s, leading to enormous expansions of traditional crops like citrus and olive trees. 26.7% of the total olive acreage in Greece (213,521 ha) is made up of olive groves on the island of Crete. These bear great cultural and financial significance for the community, with the production of olive oil ranking among the most lucrative products for Cretan farmers [36,51].

Nevertheless, these developments in agriculture and economy have led to unforeseen consequences for the local ecological environment. In hilly areas, terraced olive fields that were traditionally tended were abandoned, allowing trees like cypress or pine to colonize and undergo secondary succession [2,17]. Adoption of unsustainable agricultural methods and neglect of higher-altitude olive trees in Crete have raised the danger of fire and soil degradation, further increasing the risk of floods in marginal, upland regions [40,61].

Landscapes in areas like the Mediterranean are inherently prone to fire; therefore, it is impractical to expect people to live entirely fire-free lifestyles [51]. While stepping up preparations for the future, society must learn to adapt to and live with fire [22,23]. Budgets for wildfires have always given priority to putting out existing flames. In Greece, for instance, throughout the 2010s, 92% of the government money for fighting forest fires was allocated to doing so; just 8% went towards avoiding fires in the first place [34]. Countries should improve their early-warning systems, evacuation plans, fire-resistant structures, and computer models of fire behavior in addition to investing in firefighting crews and equipment [65].

Additionally, essential initiatives include measures like raising community awareness as to their part in preventing arson and unintentional fires. Decades of rural land abandonment in many sections of the Mediterranean have resulted in denser vegetation than in the past [66]. More fuel for wildfires may result from this denser vegetation, which might lead to more severe burning [41]. Wildfires serve as a sobering reminder of both the danger presented by climate change and the expensive consequences of failing to meet international emission reduction objectives [32,60]. The threats that future fires may pose can still be reduced by taking decisive action to reduce emissions, control fuels on the landscape, and prepare communities [1,44].

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study utilized a cross-sectional survey design, a research design and quantitative research methodology. This design helped to collect data from the study participants at a single point in time. The design also allowed for analysis of multiple variables relating to traditional wildfire risk mitigation techniques.

3.2. Target Population

The targeted sample consisted of various environmental experts in various regions of Greece. The specific population was selected due to their comprehensive knowledge of environmental issues such as wildfire risk, and mitigation expertise. Anyone working in the field of ecology, fire management, land use planning and climate monitoring was considered capable of providing insights regarding the impact of traditional fire management on reducing wildfire risk. The experts came from numerous different backgrounds and levels of experience, which facilitated a broader understanding of the topic at issue.

3.3. Sample Size and Sampling Technique

The sample size of 396 environment professionals from Greece selected for the study was based on a study population of 400,000 professionals in the environmental sector across the country. This was determined using the formula developed by Yamane [67,68] as in Equation (1).

$$\mathrm{n}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{N}}{1+\mathrm{N}({\mathrm{e})}^2}}$$

(1)

where

n = the required sample size

N = Study population

e = level of significance used in this study (0.05)

1 = constant

Therefore, the sample size was obtained accordingly:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{40,000}}{1+\mathrm{40,000}\left(0.0025\right)}}$$

$$n=396.0396\cong 396$$

The study utilized non-probability sampling, particularly stratified sampling techniques, to select the participating respondents. Stratification ensured that the sample comprised the representative subgroup of the overall population from differing regions with emphasis on environmental knowledge. Nonetheless, responses might be influenced by self-selection bias, as volunteers were selected through an online questionnaire. It was also recognized that the results may not necessarily be generalizable due to respondents’ subjective perceptions.

3.4. Data Collection

Data were collected using an online questionnaire that was distributed to the selected environmental experts through email. The questionnaire contained Likert scale-based questions that focused on the role of traditional fire management practices in mitigating wildfire risk. The questions were measured on a Likert scale of 1–5 (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Agree, Strongly Agree). Environmental experts were given three weeks to complete the questionnaire, which was enough for them to appropriately respond to the questionnaire. Informed consent was obtained from the participants prior to their engagement with the study. Additional assurances were provided to respondents that their data would be treated with a high level of privacy or confidentiality and only be used for the purposes of the present study.

Researchers recognized the ethical and logistical limitations of online data collection and took measures to address them. To address ethical issues regarding data safety, the data of all participants were secured and access limited. Throughout the study, confidentiality was maintained, and all participants gave their informed consent. It was noted that the lack of connectivity or digital literacy would not allow the affected people to be included. In response, initiatives were taken to identify those environmental practitioners who have the required digital literacy. The sample may be biased toward individuals more in touch with wildfire risk mitigation as an effect of self-selection bias. To remedy it, a wide and diverse array of experts was targeted, notwithstanding the limitations. Finally, the rate of response was monitored, and it was observed that the three weeks given for data collection were enough to achieve 100% response rate.

3.5. Data Analysis

Data analysis for the data collected using online questionnaires was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) ver. 23 for the different levels of analysis. The results were presented in tabular form and interpreted based on the obtained frequencies and percentages Regression analysis was also utilized to determine the level to which indigenous fire management practices help in mitigating wildfire risk. In this scenario, a multiple regression model is used (Equation (2)) to determine the various predicted values [69,70].

$$\mathrm{Y}={\mathsf{\beta }}_0+{\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathrm{X}}_1+{\mathsf{\beta }}_2{\mathrm{X}}_2+{\mathsf{\beta }}_3{\mathrm{X}}_3+{\mathsf{\beta }}_4{\mathrm{X}}_4+\epsilon$$

(2)

where

Y represents mitigation of the wildfire risk across Greece, β₀ is a constant (coefficient of intercept), X₁ represents influence of monitoring weather conditions, X₂ represents the role played by prescribed burns, X₃ represents the effect of land use planning, X₄ represents benefits of mosaic burning and ε represents the error term in the multiple regression model. The coefficients (β₁, β₂, β₃ and β₄) were estimated to provide an indication of the pathways of causality between the four independent variables and the dependent variable. The hypothesis of the study was tested at a 5% (0.05) level of significance.

4. Results

This section presents the results obtained after analysis of the data collected from the selected respondents.

4.1. Demographic Characteristics

The survey comprised 396 participants, whose details based on gender, occupation, education, relative experience and geographic distribution across Greece are captured in

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (n = 396).

Characteristic	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	198	50.0
Female	198	50.0
Occupation
Fire Service	132	33.3
Other	264	66.7
Education
College Degree	262	66.2
Below College Degree	134	33.8
Wildfire Experience
Environmental Experts	178	45.0
Non-Experts	218	55.0
Number of Wildfires
More than 10 fires	110	27.8
5–10 fires	88	22.2
2–4 fires	0	0.0
Less than 2 fires	119	30.1
Geographic Distribution
Northern Greece	162	40.9%
Islands	127	32.1%
Southern Greece	107	27.0%

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

The respondents were fairly evenly distributed in terms of gender, with 50% identifying as male and 50% as female. Regarding occupation, approximately one-third (33.3%) of the respondents were affiliated with the fire service, indicating that a significant portion of the sample had direct professional experience in dealing with wildfires. The majority (66.7%) fell into the “Other” category, which likely includes a diverse range of professions and backgrounds. The majority of respondents (66.2%) held college degrees, while the remaining 33.8% had education levels below a college degree.

This educational diversity suggests that the study captured perspectives from individuals with varying levels of formal education, which could influence their understanding and approach to wildfire preparedness and management. When it comes to direct wildfire experience, the data showed that a substantial portion of respondents (27.8%) had encountered more than 10 wildfires, while 30.1% had experienced fewer than 2 wildfires. This distribution suggests a wide range of wildfire exposure within the sample. Geographically speaking, respondents were reasonably representative of the country’s distribution, with 40.9% from northern Greece, 32.1% from the islands, and 27% from southern Greece. This geographic diversity is vital for capturing regional perspectives on wildfire preparedness.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

The study assessed the influence of monitoring weather conditions towards mitigation of wildfires, and the results are depicted in

Table 3. The influence of monitoring weather conditions towards mitigation of wildfires.

Statement	%	SD	D	NS	A	SA
Weather monitoring is essential for preventing fires	%	7.1	18.6	8.6	45.7	20.0
Timely weather data can help predict wildfire risks	%	2.9	10.0	5.7	55.7	25.7
Adequate weather monitoring can reduce fire incidents	%	5.7	25.7	14.3	48.6	5.7
Weather conditions significantly impact fire behavior	%	5.7	15.0	14.3	57.9	7.1
Proper weather monitoring can lead to early warnings	%	2.9	22.9	12.9	55.7	5.7
Weather data is crucial for effective firefighting	%	2.9	10.0	15.7	61.4	10.0
Improved weather monitoring can save lives and property	%	4.3	10.0	8.6	51.4	25.7

Key: SD = strongly disagree, D = Disagree, NS = Not Sure, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly Agree. Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

Most respondents agree or strongly agree (65.7% combined) that weather monitoring is crucial for preventing fires. This high level of agreement suggests a strong belief in the importance of incorporating weather data into fire prevention strategies. An overwhelming 81.4% (agree and strongly agree combined) believe that timely weather data is key to predicting wildfire risks. This shows a consensus on the value of prompt weather information for risk prediction.

Furthermore, 54.3% agree or strongly agree that adequate weather monitoring can reduce fire incidents. This indicates a majority view that effective weather monitoring is a significant factor in reducing the number of fires. The majority of respondents (65% combined agree and strongly agree) recognize that weather conditions have a significant impact on fire behavior. This underscores the importance of understanding weather patterns in managing wildfires. Again, a majority (61.4% combined agree and strongly agree) believes that proper weather monitoring can lead to early warnings about potential fires. Early warnings are crucial for preparedness and mitigation.

Moreso with 71.4% agreeing or strongly agreeing, there is a strong consensus that weather data is vital for effective firefighting efforts, highlighting its role in both prevention and active firefighting. Most respondents (77.1%) agree or strongly agree that improved weather monitoring can save lives and property. This is perhaps the most critical result, emphasizing the life-saving potential of effective weather monitoring in wildfire contexts.

The study examined the role played by prescribed burns in the mitigation of wildfires across Greece and the results are presented in Figure 2.

The majority (72.9%) of respondents agree, with an additional 2.9% strongly agreeing, that prescribed burns are an effective tool for wildfire mitigation. Only a small fraction (4.3% SD and 2.9% D) disagrees with this statement. This strong consensus suggests a general recognition of the effectiveness of prescribed burns in preventing or reducing the severity of wildfires. Opinions are more divided here, with 41.4% agreeing and 7.1% strongly agreeing that prescribed burns can reduce wildfire intensity. However, a notable 27.1% disagree and 5.7% strongly disagree. This mixed response may indicate varying experiences or perceptions about the effectiveness of prescribed burns in reducing the intensity of wildfires. About half of the respondents (50.0%) agree, and 8.6% strongly agree that prescribed burns help clear areas prone to wildfires. This indicates a considerable belief in the utility of prescribed burns for preventive clearing of areas that are at high risk of wildfires.

A combined 54.3% (48.6% agree, 5.7% strongly agree) believe prescribed burns can protect natural habitats. This reflects an understanding that, when managed carefully, prescribed burns can play a role in preserving natural ecosystems from the potentially more devastating impacts of unprescribed wildfires. A significant majority (68.6% agree, 20.0% strongly agree) supports the idea that prescribed burns can reduce the risk of unprescribed fires. This strong agreement emphasizes the role of prescribed burns as a proactive measure in wildfire management. With regard to importance in forest management, the responses show a balanced view, with 42.9% agreeing and 7.1% strongly agreeing that prescribed burns are essential for forest management. However, there is also a noticeable disagreement (18.6%) and neutrality (28.6%), suggesting that the role of prescribed burns in forest management is recognized, but perhaps there are differing opinions on its essentiality or effectiveness.

The study assesses the effect of land use planning in enhancing the general mitigation of wildfires across Greece and results are presented in Figure 3.

The majority (67.1%) of respondents agree (A) or strongly agree (SA) with this statement, with a significant portion (55.7%) simply agreeing. This reflects a widespread belief that strategic land use is a key factor in wildfire prevention. Most respondents (70%) agree or strongly agree that adequate zoning regulations reduce fire risks. This suggests a consensus on the importance of zoning regulations in mitigating fire risks. A combined 65.7% agree or strongly agree that land use plans should prioritize fire safety, indicating a strong support for integrating fire safety into land use planning. Majority of respondents, 82.8%, were in total agreement that effective land use planning can save resources: It underscores the perceived efficiency and resource-saving benefits of effective land use planning. While 55.7% agree or strongly agree that land use restrictions can limit wildfire damage, this statement also has the highest level of disagreement (30.0%). This indicates some skepticism or concern about the limitations imposed by land use restrictions. Most respondents (58.6%) agree or strongly agree that communities should be involved in land planning, highlighting the perceived importance of community involvement in land use planning decisions.

The study identified the different benefits of mosaic burning and their effect in the mitigation of wildfires across Greece; the results are presented in

Table 4. Results showing the different benefits of mosaic burning and their effect in the mitigation of wildfires across Greece.

Statement	%	SD	D	NS	A	SA
Mosaic burning can enhance biodiversity	%	0.0	25.7	11.4	54.3	8.6
Prescribed mosaic burns are sustainable practices	%	7.1	20.0	12.9	45.7	14.3
Mosaic burning can reduce fire spread	%	1.4	24.3	11.4	52.9	10.0
Prescribed mosaic burns can protect ecosystems	%	4.3	27.1	14.3	42.9	11.4
Mosaic burning is beneficial for cultural heritage	%	5.7	28.6	17.1	43.0	5.6
Prescribed mosaic burns improve soil fertility	%	1.4	32.9	22.9	35.7	7.1

Key: SD = strongly disagree, D = Disagree, NS = Not Sure, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly Agree. Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

The majority (62.9%) of respondents agree or strongly agree that mosaic burning can enhance biodiversity. Only negligible 0.0% strongly disagree, indicating a general consensus on its positive impact on biodiversity. Furthermore, 60% agree or strongly agree that prescribed mosaic burns are sustainable practices, with a lower, but still noteworthy, 7.1% strongly disagreeing. This suggests a positive view, though with some reservations compared to the biodiversity aspect. Most respondents (62.9%) agree or strongly agree that mosaic burning can reduce fire spread. This is a significant majority, with only 1.4% strongly disagreeing, indicating a strong belief in its effectiveness in controlling fire spread.

Most respondents (54.3%) agree or strongly agree that prescribed mosaic burns can protect ecosystems, with a slightly higher disagreement rate (4.3% strongly disagree). This suggests a majority of benefits in ecosystem protection, but with some more disagreement compared to other aspects. While 48.6% agree or strongly agree that mosaic burning is beneficial for cultural heritage, a combined 33.7% disagree or strongly disagree. This indicates a more divided opinion on this aspect. Finally, concerning improvement in soil fertility through prescribed mosaic burns, 42.8% agree or strongly agree, but there is a noticeable increase in neutrality (22.9%) and disagreement (1.4% strongly disagree and 32.9% disagree). This suggests that the benefit of improving soil fertility is the most contested or least agreed upon among the stated benefits.

4.3. Results of Regression Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

Regression analysis (

Table 5. Model Summary.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
	0.724 *	0.743	0.718	0.261

* Predictors: (Constant), Influence of monitoring weather conditions, Role played by prescribed burns, Proper land use planning, Benefits of mosaic burning.

) was utilized to establish the extent to which traditional fire management practices predict the mitigation of wildfire risk. There was a positive multiple correlation coefficient (R) given by the value of 0.724, which meant that the four independent variables positively correlated to mitigation of wildfire risk. Also, the value of R-Square confirms that the three independent variables bring a 74.3% change in mitigation of wildfire risk in Greece.

The one-way ANOVA (

Table 6. ANOVA analysis.

Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	51.640	3	17.182	116.135	0.004
Residual	3.108	393	0.046
Total	53.142	396

Dependent variable: Wildfire risk mitigation across Greece. Predictors (constant): g Influence of weather condition monitoring, Role played by prescribed burns, Proper land use planning, Benefits of mosaic burning.

) was performed to determine whether the linear regression model matched the data well or whether the three independent variables were good predictors of the dependent variable. Since F (3, 393) = 116.135, p < 0.05, the model has been fit for the data.

The unstandardized coefficients of the model were examined to establish the different traditional fire management practices (Influence of weather condition monitoring, role played by prescribed burns, land use planning, and benefits of mosaic burning) help to mitigate wildfire risk.

The regression analysis in

Table 7. Regression coefficients.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
(Constant)	0.518	0.219		32.135	0.001
Influence of weather condition monitoring	0.114	0.057	0.197	2.736	0.003
Role played by prescribed burns	0.246	0.087	0.213	6.195	0.021
Proper Land use planning	0.162	0.039	0.282	4.511	0.002
Benefits of mosaic burning	0.047	0.103	0.117	3.042	0.001

Dependent variable: Wildfire risk mitigation across Greece. Predictors (constant): g Influence of weather condition monitoring, Role played by prescribed burns, Proper land use planning, Benefits of mosaic burning.

shows that the coefficient for the “Influence weather condition monitoring” is positive (0.114) and statistically significant (p = 0.003). Additionally, the standardized coefficient (Beta) is 0.197, indicating a moderate positive relationship. This suggests that monitoring weather conditions has a significant influence on mitigating wildfires in Greece. Therefore, we can accept H1, concluding that weather condition monitoring plays a crucial role in wildfire risk mitigation.

The coefficient of regression for monitoring weather showed a value of 0.114 and the significance value was at 0.003 which is less than 0.05. This indicates that monitoring weather has a positive impact on mitigating fire. A standardized coefficient (Beta) of 0.197 shows a moderate positive effect. Thus, H1 can be accepted. This implies monitoring weather significantly helps to reduce wildfire risk. Weather data (temperature, humidity, etc.) can predict fire behavior, thus helping firefighters devise their strategies and issue early warnings. The prescribed burns regression coefficient is 0.246, while the significance value is 0.021 (p < 0.05), which means prescribed burns and wildfire mitigation measured positively.

The Beta of 0.213 shows that the contribution is significant. Thus, H2 is accepted; therefore, prescribed burning is instrumental in mitigating wildfire risk in Greece. Controlled burning gets rid of fuel and creates fire breaks so as to get a grip on fire spread. The regression coefficient value for land use planning is 0.162. In addition, the significance value of the regression coefficient is 0.002. Thus, the value which is less than 0.05 confirms that land use planning significantly curbs the risk of wildfires. The Beta value of 0.282 indicates land use planning (zoning, building codes and defensible space) has a strong positive effect on reducing wildfire damage. Thus, we can accept H3, showing that land use planning has a significant role in reducing fire risks.

The coefficient of regression of mosaic burning is 0.047 and significance value is 0.001 (p < 0.05) indicating that the benefits of mosaic burning contribute positively to wildfire mitigation. The effect size (Beta = 0.117), however, is smaller than those of other variables. This suggests that mosaic burning has a less significant but still meaningful effect. Based on the findings, therefore, we accept H4, meaning mosaic burning positively affects wildfire risk mitigation in Greece.

5. Discussion

This study investigated the role of traditional fire management practices in the mitigation of wildfire risk in Greece. According to the study, the availability and quality of meteorological stations are critical in controlling the risk of wildfire. Vulnerability of Greece to wildfires has prompted substantial investment in weather monitoring stations and technology [71,72]. These infrastructure upgrades have significantly improved wildfire management. Wildfire weather stations collect crucial weather data including temperature, humidity, wind speed and precipitation, which influence fire activity and help in impact assessment. Meteorological information is used in prediction models and warning systems to improve authority alertness and efficient resource deployment. Warnings that come early can help move future resources to the right places and better deploy evacuation plans [72,73]. It is also important to understand weather patterns in order to adapt to more frequent fires caused by climate change. By looking at these trends, land managers and policymakers can make informed decisions regarding prescribed burns, land use planning, and other climate change mitigation approaches [74,75]. Research shows the importance of public education regarding weather-related wildfire threats. Information about the weather can help explain why certain conditions raise fire risk and in turn raises awareness of the public [76]. Understanding this can make people follow fire bans and enhance fire safety [77]. Yet, managing customary and communal challenges to fire management outside of Western science continues to be a key hurdle. A lot of traditional practices hold a holistic view incorporating ecological aspects and spiritual ones, which conflict with Western science [78]. Traditional knowledge can be integrated into fire management through adaptive management strategies (from fire scientists). While this emplaces ownership over knowledge, there remain epistemological gaps through which misinterpretation can happen. According to a fire practitioner, failure to burn presents a cultural and ecological risk to Indigenous peoples [79]. Among the practices in this regard, prescribed fires that prevent fuel build-up from removing excess plant matter and debris is an important intervention to combat wildfire risk [73].

Prescribed burns reduce fuels and provide firebreaks to manage wildfires. The findings suggest prescribed burning may protect houses and communities from wildfires. This supports the hypothesis that managed burns may create defensible zones around homes to decrease wildfire damage [73]. It also safeguards cultural sites and infrastructure. Smoke from prescribed fires may impair human health and air quality. Research suggests careful design and adequate smoke control may ease these concerns. Involving communities in fire planning and providing them with early warning may help lessen public fears [74].

The research showed that growth constraints and spatial zoning rules significantly reduce wildfire risk. Land use planning may define residential, commercial, and industrial zones to provide defensible spaces and buffer zones that reduce wildfire risk [76]. Building laws and construction standards that require fire-resistant materials and designs may also boost wildfire resistance. The study underlines the need for land use planning to maintain wetlands, forests, and open spaces. Organic materials prevent wildfires by acting as firebreaks. Land use plans that prioritize these traits may prevent wildfires [77].

Effective land use planning includes building and maintaining road networks and escape routes for wildfire evacuation. Well-planned road networks reduce traffic congestion and enable quick evacuations, reducing deaths [78,79]. Megafires are changing fire management; hence, traditional fire management is being considered as a solution. This study indicates that the mosaic burning technique involved in fire management can help biodiversity and enable the rebirth of fire-adapted species and the resilience of ecosystems. Mosaic burning may also reduce fuel loads by lighting small, controlled fires to stop larger, uncontrollable wildfires [80,81,82]. It has been demonstrated that mosaic burning reduces the threat posed by wildfires. In addition, it is culturally important for Indigenous communities. It may bring about more cooperation between locals and authorities if these cultural practices are included in fire management strategies [15]. Furthermore, a campaign for prescribed burning or information campaign on fire ecology can help alter public perception and gain public support [18]. This does not dismiss the need for more studies in order to ascertain whether traditional fire suppression strategies are actually ineffective and the mechanisms of traditional knowledge of fire management have been integrated, or whether larger ontological shifts that recognize traditional ecological knowledge as valuable in climate change are under way.

6. Conclusions

This study provided insights into the perceptions of traditional fire management practices in Greece. It suggests that these practices, when reintegrated with modern fire management techniques, may contribute to a more resilient wildfire mitigation strategy. Fire management is extremely critical, given its devastating consequences on the environment, economy and society. This study shows that previous fire management techniques have contributed to the mitigation of fire hazards; however, we still do not know enough about their use in Greece. Researchers support that weather monitoring plays a key role in the prediction and prevention of forest fires. Furthermore, timely early warnings are necessary for quick firefighting efforts. The study reveals that, equally, prescribed burns help mitigate the intensity or frequency of wildfires. In addition, proper land use planning such as zoning and fire-safe practices contribute to creating defensible spaces which assist in mitigating wildfire risk. The information backs up the idea that land use planning helps prevent wildfires. Local and regional planning has improved on this ground. Moreover, the technique of mosaic burning can be useful for conserving biodiversity as well as reducing fuel load. Hence, the particular technique has similar potential; however, it does not have a significant impact on wildfire risk. It should be kept in mind that the survey was not designed to judge whether these methods are effective but to assess perceptions of them in public. It is important to differentiate between perception and effectiveness so that people do not confuse the two. The Mediterranean region has a rich tradition in fire management. It is proposed by researchers that the fire management history of Greece needs to be closely examined. This will allow us to understand how these methods were implemented in the past. It will also help us see how modern practices might be able to revive these techniques. Further investigation regarding Greek fire management is needed in order to fully understand how ancient techniques and modern methods can come together. The findings also indicate that public policies in Greece can be advanced by using these techniques systematically. Suggestions for enhancing policies would include integration of prescribed land burning in planning, law amendments for rendering dealing with wildfires more effective and cross-border cooperation for exchange of knowledge. Additionally, field studies and spatial modeling should be undertaken to better understand how traditional knowledge and modern fire science interact, particularly in the context of climate change. As the Greek—and Mediterranean—context is envisaged in the same place, the current study would contribute to that analysis in respect of their usage. Thereby, further investigations within the context of those fire management practices are encouraged in order to internalize climate change wildfires.

6.1. Contribution of the Study

This research helps to understand how Greeks practiced fire management in the past as well as how they practice it at present. By looking into public perception of understandings between traditional thinking and modern day ideas, it underscores the necessity of integrating traditional knowledge into modern fire management methods. Greece resorts to public policies that use extreme methods to contain wildfires; nevertheless, common traditional ways are just as effective if not more so in stopping these dangerous fires and are deemed vital due to climate change. This study helps to improve the literature on Mediterranean fire control by structuralizing traditional practicalities into an advanced management program.

6.2. Recommendations of the Study

The study emphasized weather monitoring significance in reducing wildfire risk. It is advised that Greece make investments in cutting-edge early warning systems and weather monitoring systems. This could help save lives and property by improving the ability of authorities to anticipate and prepare for wildfire outbreaks.

It is equally important to create educational initiatives and public awareness campaigns in order to educate locals about the dangers of wildfires, the methods of their prevention, and area evacuation measures. Through preventive actions, communities and people can lessen their vulnerability to wildfires.

Ensuring that solutions for mitigating wildfire risk are included in more comprehensive environmental and climate policy is imperative. A comprehensive and successful method for managing wildfires requires cooperation among many government agencies, research institutions, indigenous tribes, and non-governmental groups.

6.3. Area for Future Research

Given the increasing impact of climate change on wildfire frequency and intensity, future research could investigate how traditional fire management practices adapt to changing climate conditions. This can help identify necessary adjustments and innovations in these practices.