Next Article in Journal
Situational Awareness for Oil Storage Tank Accidents Based on Complex Networks and Evidence Theory
Previous Article in Journal
A Burning Intensity Gradient Modifies Sensitive Soil Properties Depending on Sampled Soil Depth and the Time Since Fire
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 8
Issue 9
10.3390/fire8090352
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Green Firebreaks: Potential to Proactively Complement Wildfire Management

by
Jady D. Smith
1,*,
Francis E. Putz
1,2 and
Sam Van Holsbeeck
1
1
Forest Research Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs, QLD 4556, Australia
2
Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32641, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fire 2025, 8(9), 352; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8090352
Submission received: 18 July 2025 / Revised: 26 August 2025 / Accepted: 29 August 2025 / Published: 4 September 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

Green Firebreaks (GFBs), strips of strategically placed low-flammability vegetation, represent a proactive complement to other approaches to wildfire management. This review, which summarises the literature to elucidate GFBs’ potential to reduce fire spread and intensity, revealed that empirical studies validating their effectiveness remain scarce. It also revealed that comparisons of GFB techniques are challenging due to spatial and temporal complexity combined with inconsistent methods and terminology. Several researchers note that GFB effectiveness requires that their design is appropriate for the site conditions. Furthermore, GFBs are not a stand-alone solution to the wildfire problem, and a lack of consideration for trade-offs may undermine their effectiveness, particularly under extreme weather conditions. As climate change intensifies drought and heat, vegetation moisture content must be a key design factor given that even low-flammability vegetation becomes fuel under extreme drought conditions. In addition, poorly designed GFBs may unintentionally alter wind dynamics and increase ember transport and fire spread. There is a broad consensus in the literature that appropriately designed GFBs can complement wildfire management while providing additional biodiversity and other benefits. To achieve their potential, research is required for GFB designs to be site-specific, responsive to trade-offs, and effective in providing multiple benefits under different climate change scenarios.

1. Introduction

Climate change, particularly the warming and drying trends, is increasing fire weather and fire season length [1,2,3]. While fires play important ecological roles [4], ecosystem alterations induced by people often increase fire in the landscape [5], and the urban sprawl into fire-prone areas increases disaster risk [6]. Emergency management seeks to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters [7], including wildfires, which are considered any unplanned fires in wildland areas [8]. Wildfire management historically relied on proactive approaches, including cultural and prescribed burns, but reactive firefighting approaches have recently received more attention and investment [9,10,11]. Given the intensification of fire weather and legacy challenges in fuel management, current wildfire response strategies may be inadequate for future large-scale fire events [12,13]. There is growing recognition of the need to shift from a predominantly reactive firefighting model toward more ecological and proactive wildfire management approaches [14,15].
Contemporary wildfire management is about finding a balance between protection of people and ecosystems [16], with all management interventions involving complex trade-offs that are difficult to comprehend [17]. Clearing vegetation in fuel breaks, for example, alters ecosystems and affects biodiversity, aesthetics, property values, and privacy [18] while incurring high maintenance costs, disturbing soils, and increasing the risk of soil erosion [19,20,21]. The use of controlled burns for fuel reduction has a rich history [22,23] but requires stakeholder coordination and responsiveness to biodiversity and carbon emission concerns [24,25] and is constrained by weather, financial costs, and risks [26]. The socio-political influences on wildfire management seem biased towards firebreak clearing [27] with less emphasis on proactive options. With predictions for hotter, drier conditions, GFBs can reduce the risks associated with controlled burns, thereby representing a more integrated and proactive approach to wildfire management. Wildfire-resilient landscaping [28], living barriers [29], and the protection of riparian vegetation and rainforests are alternatives to clearing firebreaks [30]. What seems needed is the systemic [31,32] and strategic integration [33,34] of existing, innovative, and alternative proactive approaches to complement reactive approaches to wildfire management [35] that include a range of nature-based [36] strategies including GFBs.
Promoting bands of low-flammability vegetation as GFBs reduces fuel continuity and wildfire risks while enhancing landscape heterogeneity [37,38,39,40]. This paper reviews the literature on GFBs starting with those that have been implemented in China for over seventy years [41]. This review emphasises the role of GFBs in complementing other approaches to wildfire management, especially in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), which is a high priority [42] due to increased vulnerability resulting from the poor land-use planning that allowed development in fire-prone areas [43,44]. The goal of this review is to explore the potential for GFBs to complement other approaches to wildfire management and also provide additional benefits such as protecting food systems [45], improving air quality [46], and enhancing biodiversity and carbon storage [47]. This review provides an overview of key GFB considerations for wildfire practitioners and decision makers, particularly those considering proactive options to complement existing wildfire management practices.

2. Materials and Methods

This review of GFBs is based on peer-reviewed research, reviews, and case studies from open-source publications between 2004 and 2024, as revealed by searches with Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar. The literature search initially focused on the keywords Green Firebreaks, Green Fire Barriers, and Wildfire, which were combined using AND and OR search combinations. The initial review of titles and abstracts identified few key publications, so search terms were broadened to include Green Barriers and Green Fuel Breaks. We also cross-checked citations in the identified literature to capture other relevant papers. Given the increased wildfire vulnerability of WUIs around the world, this setting was the primary focus, but, given the limited literature, all settings were included.

3. Results

GFBs represent a fuel management approach that typically involves the strategic placement of less flammable species [48,49,50,51,52,53], ecosystems [54,55,56], or land uses [45,57,58] to reduce fire spread and increase suppressibility. Rather than removing vegetation entirely, low-flammability GFB vegetation produces fuel discontinuities [59].
The 22 identified publications display the diversity of GFB approaches relevant to wildfire management as implemented in eight countries across four continents (Table 1). In general, GFBs are considered a complementary rather than a stand-alone approach to wildfire management. The literature builds on and extends existing wildfire research, comprising ten literature reviews (L), ten field studies (F), and two studies that used simulation modelling (M). There is substantial overlap in the focus of these studies, with 14 of the 22 focusing on the flammability of different species and 16 of the 22 focusing on fire behaviour and ecology in both rural and urban settings.
GFBs are generally considered a fuel management approach designed to contribute to the development of fire-resistant landscapes [47]. The GFB literature emphasises strips of low-flammability species planted at strategic locations to reduce fire spread, extinguish embers, or block radiant heat [45,46]. There is emphasis on the strategic placement of GFBs to decrease fire spread and enhance suppressibility [54,56]. GFBs can take diverse forms, including ecosystems dominated by less fire-prone vegetation [49], linear plantings of low-ignitability species such as Cupressus sempervirens [55,57], low-flammability crops [58,63], and even ornamental gardens [49,53]. China is a global GFB leader, with 364,000 km planted for low-cost and biodiversity-friendly wildfire management [41]. The GFB literature identifies specific considerations around flammability, fire behaviour, and ecology, which are outlined below.

3.1. Flammability

Much of the reviewed GFB literature identifies vegetation and species flammability as key considerations [48,50,61]. GFB research has focused on 1 variety of Cupressus sempervirens [57], 2 ornamental species [53], 47 mixed species [63], 60 native species [50], and 66 agricultural crops [58]. The literature draws on a larger pool of existing flammability research on fuel loads [45], rates of spread, ignitability [49], flammability values [48], critical heat flux [52], consumability [52], a combustion index [54], and ember production [45]. A leaf flammability index was also used to rank species [50].
Flammability is a highly complex trait influenced by multiple factors, including timing. The literature highlights the role of temporal variables, such as time to ignition [48], ignition duration, and fire frequency [53]. In some cases, ignition timing was prioritised over combustion intensity in flammability classifications. For example, two ornamental species were classified as weakly flammable due to their slow ignition times, despite exhibiting high combustion intensity [53]. For agricultural species, flammability predictors include maximum temperature, burn time, biomass, and specific leaf traits [58]. In the context of GFBs, key indicators include both physical properties such as moisture content and total aboveground biomass and chemical properties such as the emission of volatile organic compounds [52]. A case in point is C. sempervirens, a Mediterranean species noted for its low flammability, high leaf moisture content, compact growth habit, and low biomass [55]. However, the literature also notes trade-offs among flammability traits, which may influence the effectiveness of GFB. For example, species with leaves that ignite slowly may sustain combustion for longer periods, whereas those that ignite quickly often burn faster [50].
Appropriate species for GFBs are described in the literature as needing to meet changing ecological, silvicultural, and economic requirements [41], with plantings responsive to reduced flammability traits, topography, and changing climatic conditions [47]. Across the literature, fuel moisture content is consistently highlighted as a key factor influencing flammability [48]. Species with a low moisture content and rapid moisture loss are generally considered unsuitable for GFBs [49,56,63]. However, under extreme conditions, even typically low-flammability vegetation can become combustible [41], an observation worthy of further empirical research [45].

3.2. Fire Behaviour Mechanisms

Wildfire behaviour, particularly fire spread, is reduced by GFBs of the appropriate design, species selection, installation, and management [56]. In the Canary Islands, for example, there is emphasis on site planning for GFBd [54]. Similarly, PHOENIX RapidFire simulations from Australia indicate that GFBs can reduce wildfire risks in low-to-moderate fuel areas, but their effectiveness requires location-specific designs that consider climate, landscape contexts, and asset locations [47]. GFB siting should reflect the effects of topography and associated winds on fire behaviour to alter fuel continuity, block wind, absorb heat, and stop flames [41]. Researchers note that vegetation adjustments can result in reduced wind and evaporation that promote fire resistance [64], and it is not just about species, as a mosaic or mix of less flammable crops may serve as GFBs [63]. While closed canopies foster less flammable understories, some canopy species are more flammable and burn hotter for longer and more completely than some groundcover and shrub species [56]. The manipulation of understory species composition can also reduce overall flammability but can affect forest density. Dense plantings can inadvertently increase wind speeds and thereby enhance ember transport [41], thus presenting a potential trade-off.
Given that fires burn faster uphill than downhill and that valleys can funnel winds, GFBs may work best on steep slopes and in narrow valleys [56], as well as on the tops and at the bottoms of ravines [54]. For example, GFBs with C. sempervirens in the Mediterranean utilise linear plantations with staggered spacing to create a dense screen effect in strategic locations such as valleys, ravines, and WUIs [55]. Low-flammability species can be planted in multiple rows [57] with different heights [49] to build up vegetation structures that reduce fire spread [46] by creating horizontal and vertical fuel discontinuities [48,55]. Recommended distances between rows of dense vegetation range from 2–25 m [46,49] to 60 m and even as far as embers blow [41].

3.3. Ecological Considerations and Co-Benefits

Field research on GFBs across 21 WUI sites near Shanghai, China, documents the fire resistance of plant communities [64]. Similarly, a fire-resilient forest landscape design in Portugal incorporates the use of GFBs [61]. GFBs are reportedly also created through the manipulation of forest stands with cooler and moister understory microclimates, which decrease flammability by reducing surface fuels and understory branches [56]. GFBs in the Canary Islands intercept fog, thereby enhancing their effectiveness as firebreaks and contributing to local hydrology [59]. The effectiveness of GFBs in slowing or stopping fire spread is also influenced by soil microorganisms and fungi [41] that promote rapid decomposition, thereby reducing fuel loads [65].
While wildfire management is the priority, GFBs can also have numerous other ecological, silvicultural, and economic effects [41], such as non-fire benefits for soil conservation [54], agriculture [58], air quality [46], and biodiversity [47,49,52]. Compared to other fuel treatments in China, GFBs with evergreen broad-leaved trees offer long-term ecological and environmental benefits by maintaining fire-resistant landscapes that enhance forest health, promote biodiversity, and reduce firefighting costs [56]. Research in Australia, using a Bayesian Network (BN) analysis combined with fire simulations on the PHOENIX RapidFire platform, showed that GFBs can increase biodiversity and carbon storage without substantially increasing fire risks, but these results await field tests [47].
The diverse approaches to GFBs described in the literature indicate substantial complexity but often a lack of empirical data [45] with insufficient attention to trade-offs. A comparison of different ecological techniques for forest fire prevention, which included dense plantings, in contrast, reported no trade-offs [56]. Another paper specifically noted concerns that dense vegetation increases wind speeds and ember dispersal and also raised concerns that under the right conditions any vegetation can become fuel [41]. Most GFB research identifies their potential to complement other wildfire management approaches, potentially reducing wildfire spread and intensity while providing co-benefits [47].

4. Discussion

Wildfires are natural hazards that are often not considered disasters until they affect people and infrastructure [66]. The reactive bias in disaster management and overreliance on fire suppression may defer wildfire risks [67] but render them too intense to suppress when they do occur [68,69]. Within this context, there are growing concerns about the effectiveness of wildfire management and calls for innovation [12], including increased investment in proactive approaches [15]. People are especially vulnerable to wildfires in the WUI [70], where there are constraints on prescribed burning and clearing. In this context, a growing pool of literature identifies GFBs as a proactive approach to complement wildfire mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery.

4.1. Wildfire Mitigation

GFBs utilise less-flammable species, ecosystems, and land uses to mitigate wildfires by altering the continuity of fuel [45,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. The WUI is noted as being vulnerable to wildfire [71], including a growing risk of infrastructure loss [72]. Strategic siting of GFBs can reduce fire spread and support fire suppression [49,61], providing living barriers with increased shade and moisture that reduces radiant heat and the likelihood of ember ignition. As an innovative and emerging strategy for wildfire management [5], there is a growing body of guides, reports, and policies about GFBs [73,74,75,76]. Alarmingly, like the academic literature, this grey literature often overlooks the potential trade-offs associated with GFBs. Relying solely on lists of low-flammability species, without accounting for spatial layout, topography, and seasonal fire risk, may create a false sense of security about GFB effectiveness. In addition, the literature also emphasises that selecting species for low flammability may carry unintended trade-offs, as these traits are also influenced by environmental variables [77]. Under climate change scenarios, droughts are predicted to increase [78], which will alter flammability [79], so maintaining water for GFBs is an important consideration to ensure they enhance wildfire mitigation and prevent vegetation from becoming fuel [41,65].

4.2. Wildfire Preparation

Community preparation through the establishment and management of GFBs in the WUI can mitigate wildfire risks and strengthen engagement in wildfire management where it is typically limited [80]. While poor urban planning has induced increased wildfire risks [43], green and adaptive designs [81], including GFBs, could reduce those risks, helping communities be better prepared. Providing options may better support responsiveness to different preferences for wildfire management between emergency responders and homeowners [82]. For example, while firebreak clearing and controlled burns may receive limited community support [27], GFBs may be preferred because they promote biodiversity and landscape values that attract people [30] while still complementing the embedded reactive responses [83]. In any event, GFBs can build community engagement in urban revegetation, where revegetation managers work with fire managers [47].

4.3. Wildfire Response

As wildfires become larger and more intense, the effectiveness and timeliness of existing response tools, including evacuation and shelter-in-place strategies, are increasingly being questioned [12,84]. The current emphasis on reactive disaster cycles of response and recovery [83] may be more effective with investments in mitigation [11]. Landscapes with intentional planning, placement, and maintenance of GFBs can alter fire behaviour and reduce fire spread [46] by establishing networks of firebreaks that reflect species traits, site-specific considerations, and protection priorities [55]. In areas already vulnerable to wildfires, the choice often lies between choosing to retreat from high-risk zones or invest in effective wildfire management strategies [85]. Although GFBs are not suitable in all settings, they can extend the window for wildfire response by delaying fire spread, intensity, and ember attack [47]. In appropriate settings, GFBs can be part of a more integrated approach to wildfire management, like the way FireSmart work in Europe builds on various strengths and weaknesses [29]. In this context, GFBs provide a proactive, nature-based option that, while not a stand-alone solution, can support existing wildfire response systems.

4.4. Wildfire Recovery

Just as anthropogenic drivers such as climate change, land use, and invasive species can create fire-prone novel ecosystems [5], GFBs can engage people in the process of modifying ecosystems to become less fire-prone [44] and hazard resilient [86]. The GFB approach represents an opportunity to promote recovery through ecological communities by creating microclimates that support wildlife and deliver soil benefits that contribute to reduced flammability [56]. They may also offer fire refugia [76] and serve as drought refuges, enhancing biodiversity resilience [87] and carbon storage [46,47]. In addition to the ecological benefits, GFBs can support a productive landscape through the integration of low-flammability crops [58,63] and place-based strategies that connect people, land use, and biodiversity [5]. Ecosystem-based GFB approaches to wildfire management may be a fire-regulating ecosystem service, a concept rarely considered in the wildfire literature [88] but one with the potential to enhance wildfire recovery and coexistence.

4.5. Limitations and Knowledge Gaps

This review reveals that existing literature suffers from a lack of empirical evidence [45], and the existing body of evidence largely depends on small- and medium-scale field studies (11 out of 22), with a paucity of large-scale empirical research. Research on GFBs will benefit from consistency in terminology and clarity about important concepts such flammability, with standardised measurement protocols needed for comparisons across species and regions [45]. Promoting a shared understanding of and responsibility for managing landscapes in ways that better prepare for and reduce wildfire risk is critical [89], but few studies have examined socio-economic factors, including cost effectiveness and community acceptance of GFBs. Furthermore, the limited consideration of potential trade-offs associated with GFBs [41] raises concerns around the performance of the proposed approach under predicted extreme climatic conditions. While limitations are acknowledged, the existing literature does offer insights into the potential for GFBs to complement other approaches to wildfire management, but more research is needed.

4.6. Future Research Directions

Looking ahead, there may also be opportunities to integrate GFB actions with relevant proactive strategies for Cascading Hazards [90] and Urban Heat Islands [91] through Green Infrastructure [92] and adaptive water management [93], enhancing recovery and resilience. As a more integrated approach to wildfire mitigation in the WUI, GFBs can make use of urban wastewater for irrigation [94,95,96], potentially reducing drought intensity and fire risks while promoting water reuse and a multitude of co-benefits. Strategically placed GFBs may also support landscape heterogeneity, which in turn supports wildfire management.

5. Conclusions

Wildfires are complex hazards that call for a range of solutions. In the face of increasingly intense wildfires and the reduced capacity to suppress them, it is time to overcome reactionary biases. This paper reviewed the literature on GFBs as a proactive wildfire management option and identified their site-specific potential to enhance wildfire mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. With many variables influencing the appropriate design and location for GFBs so that they complement other approaches to wildfire management, combined with the lack of empirical evidence for their effectiveness and potential for trade-offs, a precautionary approach is recommended. Well-designed GFBs increase fuel discontinuities and thereby reduce fire spread and intensity while enhancing community engagement, biodiversity, and carbon storage. In contrast, poorly designed GFBs can have negative impacts, but the literature offers few insights into the potential trade-offs.
Wildfire managers need to plan for the hotter, drier conditions under which GFBs can reduce fireline intensity and rates of spread, thereby supporting suppression efforts. GFBs can also provide moisture barriers for prescribed burns. While structural vegetation changes may reduce wind speed, inadequate attention to water availability could undermine GFB performance under future climate conditions. Irrigating GFBs may strengthen their effectiveness in complementing wildfire management. For the vulnerable WUIs, irrigated GFBs may be a strategic wildfire management option where urban reuse water is available.
We conclude from our literature review that GFB designs will be enhanced by acknowledging and mitigating their trade-offs while considering spatial, temporal, and socio-ecological conditions, including societal preferences. While not suitable in all settings, GFBs could play strategic roles in integrated mosaics of wildfire management, offering both direct and indirect benefits for the present and the future. Despite the growing need for proactive wildfire management approaches, a lack of robust empirical evidence, combined with reactionary bias, may limit the use of GFBs. This paper is a call for the scientific community to contribute case studies and controlled experiments to increase our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of proactive approaches to wildfire management, including GFBs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, validation, investigation, resources, data curation, and original draft preparation, J.D.S.; writing—review and editing, visualization, supervision, and project administration, J.D.S., F.E.P., and S.V.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The lead author’s PhD studies were supported by scholarships from the University of the Sunshine Coast and Natural Hazards Research Australia.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the past, present, and emerging traditional owners’ knowledge and proactive management of Country, as well as the important traditional and scientific work that we seek to build upon. We also extend our gratitude to our research colleagues and peers for their ongoing support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abram, N.J.; Henley, B.J.; Gupta, A.S.; Lippmann, T.J.R.; Clarke, H.; Dowdy, A.J.; Sharples, J.J.; Nolan, R.H.; Zhang, T.; Wooster, M.J.; et al. Connections of climate change and variability to large and extreme forest fires in southeast Australia. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Harvey, B.J. Changing wildfire, changing forests: The effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Fire Ecol. 2020, 16, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jan Van Oldenborgh, G.; Krikken, F.; Lewis, S.; Leach, N.J.; Lehner, F.; Saunders, K.R.; Van Weele, M.; Haustein, K.; Li, S.; Wallom, D.; et al. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 21, 941–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Whelan, R.J. The Ecology of Fire; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kelly, L.T.; Giljohann, K.M.; Duane, A.; Aquilué, N.; Archibald, S.; Batllori, E.; Bennett, A.F.; Buckland, S.T.; Canelles, Q.; Clarke, M.F.; et al. Fire and biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Science 2020, 370, eabb0355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gonzalez-Mathiesen, C.; Ruane, S.; March, A. Integrating wildfire risk management and spatial planning—A historical review of two Australian planning systems. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 53, 101984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Suarez, D.; Gómez, C.; Medaglia, A.; Akhavan-Tabatabaei, R.; Grajales, S. Integrated Decision Support for Disaster Risk Management: Aiding Preparedness and Response Decisions in Wildfire Management. Inf.—Inf. Syst. Res. 2024, 35, 609–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tedim, F.; Leone, V. The Dilemma of Wildfire Definition: What It Reveals and What It Implies. Front. For. Glob. Change 2020, 3, 553116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pyne, S.J. World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth; University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gammage, B. The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines made Australia; Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. ApC. Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report; Productivity Commission, Ed.; Australian Government Canberra: Canberra, Australia, 2015; Volume 1–2.
  12. Nolan, R.H.; Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Clarke, H.; Haynes, K.; Ooi, M.K.J.; Price, O.F.; Williamson, G.J.; Whittaker, J.; Bedward, M.; Boer, M.M.; et al. What Do the Australian Black Summer Fires Signify for the Global Fire Crisis? Fire 2021, 4, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Collins, K.M.; Price, O.F.; Penman, T.D. Suppression resource decisions are the dominant influence on containment of Australian forest and grass fires. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 228, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ingalsbee, T. Whither the paradigm shift? Large wildland fires and the wildfire paradox offer opportunities for a new paradigm of ecological fire management. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2017, 26, 557–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lacey, L.M.; Suraci, J.P.; Littlefield, C.E.; Busse, B.S.; Dickson, B.G. Informing proactive wildfire management that benefits vulnerable communities and ecological values. People Nat. 2024, 7, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Moritz, M.A.; Batllori, E.; Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M.; Handmer, J.; Hessburg, P.F.; Leonard, J.; McCaffrey, S.; Odion, D.C.; Schoennagel, T.; et al. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 2014, 515, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hamilton, M.; Salerno, J.; Fischer, A. Cognition of complexity and trade-offs in a wildfire-prone social-ecological system. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 125017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gibbons, P.; Gill, A.M.; Shore, N.; Moritz, M.A.; Dovers, S.; Cary, G.J. Options for reducing house-losses during wildfires without clearing trees and shrubs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 174, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Venn, T.J.; Quiggin, J. Early evacuation is the best bushfire risk mitigation strategy for south-eastern Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2017, 61, 481–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saco, P.M.; McDonough, K.R.; Rodriguez, J.F.; Rivera-Zayas, J.; Sandi, S.G. The role of soils in the regulation of hazards and extreme events. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2021, 376, 20200178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. DETSI. Science Notes: Erosion Control on Fences and Firebreaks; Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation, Ed.; Queensland Government: Brisbane, Australia, 2018.
  22. Smith, W.; Neale, T.; Weir, J.K. Persuasion without policies: The work of reviving Indigenous peoples’ fire management in southern Australia. Geoforum 2021, 120, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Morgan, G.W.; Tolhurst, K.G.; Poynter, M.W.; Cooper, N.; McGuffog, T.; Ryan, R.; Wouters, M.A.; Stephens, N.; Black, P.; Sheehan, D.; et al. Prescribed burning in south-eastern Australia: History and future directions. Aust. For. 2020, 83, 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Altangerel, K.; Kull, C.A. The prescribed burning debate in Australia: Conflicts and compatibilities. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Florec, V.; Burton, M.; Pannell, D.; Kelso, J.; Milne, G. Where to prescribe burn: The costs and benefits of prescribed burning close to houses. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2020, 29, 440–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bowman, D.M.J.S. Explainer: Back burning and fuel reduction. The Conversation, 8 August 2014; Volume 38. [Google Scholar]
  27. Thapa, S.B.; Jenkins, J.S.; Westerling, A.L. Perceptions of wildfire management practices in a California wildland-urban interface. Environ. Adv. 2023, 12, 100382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Blanchi, R.; Warren, G.; Opie, K.; Leonard, J.; March, A.; Holland, M.; Ollington, B. Best Practice Design for Building in Bushfire Prone areas in Victoria; CSIRO, Ed.; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2021; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  29. Regos, A.; Campos, J.; Lecina-Diaz, J.; Pais, S.; Sil, Â.; Cánibe, M.; Freitas, T.R.; Aquilué, N.; Gonçalves, J.; Carvalho-Santos, C.; et al. FirESmart—Nature-Based Solutions for Preventive Fire Management and Sustained Supply of Ecosystem Services. Final Report; CIBIO Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources: Vairão, Portugal, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ingalsbee, T. After the Greenfire Revolution: Reimagining Collective Identities of the Future Wildland Fire Workforce in a Paradigm Shift for Ecological Fire Management. Fire 2024, 7, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thompson, M.P.; MacGregor, D.G.; Dunn, C.J.; Calkin, D.E.; Phipps, J. Rethinking the Wildland Fire Management System. J. For. 2018, 116, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kirschner, J.A.; Clark, J.; Boustras, G. Governing wildfires: Toward a systematic analytical framework. Ecol. Soc. 2023, 28, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Metlen, K.; Fairbanks, T.; Bennett, M.; Volpe, J.; Kuhn, B.; Thompson, M.; Thrailkill, J.; Schindel, M.; Helmbrecht, D.S.; Borgias, D. Integrating forest restoration, adaptation and proactive fire management: Rogue River Basin case study. Can. J. For. Res. 2021, 51, 1292–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oliveras Menor, I.; Prat-Guitart, N.; Spadoni, G.L.; Hsu, A.; Fernandes, P.M.; Puig-Gironès, R.; Ascoli, D.; Bilbao, B.A.; Bacciu, V.; Brotons, L.; et al. Integrated fire management as an adaptation and mitigation strategy to altered fire regimes. Commun. Earth Environ. 2025, 6, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Penman, T.D.; Collins, L.; Price, O.F.; Bradstock, R.A.; Metcalf, S.; Chong, D.M.O. Examining the relative effects of fire weather, suppression and fuel treatment on fire behaviour—A simulation study. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 131, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Herbert, C.; Butsic, V. Assessing the Effectiveness of Green Landscape Buffers to Reduce Fire Severity and Limit Fire Spread in California: Case Study of Golf Courses. Fire 2022, 5, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hand, M.S.; Thompson, M.P.; Calkin, D.E. Examining heterogeneity and wildfire management expenditures using spatially and temporally descriptive data. J. For. Econ. 2016, 22, 80–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Burrows, N.; Stephens, C.; Wills, A.; Densmore, V. Fire mosaics in south-west Australian forest landscapes. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2021, 30, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Murray, B.R.; Hawthorne, T.; Curran, T.J.; Krix, D.W.; Wallace, M.I.; Young, K.; Murray, M.L.; Morley, E.; Huber-Smith, N.; Webb, J.K. Shoot flammability patterns among plant species of the wildland–urban interface in the fire-prone Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2023, 32, 1119–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Calviño-Cancela, M.; Chas-Amil, M.L.; García-Martínez, E.D.; Touza, J. Wildfire risk associated with different vegetation types within and outside wildland-urban interfaces. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 372, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cui, X.; Alam, M.A.; Perry, G.L.W.; Paterson, A.M.; Wyse, S.V.; Curran, T.J. Green firebreaks as a management tool for wildfires: Lessons from China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mell, W.E.; Manzello, S.L.; Maranghides, A.; Butry, D.; Rehm, R.G. The wildland-urban interface fire problem—Current approaches and research needs. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2010, 19, 238–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lohm, D.; Davis, M. Between bushfire risk and love of environment: Preparedness, precariousness and survival in the narratives of urban fringe dwellers in Australia. Health Risk Soc. 2015, 17, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cova, T.J. Public Safety in the Urban–Wildland Interface: Should Fire-Prone Communities Have a Maximum Occupancy? Nat. Hazards Rev. 2005, 6, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Curran, T.J.; Perry, G.L.W.; Wyse, S.V.; Alam, M.A. Managing fire and biodiversity in the wildland-urban interface: A role for green firebreaks. Fire 2018, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Daniels, L.D.; Johnston, F.H.; Williamson, G.J.; Jolly, W.M.; Magzamen, S.; Rappold, A.G.; Brauer, M.; Henderson, S.B. Can Air Quality Management Drive Sustainable Fuels Management at the Temperate Wildland–Urban Interface? Fire 2018, 1, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Marshall, E.; Holyland, B.; Parkins, K.; Raulings, E.; Good, M.K.; Swan, M.; Bennett, L.T.; Penman, T.D. Can green firebreaks help balance biodiversity, carbon storage and wildfire risk? J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 369, 122183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Batista, A.C.; Biondi, D.; França, A.; Tetto, R.d.A.; Tres, A.; Costa, R.; Travenisk, C.; Kovalsyki, B. Evaluation of the flammability of trees and shrubs used in the implementation of green barriers in southern Brazil. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Climate Change and Wildfires, Mexico City, Mexico, 5–11 November 2012; Volume 245, pp. 256–264. [Google Scholar]
  49. Murray, B.R.; Martin, L.J.; Brown, C.; Krix, D.W.; Phillips, M.L. Selecting Low-Flammability Plants as Green Firebreaks within Sustainable Urban Garden Design. Fire 2018, 1, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Krix, D.W.; Phillips, M.L.; Murray, B.R. Relationships among leaf flammability attributes and identifying low-leaf-flammability species at the wildland-urban interface. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2019, 28, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Murray, B.R.; Brown, C.; Murray, M.L.; Krix, D.W.; Martin, L.J.; Hawthorne, T.; Wallace, M.I.; Potvin, S.A.; Webb, J.K.J.F. An Integrated Approach to Identify Low-Flammability Plant Species for Green Firebreaks. Fire 2020, 3, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Souza, M.L.A. Low Flammability Plants of the Cerrado for Green Fire Break. Biodivers. Bras. 2020, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lucas, F.; Kovalsyki, B.; Jacobs, R.; Tetto, A.; Batista, A. Flammability of urban ornamental species for use in green firebreaks. Biodiversidade Bras.—BioBrasil 2020, 10, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Santamarta-Cerezal, J.C.; Guzmán, J.; Neris, J.; Arraiza, M.P.; Ioraș, F. Forest Hydrology, Soil Conservation and Green Barriers in Canary Islands. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2012, 40, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Della Rocca, G.; Danti, R.; Raddi, P.; Moya, B.; Moya, J. Implementation of the «cypress system» as a green firewall. Project CypFire. Forêt Méditerranéenne 2014, 35, 275–280. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang, H.H.; Finney, M.A.; Song, Z.L.; Wang, Z.S.; Li, X.C. Ecological techniques for wildfire mitigation: Two distinct fuelbreak approaches and their fusion. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 495, 119376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Della Rocca, G.; Hernando, C.; Madrigal, J.; Danti, R.; Moya, J.; Guijarro, M.; Pecchioli, A.; Moya, B. Possible land management uses of common cypress to reduce wildfire initiation risk: A laboratory study. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 159, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pacheco, A.S.; Goodman, H.D.; Hankenson, L.; Fisk, J.J.; Ortiz, A.; Marinace, H.M.; Bischoff, E.A.; Holman, V.F.; Love, S.M.; Apgaua, D.M.G.; et al. Fighting Fire with Food: Assessing the Flammability of Crop Plant Species for Building Fire Resilient Agroforestry Systems; Research Square: Durham, NC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  59. Resco de Dios, V. Pyrophysiology and Wildfire Management; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  60. Vollmer, J.L. New Technology for Fuel Breaks and Green Strips in Urban Interface and Wildland Areas. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Wildland Firefighter Safety Summit—Human Factors—10 Years Later, Missoula, MT, USA, 26–28 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
  61. Chifa, D. The Design of Green Firebreaks in Portuguese Forest: A Case Study of Alferce, Monchique. Master’s Thesis, Eesti Maaülikool, Tartu, Estonia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, H.; Zhang, K.; Qin, Z.; Gao, W.; Wang, Z. Refining Ecological Techniques for Forest Fire Prevention and Evaluating Their Diverse Benefits. Fire 2024, 7, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pagadala, T.; Alam, M.A.; Maxwell, T.M.; Curran, T.J. Measuring flammability of crops, pastures, fruit trees, and weeds: A novel tool to fight wildfires in agricultural landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 906, 167489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yao, M.; Zhang, D.; Zhu, R.; Zhang, Z.; Elsadek, M. Predicting the Integrated Fire Resistance of Wildland–Urban Interface Plant Communities by Spatial Structure Analysis Learning for Shanghai, China. Forests 2024, 15, 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Grootemaat, S.; Wright, I.J.; van Bodegom, P.M.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Cornwell, W.K. Burn or rot: Leaf traits explain why flammability and decomposability are decoupled across species. Funct. Ecol. 2015, 29, 1486–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T.; Davis, I.; Wisner, B. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kreider, M.R.; Higuera, P.E.; Parks, S.A.; Rice, W.L.; White, N.; Larson, A.J. Fire suppression makes wildfires more severe and accentuates impacts of climate change and fuel accumulation. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wotton, B.M.; Flannigan, M.D.; Marshall, G.A. Potential climate change impacts on fire intensity and key wildfire suppression thresholds in Canada. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 095003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Plucinski, M. Review of Aerial Suppression Effectiveness Research Literature: Why Fly? How Do We Know That Aerial Firefighting Operations Are Effective and Efficient; Natural Hazards Research Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  70. Guo, Y.; Wang, J.; Ge, Y.; Zhou, C. Global expansion of wildland-urban interface intensifies human exposure to wildfire risk in the 21st century. Sci. Adv. 2024, 10, eado9587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mutch, R.W.; Rogers, M.J.; Stephens, S.L.; Gill, A.M. Protecting Lives and Property in the Wildland-Urban Interface: Communities in Montana and Southern California Adopt Australian Paradigm. Fire Technol. 2010, 47, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Naser, M.Z.; Kodur, V. Vulnerability of structures and infrastructure to wildfires: A perspective into assessment and mitigation strategies. Nat. Hazards 2025, 121, 9995–10015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lucas, C.; Williamson, G.; Bowman, D. Bushfire Preparedness and Risk Reduction in Hobart Pilot Study 2019 Final Report; University of Tasmania & Hobart City Council: Hobart, Australia, 2019; Available online: http://ecite.utas.edu.au/141045/ (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  74. CSIRO. Bushfire Resilient Building Guidance for Queensland Homes; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Brisbane, Australia, 2020. Available online: www.qra.qld.gov.au (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  75. Warnell, K.; Mason, S.; Siegle, A.; Merritt, M.; Olander, L. Green Firebreaks: A DOI Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap Fact Sheet; Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 2023; Available online: https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/project/nature-based-solutions-roadmap/strategy/doi-nbs-roadmap-strategy_green-firebreaks_fact-sheet.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  76. Maxwell, T.; Curran, T.; Carpenter, L.; Alam, A.; Pagadala, T.; Mason, N.; Wyse, S.; Perry, G.; Cui, X. Nature-based Solutions for Fire Suppression: Green firebreaks, low-flammability foods and planting fire micro-refugia. In Proceedings of the 9th International Fire Ecology and Management Congress, Virtual, 30 November–3 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  77. Krix, D.W.; Murray, B.R. Landscape variation in plant leaf flammability is driven by leaf traits responding to environmental gradients. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dai, A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat. Clim. Change 2013, 3, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Alessio, G.A.; Peñuelas, J.; De Lillis, M.; Llusià, J. Implications of foliar terpene content and hydration on leaf flammability of Quercus ilex and Pinus halepensis. Plant Biol. 2008, 10, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Copes-Gerbitz, K.; Dickson-Hoyle, S.; Ravensbergen, S.L.; Hagerman, S.M.; Daniels, L.D.; Coutu, J. Community Engagement With Proactive Wildfire Management in British Columbia, Canada: Perceptions, Preferences, and Barriers to Action. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 5, 829125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lambrou, N.; Kolden, C.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Anjum, E.; Acey, C. Social drivers of vulnerability to wildfire disasters: A review of the literature. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 237, 104797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. McCaffrey, S.; McGee, T.K.; Coughlan, M.; Tedim, F. 8—Understanding wildfire mitigation and preparedness in the context of extreme wildfires and disasters: Social science contributions to understanding human response to wildfire. In Extreme Wildfire Events and Disasters; Tedim, F., Leone, V., McGee, T.K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 155–174. [Google Scholar]
  83. Mourao, P.R.; Martinho, V.D. Forest fire legislation: Reactive or proactive? Ecol. Indic. 2019, 104, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. McCaffrey, S.; Rhodes, A.; Stidham, M. Wildfire evacuation and its alternatives: Perspectives from four United States’ communities. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. McConnell, K.; Koslov, L. Critically assessing the idea of wildfire managed retreat. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024, 19, 041005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Burby, R.J.; Deyle, R.E.; Godschalk, D.R.; Olshansky, R.B. Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2000, 1, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Driscoll, D.A.; Macdonald, K.J.; Gibson, R.K.; Doherty, T.S.; Nimmo, D.G.; Nolan, R.H.; Ritchie, E.G.; Williamson, G.J.; Heard, G.W.; Tasker, E.M.; et al. Biodiversity impacts of the 2019–2020 Australian megafires. Nature 2024, 635, 898–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Depietri, Y.; Orenstein, D.E. Fire-Regulating Services and Disservices With an Application to the Haifa-Carmel Region in Israel. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. McLennan, B.J.; Handmer, J. Reframing responsibility-sharing for bushfire risk management in Australia after Black Saturday. Environ. Hazards 2012, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kemter, M.; Fischer, M.; Luna, L.V.; Schönfeldt, E.; Vogel, J.; Banerjee, A.; Korup, O.; Thonicke, K. Cascading Hazards in the Aftermath of Australia’s 2019/2020 Black Summer Wildfires. Earth’s Future 2021, 9, e2020EF001884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yenneti, K.; Ding, L.; Prasad, D.; Ulpiani, G.; Paolini, R.; Haddad, S.; Santamouris, M. Urban Overheating and Cooling Potential in Australia: An Evidence-Based Review. Climate 2020, 8, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ying, J.; Xiaojing, Z.; Yiqi, Z.; and Bilan, S. Green infrastructure: Systematic literature review. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2022, 35, 343–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Gawne, B.; and Thompson, R. Adaptive water management in response to climate change: The case of the southern Murray-Darling Basin. Australas. J. Water Resour. 2023, 27, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lee, K.; Jepson, W. Drivers and barriers to urban water reuse: A systematic review. Water Secur. 2020, 11, 100073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chung, P.-W.; Livesley, S.J.; Rayner, J.P.; Farrell, C. Greywater irrigation can support climbing plant growth on building green façades. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Filali, H.; Barsan, N.; Souguir, D.; Nedeff, V.; Tomozei, C.; Hachicha, M. Greywater as an Alternative Solution for a Sustainable Management of Water Resources—A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Overview of the 22 papers on Green Firebreaks (GFBs) reviewed in this study ordered by year of publication. Each paper’s location and approach (F for field experiment, L for literature study, and M for modelling study) are summarised.
Table 1. Overview of the 22 papers on Green Firebreaks (GFBs) reviewed in this study ordered by year of publication. Each paper’s location and approach (F for field experiment, L for literature study, and M for modelling study) are summarised.
Year 2004–2024Title (Citation)LocationApproach (Field/Model/Literature)Species
Flammability		Fire Behaviour & Ecology
2005New technology for fuel breaks and green strips in urban interface and wildland areas [60]. USASXX
2012Forest hydrology, soil conservation and green barriers in Canary Islands [54].Canary
Islands, Spain 		LXX
2013Evaluation of the flammability of trees and shrubs used in the implementation of green barriers in Southern Brazil [48]BrazilFX
2014Implementation of the “cypress system” as a green firewall. Project CypFire [55].SpainF, LXX
2015Possible land management uses of common cypress to reduce wildfire initiation risk: a laboratory study [57].SpainFX
2018Managing fire and biodiversity in the Wildland Urban Interface: A role for Green Firebreaks [45].GlobalL X
2018Selecting low-flammability plants as Green Firebreaks within sustainable urban garden design [49]. AustraliaFX
2018Can air quality management drive sustainable fuels management at the temperate Wildland Urban Interface [46]? Australia & CanadaL X
2019Green Firebreaks as a management tool for wildfires: Lessons from China [41].ChinaLXX
2019Relationship among leaf flammability attributes and identifying low-leaf flammability species in the Wildland Urban Interface [50].AustraliaFX
2020An integrated approach to identify low-flammability plant species for Green Firebreaks [51].AustraliaFXX
2020Fire & biodiversity in the Anthropocene [5].Global—China L X
2020Pyrophysiology and wildfire management [59].EuropeL X
2020Low flammability plants of the Cerrado for Green Fire Break [52].BrazilFX
2021Flammability of urban ornamental species for use in Green Firebreaks [53].BrazilFX
2021Ecological techniques for wildfire mitigation: Two distinct fuelbreak approaches and their fusion. ChinaL X
2021The design of green firebreaks in Portuguese forest: a case study of Alferce, Monchique [61].Portugal L X
2022Fighting fire with food: Assessing the flammability of crop plant species for building fire resilient agro-forestry systems [58].AustraliaFXX
2024Refining ecological techniques for forest fire prevention and evaluating their diverse benefits [62].USA and China L X
2024Measuring flammability of crops, pastures, fruit trees, and weeds: A novel tool to fight wildfires in agricultural landscapes [63].New ZealandFXX
2024Predicting the integrated fire resistance of Wildland Urban Interface plant communities by spatial structure analysis for Shanghai, China [64].ChinaFXX
2024Can green firebreaks help balance biodiversity, carbon storage and wildfire risk [47]?AustraliaS X
Summary Twenty-two papers8 countries, 4 continentsF = 11
L = 10
M = 2		1416
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Smith, J.D.; Putz, F.E.; Van Holsbeeck, S. Green Firebreaks: Potential to Proactively Complement Wildfire Management. Fire 2025, 8, 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8090352

AMA Style

Smith JD, Putz FE, Van Holsbeeck S. Green Firebreaks: Potential to Proactively Complement Wildfire Management. Fire. 2025; 8(9):352. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8090352

Chicago/Turabian Style

Smith, Jady D., Francis E. Putz, and Sam Van Holsbeeck. 2025. "Green Firebreaks: Potential to Proactively Complement Wildfire Management" Fire 8, no. 9: 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8090352

APA Style

Smith, J. D., Putz, F. E., & Van Holsbeeck, S. (2025). Green Firebreaks: Potential to Proactively Complement Wildfire Management. Fire, 8(9), 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8090352

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop