Research

INTRODUCTION

Wildfire management faces increasingly challenging and uncertain conditions under global change. These challenges can be deemed a social-ecological pathology: interrelated social and ecological conditions that create adverse effects in coupled human and natural systems (Fischer et al. 2016). Some of these conditions leading to hazardous vegetation accumulation include practices of fire exclusion and suppression, often through prohibiting Indigenous fire management (Eriksen and Hankins 2014, Norgaard 2014), a lack of land management activities due to the exodus of rural populations (Viedma et al. 2015, Chergui et al. 2018), and a warming climate that exacerbates drought conditions and affects plant succession dynamics (Brotons et al. 2013). Further, human population changes such as increased urban development in forested areas and the emergence of new social values related to land use (for conservation, tourism and recreation, declining agricultural and forestry activities) have resulted in increasing global wildfire risk (Fischer et al. 2016).

In order to address these intersecting factors influencing wildfire risk, varied sectors (e.g., emergency management, forestry, agriculture, tourism, urban development, and conservation) and disciplines (e.g., fire ecology, political and social science, atmospheric and soil science), need to collaborate and learn from each other. Essen et al. (2023:920) wrote about wildfires: “instead of trying to reduce the complexity inherent in the system, a more realistic approach would be to account for it.” Fire managers and researchers agree that wildfire issues require both top down and bottom up approaches, demanding inclusive and empowering engagement strategies to encourage social learning processes: a broad range of private and public actors must interact to find common understandings and values, creating pathways to more desirable and feasible improvements in wildfire management (Essen et al. 2023, Kelly et al. 2023). These approaches can be considered transdisciplinary: research that is embedded within wider knowledge systems beyond academia in order to address real world challenges (Pohl et al. 2017). Such transdisciplinary approaches aim to produce research that is societally relevant and readily integrated into different sectors, while promoting reflexive learning processes involving researchers and wider societal actors to address socioenvironmental issues (Mauser et al. 2013, Tedim et al. 2016, Wunder et al. 2021). These transdisciplinary approaches can aim to implement solutions to predefined complex problems through incremental approaches, and transformative approaches aim to question and reframe problems to spark fundamental system-wide reorganization (IPBES 2019, Chambers et al. 2021).

Social learning has gained attention as a tool in natural resource management to address challenges related to complexity and uncertainty (Suškevičs et al. 2018). Although terms and concepts vary, including transformative learning, collaborative learning, policy learning, etc., we refer to social learning as a collaborative process that generates relational and substantive outcomes at individual and collective levels (Pahl-Wostl 2006, Reed et al. 2010, Suškevičs et al. 2018). This involves multiple “loops” of learning: single loop learning (individually or experimentally based and incremental in nature), double loop learning (encouraging awareness of assumptions and values, capacity to shift frames of reference), and triple loop learning (questioning underlying purposes and principles; Argyris 2002, Armitage et al. 2008, Pahl-Wostl 2009, Reed et al. 2010, Tosey et al. 2012). Although there is ongoing debate on the meaning and magnitude of change inherent in each of these “levels” of learning, they nevertheless provide a useful structure when considering the transformative potential of different processes and organizations (Tosey et al. 2012, Kwon and Nicolaides 2017). Social learning settings can provide an opportunity for critical mutual reflection, awareness and modification of assumptions, recognizing interdependencies and interactions in social and ecological networks, and active engagement in collective decision making with diverse individuals (Tabara and Pahl-Wostl 2007). As such, social learning can be considered a key ingredient in adaptive and transformative change, especially when bolstered by other factors like the mobilization of assets, flexibility, organization, socio-cognitive constructs, and agency (Barnes et al. 2020).

Social learning has been observed in several wildfire management processes, including creating community wildfire preparedness plans in the USA (Jakes and Sturtevant 2013); participatory forest management workshops in Portugal (Marques et al. 2020); forest owners’ experience of wildfires in Spain (Rodríguez-Carreras et al. 2020); and collaborative bushfire governance research in Australia (Williams et al. 2020). These studies demonstrate that shared planning and participatory governance activities can help to build more trusting relationships and capacity, increased shared understanding of the social-ecological system and others’ values, and even contribute to varied actors’ change of opinion, all of which are critical foundations for more successful wildfire risk governance (Essen et al. 2023).

These learning processes can be facilitated efficiently through boundary-spanning organizations, which include entities such as science consortiums, non-profit organizations, and cooperative extension programs linking science and management. These organizations allow varied groups to share diverse knowledge and perspectives, broaden researchers’ understandings of manager needs, co-produce research questions and approaches, and develop long-term evolving relationships (Cash 2001, Grimm et al. 2022). Indeed, boundary spanning organizations have been key in facilitating wildfire science-management networks in several countries like the USA and Australia (Butler and Goldstein 2010, Kocher et al. 2012). Many “boundaries” exist within wildfire issues and require skillful collaborations: from fragmented laws, policies, and regulations on land stewardship, wildfire risk management functions in prevention, mitigation and suppression, varying organizational cultures, scales of action and access to funding, to varied individuals’ assumptions and knowledge about wildfire risk (Davis et al. 2021, Tedim et al. 2021). Programs such as the Joint Fire Science Network and Fire Learning Network encouraged the development of innovative and multiscale approaches to managing fire adapted landscapes (Goldstein and Butler 2009, Toman et al. 2013). Within these organizations, learning occurs as a dynamic process facilitated over time, where deliberate knowledge exchanges and relationship-building are tailored to a regional approach (Kocher et al. 2012). This can have far-reaching effects in increasing trust in scientific information, improving its relevance and application (Kocher et al. 2012).

Until now however, few wildfire studies have specifically explored the learning outcomes of collaborative processes. Indeed, while several of the studies discussed above examined social learning post-wildfire, the field lacks more anticipatory, future-oriented co-learning approaches to wildfire governance and land stewardship (Steelman 2016). For this, collaborative planning tools such as adaptation pathways provide a useful approach for researchers and practitioners. Adaptation pathways require multiple actors to collaboratively understand past development, consider future aspirations, and acknowledge climate risks (Werners et al. 2021). They explicitly address uncertainty and embed flexibility to identify “low-to-no regrets” interventions, avoid maladaptive consequences, and weigh possibilities for incremental adaptations as well as more transformative social change (Wise et al. 2014, Werners et al. 2021). These processes can be reflexive and help participants to reconsider the nature of the problem, making it about “learning to learn, and learning to adapt,” encouraging people to consider a problem from diverse perspectives and identify strategic actions beyond their own preferences, hence encouraging multiple-loop learning (Butler et al. 2016, Bosomworth et al. 2018). Skills fostered through this process such as interpersonal competence, systems-thinking, considering multiple scenarios, acting on local levels, imagining desirable changes, and incorporating local knowledges are all essential for addressing complex wildfire challenges (Roos et al. 2016, Steelman 2016). In this study we employ the concept of climate resilient development pathways, which consists of four non-exclusive categories: they are oriented to climate action, social-learning and co-creation, mainstreaming, and transformation (Werners et al. 2021).

Policy and research call for more bottom-up wildfire management collaborations in Europe, a research field that remains largely untapped (Tedim et al. 2016, Otero and Nielsen 2017). Diverse sectors such as sustainable forestry, sustainable agriculture, sustainable tourism, education, rural development, nature conservation, integrated fire management, and integrated water management have multiple mutual interests when it comes to wildfire risk reduction, and concerted efforts to integrate learning and actionable synergies across these sectors is needed. This paper explores how an adaptation pathways process can support social learning outcomes to reduce wildfire risk in Mediterranean Europe, specifically in the Montseny and Tordera River watershed in Catalonia (Spain). For this, we consider the social learning outcomes that can be facilitated through an adaptation pathways approach, how these outcomes can benefit wildfire risk reduction efforts, and reflect upon how these processes can be facilitated by boundary spanning organizations forming part of longer-term change beyond our workshop series.

METHODS

Overview

This paper considers a transdisciplinary process on developing adaptation pathways to reducing wildfire risk in the Montseny and Tordera River watershed, Catalonia, Spain, previously described in detail by Uyttewaal et al. (2024). The area is marked by large forested areas, biodiverse social-ecological landscapes, land abandonment, industrial development and repopulation, as well as historic and increasing fire risk (Uyttewaal et al. 2024). We organized three co-creative workshops in Catalan between July 2022 and March 2023. The purpose was twofold: to explore how local ecological knowledge (LEK) can contribute to reducing wildfire risk (Uyttewaal et al. 2024), and how social learning processes developed throughout the process (developed in this paper). A tailored recruitment process aimed to reach a range of actors in different land management and governance entities, considered as agents of change in the territory. The number of participants was limited to 26 to encourage deeper dialogue in focus groups and to build trust between participants (De Vries et al. 2017). Trust was built through facilitated inclusion techniques and collaborative group work during the adaptation pathways process itself. A relatively small number of participants allowed the trained observers to focus on small group discussions and accurately take notes on individual participants’ contributions.

Facilitated inclusion techniques also ensured a collaborative atmosphere, mitigating potential conflicting personal dynamics between participants (Reed et al. 2009). The research received ethics approval before the start of the project, and participants provided informed consent. Workshop results were translated from Catalan to English, anonymized, and analyzed through qualitative thematic analysis: transcriptions of conversations between participants, observers’ notes, and physical workshop outputs (i.e., sticky notes, worksheets, and annotated pathways).

Study area

The Montseny and wider Tordera River watershed comprise two natural parks and several small cities and towns, 70 km north of Barcelona. Primary economic sectors are dedicated to tourism, agriculture, industry, and forestry (Garcia-Berthou et al. 2017, Panareda and Boccio 2017). Framing our issue around the watershed provided an opportunity to co-create knowledge with a wide range of engaged community actors, consider the effects of upstream and downstream land and water management, and acknowledge that social-ecological systems (SES) extend beyond administrative boundaries.

Infrequent but severe wildfires characterize the watershed’s fire regime, where the last destructive wildfire affected approximately 11,000 ha in 1994 (GRAF 1994). Wildfire activity is expected to increase because of climate and land use change, and simultaneous wildfire events may cause civil emergencies as resources for response and capacity are limited (Castellnou et al. 2019). In 2020, extreme storms and floods heavily affected the region. The storm “Gloria” resulted in 41 million EUR in damage in the Tordera River basin alone (Nóblega-Carriquiry et al. 2022). The area was experiencing three years of consecutive drought at the time of our study (GenCat 2023). We acknowledged the context of recent climate and weather extremes beyond wildfires during our workshops, as participants’ lived experience in adapting to climate change was not limited to only the threat of increasing wildfires.

Participant selection

This research considered participants as agents of change: they held embodied knowledge through diverse life experiences, and their involvement formed part of a personal and collective transformative process (Westley et al. 2013, Charli-Joseph et al. 2018). When potential change agents participate in transdisciplinary work, they experiment, learn, and reflect together, developing capacities (skills, values, and knowledge) that can enable them to address challenges and opportunities in their own lives and sustainability transitions (Schneider et al. 2019). In our case these individuals possessed (a) broad social networks through their work in collectives or associations, education, and local administrations, (b) enthusiasm to participate and willingness to learn from others, (c) understanding of wider social-ecological processes, (d) a sense of place attachment, and (e) understanding of LEK in the area, as well as innovative approaches to managing the territory. Several participants were contacted through the Pau Costa Foundation, a local fire ecology non-profit foundation, that had established trusting working relationships with numerous local actors. Additional participants were contacted via the snowball technique (Leventon et al. 2016). Such participants included local associations of shepherds and forest owners, regional and local wildfire risk planners from provincial, county, and city councils, LEK holders (e.g., inhabitants of traditional Catalan farmhouses [masias], traditional agriculture and forestry practitioners), associations of forest defense (ADFs), sustainable and educational tourism initiatives, GRAF operatives (wildfire specialists in the Catalan Fire and Rescue Service), Montseny Natural Park employees, university researchers, and NGOs dedicated to agroecology and fire ecology knowledge exchange. Additional information on participants is detailed in Uyttewaal et al. (2024).

The diversity of actor profiles gave rise to some commonalities and conflicts between their interests and forms of knowledge. This is especially apparent in the diversity of land management values: some parties (especially foresters, farmers, and fire managers) believe the landscape must be managed for social and ecological purposes including primary production (Verkerk et al. 2017, Otero et al. 2018). Meanwhile, other sectors (especially tourism and conservation) have aimed to limit human activity in protected areas while fostering recreational economies (Boada and Liz 1996, Bellaubi et al. 2021). Entangled in these dynamics are more rural populations with rich bases of local ecological knowledge (Otero et al. 2013), while other technical and administrative profiles possess in-depth knowledge of local policies and regulations that are sometimes at odds with one another (Uyttewaal et al. 2023). In order to foster productive dialogue between these groups holding varied forms of power and knowledge in the territory, facilitated inclusion techniques were needed, such as establishing ground rules for the adaptation pathways workshops, encouraging active listening, and managing group dynamics so that all participants were heard and valued (Uyttewaal et al. 2024).

The positionality of the Pau Costa Foundation (PCF) and its main researchers helped shape the context of this transdisciplinary approach, and informs the bias of the research process (Lloro-Bidart and Finewood 2018). PCF is a local fire ecology non-profit foundation dedicated to knowledge exchange, and it has fostered relationships across the sectors of fire management, rural development, forestry, and varied administrations for over a decade. As such, it can be considered a boundary-spanning organization as it interacts with research, policy, varied industries, and community-centered action (Davis et al. 2021). In close collaboration with PCF’s research coordinator (N. Prat Guitart), the main researcher for this project (K. Uyttewaal) was positioned to develop the approach from an institution that integrates and expands on new methods and forms of knowledge exchange beyond academic confines (Kitch 2007). Further, the main researcher acted as the primary facilitator of the project because (1) she is a local resident of the study area while also providing new perspectives as an immigrant, (2) has familiarity with local land and fire management challenges, and (3) has built personal relationships and trust with actors prior to and after the workshop process. PCF’s position as an action-oriented local institution, paired with the dynamic identities of the PCF research team as both internal and external actors in the community, allowed us to build trust and accountability while providing outcomes beyond the research results (De Vries et al. 2017, Rasch and McCaffrey 2019).

Workshop process

Three Horizons

A series of three workshops were developed to create the adaptation pathways and then provide a space for further reflection. To create our adaptation pathways, we used the Three Horizons approach (Fig. 1), which encourages actors with high agency to work with uncertain futures in creative and imaginative ways while also retaining important features from the present (Sharpe et al. 2016, Schaal et al. 2023). It represents key tenants of co-productive research: namely, embracing multiple perspectives and working with people’s aspirations and values (Sharpe et al. 2016, Chambers et al. 2022). The approach considers desirable futures and ways to get there: Horizon 1 represents a “business as usual” or current system that needs to change, Horizon 3 represents an ideal future system, and Horizon 2 represents a transformative middle zone that leverages change to get from Horizon 1 to Horizon 3 (Fig. 1; Sharpe et al. 2016). We asked participants (9 total) to imagine an ideal fire-resilient landscape in 2050, in spite of the risk of increased wildfires (Horizon 3). This workshop was tailored specifically toward local knowledge holders. Because of age, travel distance, and availability, the number of participants was limited. They focused on the categories of forest management, agriculture and extensive grazing, tourism and urban development, based on information that emerged from prior interviews on the local context (Uyttewaal et al. 2023). Two mixed subgroups were designed to encourage dialogue among different sectors, where they generated visual collages of their idealized futures. Each group was assigned trained facilitators and observers to ensure equal collaboration, understanding the content and adhering to the activity.

The “visions” from this first workshop framed discussions for a second back-casting workshop, with 17 total contributors. As participants established where they would like to be, we focused on how to get there through specific action points in the mid-term (Horizon 2). Participants who were unable to attend the first workshop could contribute their own values to the visions if their ideas were not already represented. Participants also discussed existing good practices that need to be scaled up (part of Horizon 3), along with current malpractices that need to be phased out over time (part of Horizon 1) in 4 subgroups. Then, they discussed the transitions, innovations, and tensions that need to be addressed to make these more desirable landscapes possible (Horizon 2). After analysis, the research team generated 28 possible action points. After thematic coding, they were organized according to their sectors (who should be involved) and potential methods of implementation (how they should be applied) in the territory.

Reflection workshop

After the Three Horizons process, our final workshop was oriented explicitly on reflection and learning among the participants (15 total). This fluctuation in participant numbers is due to the volunteer nature of the workshops, the reasons for which are further detailed in Uyttewaal et al. 2024 and acknowledged in the limitations, below.

Although learning can form an intrinsic part of adaptation pathways workshops (Pahl-Wostl 2006, Cundill and Fabricius 2009), we formulated this posterior workshop after generating the Three Horizons to better understand specific social learning outcomes of the process. We presented the 28 pathway actions (Fig. 2) and asked participants to “score” and discuss their interest in each action point according to the following reflection questions:

1. Which actions do you think can be implemented in the short term (immediately or within the next 2 years)?
2. Which actions do you think should be implemented in the longer term (5–10 years)?
3. Do you think any actions could have potential negative impacts?
4. In which of these actions do you see your own (or your entity’s) skills and capabilities represented?
5. Which actions do you see as important, but beyond the scope of your skills and capabilities (needing to be implemented by others)?

Participants reflected first individually, then in small group discussions: each person annotated a copy of the pathways to accompany the discussion. We used these scorings to guide the discussions, but given the natural flow of the discussion groups not all participants followed the guidelines while annotating their pathways, so these action points were not analyzed quantitatively. The questions listed above allowed participants to observe and reflect upon their own roles in change-making and how they can be further leveraged in the future. Whereas the first part of the transdisciplinary process analyzed how LEK was represented throughout this process (Uyttewaal et al. 2024), these five reflection questions considered the social learning outcomes of the process, the focus of the present paper. This activity of situating one’s own and others’ roles within a social-ecological system can guide participants toward multiple loop learning processes. For instance, increasing self-awareness of one’s own role in the system (especially question #4) can form part of single loop learning: participants generate knowledge drawing from their own skills and capabilities (Medema et al. 2014). Meanwhile, acknowledging and exploring others’ roles in the system (especially question #5) can lead participants to observe creatively from multiple perspectives, operate at a project level rather than personal level, and question or re-evaluate underlying norms, beliefs, and paradigms: this all forms part of double and triple loop learning. Our analysis was limited in untangling these higher loops of learning from one another given debated definitions in the literature and the time constraints of our study (Tabara and Pahl-Wostl 2007, Johannessen and Hahn 2013, Medema et al. 2014, Kwon and Nicolaides 2017, McClory et al. 2017). Several other social learning-based projects have struggled to measure social learning quantitatively (Collins and Ison 2010, Van Der Wal et al. 2013), and our research faced these limitations as well. Hence, we focus on the analysis of the rich qualitative data that was collected in this process.

Analysis

After each workshop, we transcribed the participants’ outputs (recorded conversations, notes from the vision collages, and sticky notes from the Three Horizons). Additional information that emerged during subgroup conversations and plenary sessions of the workshops was also recorded and transcribed. We then organized these entries, combined duplicate messages, and clarified inputs with observers of the workshops. Data were translated to English, analyzed through summary and tabulation methods, then underwent thematic analysis via clustering and coding themes, aided by NVivo data analysis software (Miles and Huberman 1984, Saldaña 2013). Additional data surfaced after the workshops ended. Because of existing working relationships, the Pau Costa Foundation continued personal communications with several participating entities once the workshop series ended, thus acquiring emerging information regarding substantive social learning outcomes via personal communications, even if they were not part of the original analysis design. The results are organized according to social learning outcomes, as defined in social learning frameworks specific to natural resource management issues (Muro and Jeffrey 2008, Reed et al. 2010).

RESULTS

The results are classified into the following groups based on prior research: (1) systemic thinking, (2) shared understandings or appreciation for different perspectives, (3) relational outcomes such as the creation of trust, or a change in network, and (4) substantive outcomes, such as new or changed actions, ongoing discussions beyond the participants involved, and initiation of new projects (Muro and Jeffrey 2008, Reed et al. 2010, Johnson et al. 2012, Nikkels et al. 2021).

Quotes are labelled according to the general sector of the speaker in order to provide context while maintaining anonymity. The following labels include NP: non-profit organization; Ed: education; FM: forest management; FG: farming-grazing; Ad: administration; FiM: fire management; and ST: sustainable tourism. Note that 10 total sectors were represented in the adaptation pathways results (Fig. 2), but the sectors represented by participants in the workshop were limited to the 7 listed above.

Systemic thinking

Participants demonstrated understanding of the complex social-ecological system throughout the workshops. This was shown by the plural approaches from varied sectors that participants indicated can contribute to reducing wildfire risk while also encouraging sustainable rural development. As a result of the Three Horizons process, the participants’ pathways demonstrated the potential involvement of 10 different sectors, 28 action points, and 5 possible modes of implementing these actions (Fig. 2). Some sectors were represented more than others in the 28 action points. Four sectors were identified 15 times or more (> 54%): conservation and biodiversity, forest management, agriculture and extensive livestock, and education-research. Four sectors were identified 6–8 times (21–29%): governance, urban development, fire management, and water management. Two sectors were identified 2–3 times (7–10%): tourism and energy production.

The pathways (Fig. 2) also highlighted the degree of interaction needed between sectors: some actions only require coordination between two sectors, while others include up to eight different sectors. For instance, participants indicated that facilitating more contact and collaboration between various producers in the area (#2) would require collaborations between the forestry and agriculture sectors, whereas participants considered that an action like evaluating and analyzing areas of high fire risk before creating more housing developments (#25) would require concerted interactions between the sectors of conservation and biodiversity, forestry, education-research, governance, urban development, and fire management.

Participants also considered the complexity of many of the action points, discussing their various strengths and weaknesses or possible negative effects (maladaptations). For example, promoting locally produced renewable energy like firewood and derivatives, elicited distinct reactions from participants, whereas some felt that bolder actions need to be taken (see above for quote labels):

... biomass installations, minus the giant ones, I think work well ... we haven’t been brave enough yet ... It may not be necessary to build [a network] for a whole town, but maybe a suburb (FM).

Others felt more conservative, such as this reflection on the change in social and environmental context:

If we look back, [energy production was sustainable] because it was a different lifestyle. But with the current population, trying to implement a renewable energy system might not be that sustainable (NP).

Still others believed that administrative scaffolding would assist the transition from fossil fuels to more locally sourced bioenergy:

... with creating proper rules and good vigilance, we don’t need to create more fear around [the topic] (Ed).

In another potential maladaptive side effect, participants discussed how some efforts toward more facilitation from administrative sectors in agriculture and forestry could, ironically, create more bureaucratic complexity:

I think that at different times we talk about creating new agents [or facilitators], and maybe sometimes it is not even necessary to create new agents, but to provide these functions to staff who are already working in the Administration agencies, right? Sometimes the tendency is to generate increasingly complex structures ... (NP).

Shared understandings or appreciation for different perspectives

Part of shared understandings requires exploring one’s own role and that of others within the system. Participants shared where they considered their (individual or organization’s) ability to enact changes (part of single-loop learning), and where they believed other actors could enact important changes that they were unequipped to do (part of double or triple-loop learning). The participants found themselves well represented within the pathways (Table 1): 12 out of 28 actions (43%) scored highly as actions they felt capable of enacting, according to their different interests and abilities. Many of these actions are already occurring or seem feasible, especially in the fields of knowledge exchange, collaboration, motivation/information, planning, education, and support for primary production:

These are things I’ve been doing for years. As an association and on a personal level. Promote people who do management, create joint plans, go out there, make contacts, encourage folks ... we can do all this (FG).

Participants considered 10 out of 28 actions (36%) as highly important to be taken on by other actors. These included reforms in renewable energy, water regulation, and improved integrated planning between conservation and forest management goals. As one forest manager (FM) voiced:

I think that the administration would need to act as a bit of a regulator between the two forces ... conservation on the one hand doing its job and forest management and livestock ranching on the other ... we are getting further and further apart ... I think that a balance must be made ... I think we lose opportunities including at the level of large-scale fire prevention, when our hands are tied [for forest management]. And I see this as affecting me personally but ... as a more general problem too. (FM).

Finally, five actions were considered ambiguously, seen as both something some participants felt personally capable of doing, while others felt they lacked the skills for. These actions were Facilitating better communication between existing formal and informal knowledge networks (#1); Accompanying the primary sector in bureaucratic and administrative issues (#10); Generating environmental education programs with field trips to get to know the local landscape (#21); Promoting labelling campaigns for local products (#23); and Improving forest planning at a higher than private property scale, coordinate between existing planning and administrations (e.g., fire management, forestry, water, biodiversity, etc.; #26; Table 1). Furthermore, constructive conflict occurred during the workshops, particularly between the sectors of sustainable tourism (ST) and forest management (FM).

ST: I bring people that clearly see the impacts in the territory and they want to minimize theirs, and so they pay so that this territory should be how they want it ... I mean, seeing places that are totally transformed by [people] ... I can’t bring people who are willing to go to the Montseny, if I don’t have beautiful places to show ...

FM: But in the case of the Montseny, it’s a mountain where human hands have always had a long-term impact ... So if we say ‘don’t touch it,’ hòstia [wow]!

ST: No, I’m not saying ‘don’t touch it’ ... but we can’t manage the forest faster than nature needs ...

FM: Okay yes, and we can help to do this. ..

ST: ... Even though we have different points of view it doesn’t mean we can’t understand each other.

FM: That’s why we’re here [laughs].

Despite their differing points of view these participants were able to agree that human-led management can have positive effects on the ecosystem. Through dialogues, the participants reached a shared understanding of the positions of others.

Relational outcomes

Informal networks between participants increased as a result of the workshop. For instance, local volunteer collaborations emerged between an association of forest defense (ADF), and an association for traditional agriculture.

We met each other in the workshops and after chatting and chatting, I proposed to set something up and we agreed right away (FiM).

These participants subsequently organized an event serving as festivity, fundraiser, and educational demonstration (un aplec) in an ongoing effort to restore a small church and its surrounding terraces as a community gathering place. Several of the shepherds attending the workshops also deepened their participation with a project in the Pau Costa Foundation, called Fireflocks, to obtain guidance and benefits on strategic grazing for wildfire prevention with their herds.

The pathways (Fig. 2) also demonstrated potential for deepened informal and formal relationships. They visualized points of potential connections and shared interest among different sectors. The pathways demonstrated that the sectors of conservation-biodiversity, forest management, agriculture-grazing, and education-research all share potential for cross-cutting collaborations, as they were represented 15 to 20 times (54–71%). Moreover, the pathways demonstrate diverse methods of implementation, which is key to broadening relational outcomes. Although participants identified some needed administrative changes (46%), other methods of implementing actions were also equally if not more valued, such as social-educational methods (75%) (which do not necessarily require formal partnerships), political movements (50%), direct land management (36%), and economic investments (32%).

Substantive outcomes

Substantive outcomes of this process included financial collaborations, tangible communication products, and signatories for future wider-scale actions. Specifically, collaborations to seek funding for varied projects occurred after the workshops between the Pau Costa Foundation and local shepherding associations. Participants in the workshop were also each given copies of the adaptation pathways they developed, to use as a communication and reflection tool. Furthermore, in another unrelated (but simultaneous) project, the Pau Costa Foundation led a national forum to create a cohesive Declaration on Wildfire Management needs in Spain based on scientific data, fire managers’ experience, and land stewardship needs (Pau Costa Foundation 2023). The aim was to achieve broad consensus across diverse sectors on providing integrative solutions for managing large wildfires in Spain. When presented nationally in June 2023, three months after the workshop series concluded, 14 of the adaptation pathways workshop participants and organizations (54%) publicly signed to the Declaration. Thus, the workshops helped acquire new contacts and broad community interest in PCF’s national Declaration project.

DISCUSSION

Engaging with complexity and power

The adaptation pathways process allowed systems thinking and shared understanding to take place by embracing the complexity of the wildfire issue in the Montseny-Tordera watershed. Although our transdisciplinary process focused on reducing the risk of wildfires, we witnessed that most sectors favored more general (not necessarily fire-related) actions regarding education, social initiatives, and bolstering the primary sector through sustainable agriculture and forestry activities (Fig. 2). This opened up possibilities for alliances between many other sectors, not focused only on risk reduction. This broader cross-sectoral approach may be more attractive to participants, with more potential mutual wins and reduced costs to land management than merely approaching the issue from a narrow risk mitigation framework (Ascoli et al. 2023). Other adaptation pathways processes echo this, which enabled participants to “explore the multi-sector and multi-level nature of the adaptation challenge” (Bosomworth and Gaillard 2019).

Moreover, the adaptation pathways process provided opportunities for multiple loop learning. Our discussions made space for complex dialogue concerning power dynamics in the area; and understanding diverse perspectives while questioning underlying paradigms forms part of this multiple loop learning. This is important because power dynamics inform discourse and policy toward sustainability transitions, and “learning is neither value free nor politically neutral” (Armitage et al. 2008:96, Avelino 2017). The authors argue that informal and formal relations can shape (and are shaped by) power relations, and learning is inherently linked to this context. In that sense, authors claim that social learning environments should also help capacity-building efforts: creating conditions that do not shy away from discussing power, culture, institutions, and diverse values (Armitage et al. 2008). These kinds of discussions took place in our workshops when participants discussed the implications of the tourism industry and the meaning of “nature” in a place that has been heavily managed by humans for over 5000 years. They discussed the challenges and opportunities of sustainable forest management and local energy production in the transition away from fossil fuels and they showed concern for linking integrated water management with fire risk reduction. The theme of water management particularly emerged in our second and third workshops, as many actors felt the acute effects of drought in their forests, agricultural activities, and residential areas (Table 1, Action 9). Furthermore, private water bottling companies hold considerable economic and administrative power in the area, supplying many local jobs, but with little transparency of their water use (Broekman and Sánchez 2016). Although many participants did not feel equipped to address widescale changes in the water sector, some underlying foundations were questioned during our workshops, and dialogue began connecting the dots between sustainable forest management, diminishing wildfire risk, and sustainable water management. This finding mirrors prior adaptive water management studies in the Montseny-Tordera area in 2016: most participants in that process also convened on a preferred method of adaptive forest management to increase both watershed and forest health (Verkerk et al. 2017). This demonstrates that the adaptation pathways process presents a viable learning tool that generates systems thinking and shared understanding, which are needed qualities in co-productive wildfire management.

The importance of increasing networks

Our workshops brought people together who, despite living within less than a 30 km radius, have few chances to interact. They shared dialogues and were able to see themselves poised as part of the change that is already happening and that needs to increase in the territory for reducing wildfire risk and strengthening sustainable rural development initiatives. Most of the pathway outcomes (Fig. 2) involved sectors not directly involved in wildfire management, especially nature conservation, forest management, agriculture, and education. It is clear that fire management-specific actions must be taken, such as updating fire risk plans in new developments and limiting access to areas in times of high risk (Fig. 2). But our results also demonstrate the importance of relational outcomes: collaborations with a wider pool of actors cannot be understated, as they add valuable local knowledge, contribute to social cohesion in the territory, and partake in earnest stewardship of the area. Indeed, community-based initiatives and social cohesion are key factors for confronting complex wildfire issues and reducing vulnerabilities (Prior and Eriksen 2013, Ottolini et al. 2023). Additionally, the pathways demonstrated that multiple methods are viable for implementing adaptation actions in the territory, 75% of which include social-educational efforts (Fig. 2). What is more, the participants found themselves highly represented and capable of 43% of the actions (12 total) described within the pathways (Fig. 2). This presents an important finding especially for Mediterranean European areas, where top-down and administration-driven fire management efforts have characterized the region for decades (Tedim et al. 2021). This finding helps to nuance and diversify this narrative, offering the perspective that wildfire risk reduction has the potential to come (and is already coming) from multiple sectors, actors, and methods. The climate resilient development pathways approach helped with this by offering plural perspectives to a complex problem, changing the frame of the problem to be wider than just wildfire risk reduction, and thereby encouraging a broader suite of local and regional actors to address intersecting issues together.

Long-term learning and boundary-spanning organizations in wildfire

Although our work demonstrates clear learning outcomes in systems thinking, shared understanding, and relational aspects, research suggests that longer-term processes of learning, collaboration, and change can help solidify sustainable transitions, especially to develop and monitor more substantive outcomes. For instance, a 3-year research and learning project in Australia found that, even with high levels of collaboration, it was insufficient to observe how feedback loops or “uneven” learning occurred, therefore reinforcing the need for longer-term research programs that observe substantial policy transitions (Williams et al. 2020). Our study focused on the short-term social learning outcomes of the adaptation pathways process. Future developments could include longer-term interventions to analyze multiple-years-long and non-linear dynamics, and to monitor the more substantive outcomes that just began emerging after the workshops, such as finding funding for local shepherding associations, observing how objectives from the Declaration on Wildfire Management are implemented, and monitoring local policy transitions.

Longer processes of social learning leading to more substantive outcomes can be facilitated by boundary-spanning organizations. Co-productive research approaches can be embedded within longer collaborative dynamics that increase the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of boundary-spanning work (Kocher et al. 2012). In our research, the Pau Costa Foundation played a key role in facilitating these longer processes of change. Over the course of 13 years the entity has built community connections in the fire management sector, knowledge co-production, sustainable forestry and agriculture, and local administrations. Their ability to take swifter and more inclusive actions than traditional governance or research institutions puts them in an approachable position for diverse interested parties. For instance, their nationally established Declaration on Wildfire Management has helped connect sectors historically at odds (nature conservation, forestry, rural development, and wildfire), as it unites expert opinions in these fields calling for more integrated management initiatives and policies (Pau Costa Foundation 2023). The fact that the Declaration’s principles resonated with over half of our workshop participants (Section 3.4) demonstrates shared understanding of the complexity of the wildfire issue. Our research therefore represents a concentrated social learning effort that forms part of a much larger ongoing and non-linear process that the Pau Costa Foundation sparked. This boundary spanning work must continue to include more actors in the territory, now poised for more cohesive alliances thanks in part to the adaptation pathways process.

Limitations and next steps

Many participants voiced their desires to operationalize the results after the workshops. Although some substantive outcomes emerged from the project (such as seeking project funding for local shepherds and the signing of a national Declaration), a longer time period of analysis for non-linear learning as well as coordinated efforts between administrations, boundary-spanning organizations, and local associations could help increase these outcomes (such as larger grant applications, policy recommendations, etc.). A longer-term research process with more direct buy-in from powerful actors could influence more direct implementation of the adaptation pathways results (Haasnoot et al. 2013). Future iterations could focus on a wider and more economically or politically powerful (and hence, more controversial) group of territorial actors and planners, including the directors of the natural parks, directors of fire management operations, operators of water bottling plants, larger landowners, and the tourism industry. A longer-term process could also include a more robust blend of quantitative and qualitative data, allowing researchers to better distinguish the trajectories of multiple loops of learning throughout the process and monitor learning over time (Harrison et al. 2013, McClory et al. 2017, Verkerk et al. 2017). Prior to this study, we attempted to gather quantitative data by conducting two-part interviews with 19 contributors prior to the workshops, aiming to (1) describe the social networks of information and support concerning wildfire risk reduction, quantifying the frequency of contact (Owen et al. 2012), and (2) analyze people’s initial narratives and framing of the local wildfire issue through the Q-method (Ockwell 2008). However, these data remained incomplete for analysis as several of the interviewees were later unable to attend the workshops, meanwhile other workshop participants were unavailable for interviews prior to the workshops. Nevertheless, the results of our workshop series established impetus for further local implications and practical work in the area, including pursuing funding and actions with empowered local agents of change through local governance and land stewardship approaches.

Although boundary-spanning organizations like the Pau Costa Foundation play a clear role in leading some of these initiatives, our collaborative process also encouraged participants to consider themselves already as active agents of change, since their everyday actions are already well-represented in the pathways. This finding is significant for future projects in other areas of the world aiming to implement similar co-productive processes; by dedicating time to define the complexity of social-ecological issues like wildfire and draw upon the knowledge and networks that already exist in an area, participants may achieve a sense of co-ownership and empowerment that is paramount for implementing local adaptive actions. In the case of climate resilient development pathways, such approaches are especially significant in under-resourced areas where key linkages between governance structures and economic development may be lacking. Indeed, similar approaches have taken place for issues such as food security in Ethiopia (Maru et al. 2017, O’Connell et al. 2019) and adaptive water management in India (Bhave et al. 2018).

Finally, although the sector of conservation-biodiversity was clearly represented as a collaborator in the pathways, many actors from this sector were unable to join the workshops because of lack of availability, distance of travel, or conflicting dynamics between participants. There may not have been high buy-in from some actors because of the volunteer nature of the project, resulting in the variable numbers of participants throughout the workshops. After the workshops, however, participants seemed to feel better equipped to interface more with the conservation sector as well as with more administrative actors at higher levels of governance. Our study parallels other adaptation pathways studies in this sense: in settings of high complexity, high agency, and conflict, the adaptation pathways provide a tool for constructive and pluralistic dialogue that, although perhaps not producing immediately implementable plans, provide an important social learning space that help trigger future actions and projects (Brummel et al. 2010, Williams et al. 2012).

Implications for wildfire governance

Our results further exemplify opportunities in wildfire risk governance, especially in polycentric and anticipatory formats (Steelman 2016, Kirschner et al. 2023). In polycentric governance it is key to bridge and integrate local knowledge, values, and culture, especially where wildfires cross jurisdictional boundaries and land is stewarded by multiple owners or agencies (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2012). One of our pathway action points, Reform spatial plans so that the “protection” of a space is not always linked to the limitation of permitted activities (#27), illustrates a need of shared understanding and management goals between land managers and nature conservation policies. This is echoed in other local studies, where participants felt excessive administrative limitations on local agro-forestry practices hindered their ability to adapt to climate change, and reliance on EU subsidies decreased the financial autonomy of community initiatives (Campos et al. 2014, de Lucio and Seijo 2021). This finding demonstrates that some initiatives need to disrupt or work around the inertia of administrations that cannot change rapidly enough to meet the ecological and social transformations occurring.

Furthermore, anticipatory wildfire governance aims to create systems based on social-ecological resilience, taking future thresholds and values into account and prioritizing learning between actors at different scales (Kirschner et al. 2023). Our study represents small-scale anticipatory wildfire governance in action, as future ecological conditions and social values were thoroughly debated, discussed, and agreed upon between diverse actors. Another prior study in the Montseny also reported that distributing responsibility in risk management across governments, communities, and the private sector should be expanded, enabling agency across wider social actors (Otero et al. 2018). Our approach responded to this call with the explicit goal of amplifying networks and learning between participants, and by specifically naming how knowledge and agency can be reframed and redistributed to achieve wildfire risk reduction goals as part of sustainable development pathways. Although our case study does not fall within specific administrative boundaries, our findings provide important policy-related reflections on wildfire governance approaches that uplift local ecological knowledge, encourage learning, and increase agency between actors.

CONCLUSION

The adaptation pathways process enabled social learning: it helped reframe who holds valuable knowledge, capacity, and agency in the territory, while increasing practices that both encourage sustainable rural development and help to reduce wildfire risk. In turn, this process of social learning can help reduce wildfire risk by broadening collaborations between sectors and exploring new modes of implementing meaningful actions. Through an engagement process using the Three Horizons framework and a reflection workshop, our case study findings demonstrate significant social learning outcomes, especially in systems thinking, shared understanding, and relational aspects. The richness of represented sectors (the who) and potential implementation methods (the how) of the adaptation pathway actions speak to the participants’ understanding of system complexity, and how land stewardship actions beyond the narrow goal of mitigating wildfire risk can create mutual benefits linking various sector goals. This also led to important reflections on varied values and forms of power in the territory, all of which influence social learning processes. An increase in relational networks observed in this study may assist in deepening social cohesion and participant empowerment for stewardship activities beyond mitigating wildfire risk. Our approach provided a local example of both polycentric and anticipatory wildfire governance, which is key for adaptive planning under climate change. Although we observed few substantive outcomes in our workshops, this research nevertheless represents a rich, concentrated short-term learning effort. More enduring substantive outcomes can be facilitated by longer-term, non-linear learning processes established by boundary-spanning organizations, such as the Pau Costa Foundation.

LITERATURE CITED

Argyris, C. 2002. Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning Education 1:206-218. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509400

Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18:86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002

Ascoli, D., E. Plana, S. D. Oggioni, A. Tomao, M. Colonico, P. Corona, F. Giannino, M. Moreno, G. Xanthopoulos, K. Kaoukis, M. Athanasiou, M. C. Colaço, F. Rego, A. C. Sequeira, V. Acácio, M. Serra, and A. Barbati. 2023. Fire-smart solutions for sustainable wildfire risk prevention: bottom-up initiatives meet top-down policies under EU green deal. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 92:103715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103715

Avelino, F. 2017. Power in sustainability transitions: analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance 27:505-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1777

Barnes, M. L., P. Wang, J. E. Cinner, N. A. J. Graham, A. M. Guerrero, L. Jasny, J. Lau, S. R. Sutcliffe, and J. Zamborain-Mason. 2020. Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nature Climate Change 10:823-828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0871-4

Bellaubi, F., J. M. Mallarach, and R. Sardá. 2021. A geoethical approach to unlock a social-ecological governance problem: the case of the Tordera river (Catalonia, Spain). Sustainability 13(8):4253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084253

Bhave, A. G., D. Conway, S. Dessai, and D. A. Stainforth. 2018. Water resource planning under future climate and socioeconomic uncertainty in the Cauvery River Basin in Karnataka, India. Water Resources Research 54:708-728. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020970

Boada, M., and J. Liz. 1996. El fenòmen de la metropolització al massís del Montseny. El cas de turisme escolar. Monografies del Montseny IX:139-155.

Bosomworth, K., and E. Gaillard. 2019. Engaging with uncertainty and ambiguity through participatory “Adaptive Pathways” approaches : scoping the literature. Environmental Research Letters 14:093007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3095

Bosomworth, K., H. Scott, J. Wilson, C. Pitfield, K. Brunt, G. Brown, and F. Johnson. 2018. Exploring ‘adaptation pathways’ planning through an NRM lens: a report of two exploratory case studies. RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Broekman, A., and A. Sánchez. 2016. Tordera River Basin Adaptation Plan. BeWater Project, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/publication/2016/rbap_tordera_final.pdf

Brotons, L., N. Aquilué, M de Cáceres, M. J. Fortin, and A. Fall. 2013. How fire history, fire suppression practices and climate change affect wildfire regimes in Mediterranean landscapes. PLoS ONE 8(5):e62392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062392

Brummel, R. F., K. C. Nelson, S. G. Souter, P. J. Jakes, and D. R. Williams. 2010. Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53:681-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.488090

Butler, J. R. A., E. L. Bohensky, W. Suadnya, Y. Yanuartati, T. Handayani, P. Habibi, K. Puspadi, T. D. Skewes, R. M. Wise, I. Suharto, S. E. Park, and Y. Sutaryono. 2016. Scenario planning to leap-frog the Sustainable Development Goals: an adaptation pathways approach. Climate Risk Management 12:83-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.11.003

Butler, W. H., and B. E. Goldstein. 2010. The US Fire Learning Network: springing a rigidity trap through multiscalar collaborative networks. Ecology and Society 15(3):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03437-150321

Campos, M., M. K. McCall, and M. González-Puente. 2014. Land-users’ perceptions and adaptations to climate change in Mexico and Spain: commonalities across cultural and geographical contexts. Regional Environmental Change 14:811-823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0542-3

Cash, D. W. 2001. “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26:431-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600403

Castellnou, M., N. Prat-Guitart, E. Arilla, A. Larrañaga, E. Nebot, X. Castellarnau, J. Vendrell, J. Pallàs, J. Herrera, M. Monturiol, J. Cespedes, J. Pagès, C. Gallardo, and M. Miralles. 2019. Empowering strategic decision-making for wildfire management: avoiding the fear trap and creating a resilient landscape. Fire Ecology 15:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-019-0048-6

Chambers, J., C. Wyborn, N. Klenk, M. Ryan, A. Serban, N. Bennett, R. Brennan, L. Charli-Joseph, M. Fernández-Giménez, K. Galvin, B. Goldstein, T. Haller, R. Hill, C. Munera, J. Nel, H. Österblom, R. Reid, M. Riechers, M. Spierenburg, M. Tengö, E. Bennett, A. Brandeis, P. Chatterton, J. Cockburn, C. Cvitanovic, P. Dumrongrojwatthana, A. Paz Durán, J. Gerber, J. Green, R. Gruby, A. Guerrero, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, J. Montana, P. Steyaert, J. Zaehringer, A. Bednarek, K. Curran, S. Fada, J. Hutton, B. Leimona, T. Pickering, and R. Rondeau. 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Global Environmental Change 72:102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

Chambers, J., C. Wyborn, M. Ryan, R. Reid, M. Riechers, A. Serban, N. Bennett, C. Cvitanovic, M. Fernández-Giménez, K. Galvin, B. Goldstein, N. Klenk, M. Tengö, R. Brennan, J. J. Cockburn, R. Hill, C. Munera, J. Nel, H. Österblom, A. Bednarek, E. Bennett, A. Brandeis, L. Charli-Joseph, P. Chatterton, K. Curran, P. Dumrongrojwatthana, A. Paz Durán, S. J. Fada, J. D. Gerber, J. M. H. Green, A. M. Guerrero, T. Haller, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, B. Leimona, J. Montana, R. Rondeau, M. Spierenburg, P. Steyaert, J. G. Zaehringer, R. Gruby, J. Hutton, and T. Pickering. 2021. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4:983-996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Charli-Joseph, L., J. Siqueiros-Garcia, H. Eakin, D. Manuel-Navarrete, and R. Shelton. 2018. Promoting agency for social-ecological transformation: a transformation-lab in the Xochimilco social-ecological system. Ecology and Society 23(2):46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10214-230246

Chergui, B., S. Fahd, X. Santos, and J. Pausas. 2018. Socioeconomic factors drive fire-regime variability in the Mediterranean Basin. Ecosystems 21:619-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-017-0172-6

Collins, K. B., and R. L. Ison. 2010. Trusting emergence: some experiences of learning about integrated catchment science with the environment agency of England and Wales. Water Resources Management 24:669-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9464-8

Cundill, G., and C. Fabricius. 2009. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning based approach. Journal of Environmental Management 90:3205-3211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.012

Davis, E. J., H. Huber-Stearns, A. S. Cheng, and M. Jacobson. 2021. Transcending parallel play: boundary spanning for collective action in wildfire management. Fire 4(3):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire4030041

de Lucio, J., and F. Seijo. 2021. Do biosphere reserves bolster community resilience in coupled human and natural systems? Evidence from 5 case studies in Spain. Sustainability Science 16:2123-2136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01029-3

De Vries, J. R., S. Van Bommel, C. Blackmore, and Y. Asano. 2017. Where there is no history: how to create trust and connection in learning for transformation in water governance. Water 9(2):130. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020130

Eriksen, C., and D. L. Hankins. 2014. The retention, revival, and subjugation of Indigenous fire knowledge through agency fire fighting in eastern Australia and California. Society & Natural Resources 27(12):1288-1303. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918226

Essen, M., S. McCaffrey, J. Abrams, and T. Paveglio. 2023. Improving wildfire management outcomes: shifting the paradigm of wildfire from simple to complex risk. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 66:909-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.2007861

Fischer, A. P., T. A. Spies, T. A. Steelman, C. Moseley, B. R. Johnson, J. D. Bailey, A. A. Ager, P. Bourgeron, S. Charnley, B. M. Collins, J. D. Kline, J. E. Leahy, J. S. Littell, J. D. A. Millington, M. Nielsen-Pincus, C. S. Olsen, T. B. Paveglio, C. I. Roos, M. M. Steen-Adams, F. R. Stevens, J. Vukomanovic, E. M. White, and D. M. J. S. Bowman. 2016. Wildfire risk as a socioecological pathology. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 14:276-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1283

Garcia-Berthou, E., J. Gomà, J. Mas-Pla, C. Barriocanal, J. Pujantell, S. Sànchez-Mateo, and G. Muñoa. 2017. Seguiment d’indicadors socioecològics a la conca de la Tordera: Memòria 2017.

Generalitat de Catalunya (GenCat). 2023. L’ACA defineix l’entrada en l’escenari d’excepcionalitat de set noves àrees del territori de les conques internes. GenCat, Barcelona, Spain. https://aca.gencat.cat/ca/actualitat/nota-premsa/?id=516543

Goldstein, B. E., and W. H. Butler. 2009. The network imaginary: coherence and creativity within a multiscalar collaborative effort to reform US fire management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52:1013-1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903327443

GRAF (Grup d'Actuacions Forestals). 1994. Informe de l’incendi forestal de Gualba i Santa Coloma de Farners. Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’Interior, Barcelona, Spain. https://interior.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/030_arees_dactuacio/bombers/foc_forestal/consulta_incendis_forestals/informes_incendis_forestals/1990-1999/1994/19940810_REMN_REG_Gualba_StaColomaFarners.pdf

Grimm, K. E., A. E. Thode, B. S. Wolfson, and L. E. Brown. 2022. Scientist engagement with boundary organizations and knowledge coproduction: a case study of the Southwest Fire Science Consortium. Fire 5(2):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5020043

Haasnoot, M., J. Kwakkel, W. Walker, and J. ter Maat. 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change 23:485-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006

Harrison, P. A., I. P. Holman, G. Cojocaru, K. Kok, A. Kontogianni, M. J. Metzger, and M. Gramberger. 2013. Combining qualitative and quantitative understanding for exploring cross-sectoral climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. Regional Environmental Change 13:761-780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0361-y

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579

Jakes, P. J., and V. Sturtevant. 2013. Trial by fire: community wildfire protection plans put to the test. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22:1134-1143. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF12156

Johannessen, Å., and T. Hahn. 2013. Social learning towards a more adaptive paradigm? Reducing flood risk in Kristianstad municipality, Sweden. Global Environmental Change 23:372-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.009

Johnson, K. A., G. Dana, N. R. Jordan, K. J. Draeger, A. Kapuscinski, L. K. Schmitt Olabisi, and P. B. Reich. 2012. Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development. Ecology and Society 17(2):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04780-170209

Kelly, L. T., M. S. Fletcher, I. Oliveras Menor, A. F. A. Pellegrini, E. S. Plumanns-Pouton, P. Pons, G. J. Williamson, and D. M. J. S. Bowman. 2023. Understanding fire regimes for a better Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48:207-235. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357

Kirschner, J., J. Clark, and G. Boustras. 2023. Governing wildfires: toward a systematic analytical framework. Ecology and Society 28(2):6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13920-280206

Kitch, S. 2007. Feminist interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge building. Pages 123-139 in S. Nagy Hesse-Biber, editor. Handbook of feminist research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Kocher, S. D., E. Toman, S. F. Trainor, V. Wright, J. S. Briggs, C. P. Goebel, E. M. Montblanc, A. Oxarart, D. L. Pepin, T. A. Steelman, A. Thode, and T. A. Waldrop. 2012. How can we span the boundaries between wildland fire science and management in the United States? Journal of Forestry 110:421-428. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.11-085

Kwon, C. K., and A. Nicolaides. 2017. Managing diversity through triple-loop learning: a call for paradigm shift. Human Resource Development Review 16:85-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317690053

Leventon, J., L. Fleskens, H. Claringbould, G. Schwilch, and R. Hessel. 2016. An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research. Sustainability Science 11:763-775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0385-1

Lloro-Bidart, T., and M. H. Finewood. 2018. Intersectional feminism for the environmental studies and sciences: looking inward and outward. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 8:142-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-018-0468-7

Marques, M., M. Oliveira, and J. G. Borges. 2020. An approach to assess actors’ preferences and social learning to enhance participatory forest management planning. Trees, Forests and People 2:100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100026

Maru, Y., D. O'Connell, N. Grigg, N. Abel, A. Cowie, S. Stone-Jovicich, J. Butler, R. Wise, B. Walker, M. Belay, A. Fleming, S. Meharg, and J. Meyers. 2017. Making “resilience”, “adaptation” and “transformation” real for the design of sustainable development projects. CSIRO, Canberra, Australia. https://doi.org/10.4225/08/5925d83b8a49e

Mauser, W., G. Klepper, M. Rice, B. S. Schmalzbauer, H. Hackmann, R. Leemans, and H. Moore. 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:420-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001

McClory, S., M. Read, and A. Labib. 2017. Conceptualising the lessons-learned process in project management: towards a triple-loop learning framework. International Journal of Project Management 35:1322-1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.006

Medema, W., A. Wals, and J. Adamowski. 2014. Multi-loop social learning for sustainable land and water governance: towards a research agenda on the potential of virtual learning platforms. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 69:23-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2014.03.003

Miles, M., and A. Huberman. 1984. An expanded sourcebook: qualitative data analysis. Second editor. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51:325-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560801977190

Nikkels, M. J., P. Leith, S. Kumar, N. Mendham, and A. Dewulf. 2021. The social learning potential of participatory water valuation workshops: a case study in Tasmania, Australia. Environmental Policy and Governance 31:474-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1939

Nóblega-Carriquiry, A., H. March, and D. Sauri. 2022. Community acceptance of nature-based solutions in the delta of the Tordera River, Catalonia. Land 11(4):579. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040579

Norgaard, K. 2014. The politics of fire and the social impacts of fire exclusion on the Klamath. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 1(36):77-101. https://doi.org/10.55671/0160-4341.1201

Ockwell, D. G. 2008. “Opening up” policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia. Policy Science 41:263-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9066-y

O’Connell, D., Y. Maru, N. Grigg, B. Walker, N. Abel, R. Wise, A. Cowie, J. Butler, S. Stone-Jovicich, M. Stafford-Smith, A. Ruhweza, M. Belay, L. Pearson, and S. Meharg. 2019. Resilience, adaptation pathways and transformation approach (RAPTA): a guide for designing, implementing and assessing interventions for sustainable futures (version 2). CSIRO, Canberra, Australia. https://research.csiro.au/eap/rapta/

Otero, I., M. Boada, and J. Tàbara. 2013. Social-ecological heritage and the conservation of Mediterranean landscapes under global change: a case study in Olzinelles (Catalonia). Land Use Policy 30:25-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.005

Otero, I., M. Castellnou, I. González, E. Arilla, L. Castell, J. Castellví, F. Sánchez, and J Nielsen. 2018. Democratizing wildfire strategies. Do you realize what it means? Insights from a participatory process in the Montseny region (Catalonia, Spain). PLoS ONE 13(10):e0204806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204806

Otero, I., and J. Ø. Nielsen. 2017. Coexisting with wildfire? Achievements and challenges for a radical social-ecological transformation in Catalonia (Spain). Geoforum 85:234-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.07.020

Ottolini, I., M. Arenas Conejo, N. Prat-Guitart, K. Uyttewaal, P. Pandey, I. Rodríguez-Giralt, and M. Cifre Sabater. 2023. A toolkit for fostering co-creation and participative community engagement with vulnerable communities at risk. PyroLife Project, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/10609/147845

Owen, G., J., J. D. McLeod, C. A. Kolden, D. B. Ferguson, and T. J. Brown. 2012. Wildfire management and forecasting fire potential: the roles of climate information and social networks in the Southwest United States. Weather, Climate, and Society 4:90-102. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00038.1

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology & Society 11(1):10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01542-110110

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19:354-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Pahl-Wostl, C., L. Lebel, C. Knieper, and E. Nikitina. 2012. From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science and Policy 23:24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.014

Panareda, J. M., and M. Boccio. 2017. Dinámica de los acuíferos, cambios de uso y de percepción : el curso medio del río Tordera. Treballs de la Societat Catalana de Geografia 2190:277-289.

Pau Costa Foundation. 2023. Join the Declaration on the Management of Large Wildfires in Spain. Pau Costa Foundation, Barcelona, Spain. https://www.paucostafoundation.org/en/statement-on-the-management-of-large-forest-fires-in-spain/#decl-adhesion

Pohl, C., P. Krütli, and M. Stauffacher. 2017. Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. Gaia 26:43-51. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10

Prior, T., and C. Eriksen. 2013. Wildfire preparedness, community cohesion and social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change 23:1575-1586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.016

Rasch, R., and S. McCaffrey. 2019. Exploring wildfire-prone community trust in wildfire management agencies. Forest Science 65:652-663. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxz027

Reed, M. S., A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond, and L. C. Stringer. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15(4):r1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01

Reed, M. S., A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell, C. Quinn, and L. Stringer. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1933-1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

Rodríguez-Carreras, R., X. Úbeda, M. Francos, and C. Marco. 2020. After the wildfires: the processes of social learning of forest owners’ associations in Central Catalonia, Spain. Sustainability 12(15):6042. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156042

Roos, C. I., A. C. Scott, C. M. Belcher, G. Chaloner, J. Aylen, R. B. Bird, M. R. Coughlan, B. R. Johnson, F. H. Johnston, J. McMorrow, T. Steelman, and the Fire and Mankind Discussion Group. 2016. Living on a flammable planet: interdisciplinary, cross-scalar and varied cultural lessons, prospects and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 371:20150. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0469

Saldaña, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Second edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Schaal, T., M. Mitchell, B. Scheele, P. Ryan, and J. Hanspach. 2023. Using the three horizons approach to explore pathways towards positive futures for agricultural landscapes with rich biodiversity. Sustainability Science 18:1271-1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01275-z

Schneider, F., M. Giger, N. Harari, S. Moser, C. Oberlack, I. Providoli, L. Schmid, T. Tribaldos, and A. Zimmermann. 2019. Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science and Policy 102:26-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017

Sharpe, B., A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, and I. Fazey. 2016. Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society 21(2):47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247

Steelman, T. 2016. U.S. wildfire governance as social-ecological problem. Ecology and Society 21(4):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08681-210403

Suškevičs, M., T. Hahn, R. Rodela, B. Macura, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2018. Learning for social-ecological change: a qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61:1085-1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594

Tabara, J. D., and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2007. Sustainability learning in natural resource use and management. Ecology and Society 12(2):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02063-120203

Tedim, F., V. Leone, and G. Xanthopoulos. 2016. A wildfire risk management concept based on a social-ecological approach in the European Union: Fire Smart Territory. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18:138-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.06.005

Tedim, F., S. McCaffrey, V. Leone, C. Vazquez-Varela, Y. Depietri, P. Buergelt, and R. Lovreglio. 2021. Supporting a shift in wildfire management from fighting fires to thriving with fires: The need for translational wildfire science. Forest Policy and Economics 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102565

Toman, E., M. Stidham, S. McCaffrey, and B. Shindler. 2013. Social science at the wildland-urban interface: a compendium of research results to create fire-adapted communities. General Technical Report NRS-111, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-111

Tosey, P., M. Visser, and M. N. K. Saunders. 2012. The origins and conceptualizations of “triple-loop” learning: a critical review. Management Learning 43:291-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611426239

Uyttewaal, K., N. Prat-Guitart, F. Ludwig, C. Kroeze, and E. R. Langer. 2023. Territories in transition: how social contexts influence wildland fire adaptive capacity in rural Northwestern European Mediterranean areas. Fire Ecology 19:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-023-00168-5

Uyttewaal, K., C. R. Stoof, G. Canaleta, M. Cifre Sabater, E. R. Langer, F. Ludwig, C. Kroeze, P. Moran, I. Ottolini, and N. Prat Guitart. 2024. Uplifting local ecological knowledge as part of adaptation pathways to wildfire risk reduction: a case study in Montseny, Catalonia (Spain). Ambio 53:1433-1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02030-7

Van Der Wal, M., J. De Kraker, A. Offermans, C. Kroeze, P. A. Kirschner, and M. Van Ittersum. 2013. Measuring social learning in participatory approaches to natural resource management. Environmental Policy and Governance 24(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1627

Verkerk, P., A. Sánchez, S. Libbrecht, A. Broekman, A. Bruggeman, H. Daly-Hassen, E. Giannakis, S. Jebari, K. Kok, A. Krivograd Klemenčič, M. Magjar, I. Martinez de Arano, N. Robert, N. Smolar-Žvanut, E. Varela, and C. Zoumides. 2017. A participatory approach for adapting river basins to climate change. Water 9:958. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9120958

Viedma, O., N. Moity, and J. M. Moreno. 2015. Changes in landscape fire-hazard during the second half of the 20th century: agriculture abandonment and the changing role of driving factors. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 207:126-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.04.011

Werners, S., R. Wise, J. Butler, E. Totin, and K. Vincent. 2021. Adaptation pathways: a review of approaches and a learning framework. Environmental Science and Policy 116:266-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.11.003

Westley, F. R., O. Tjornbo, L. Schultz, P. Olsson, C. Folke, B. Crona, and Ö. Bodin. 2013. A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(3):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327

Williams, D. R., P. J. Jakes, S. Burns, A. S. Cheng, K. C. Nelson, V. Sturtevant, R. F. Brummel, E. Staychock, and S. G. Souter. 2012. Community wildfire protection planning: the importance of framing, scale, and building sustainable capacity. Journal of Forestry 110:415-420. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-001

Williams, K. J. H., R. M. Ford, and A. Rawluk. 2020. The role of collaborative research in learning to incorporate values of the public in social-ecological system governance: case study of bushfire risk planning. Ecology and Society 25(4):31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11987-250431

Wise, R. M., I. Fazey, M. Stafford Smith, S. E. Park, H. C. Eakin, E. R. M. A. Garderen, and B. Campbell. 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change 28:325-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002

Wunder, S., D. Calkin, V. Charlton, S. Feder, I. Martínez de Arano, P. Moore, F. Rodríguez y Silva, L. Tacconi, and C. Vega-García. 2021. Resilient landscapes to prevent catastrophic forest fires: socioeconomic insights towards a new paradigm. Forest Policy and Economics 128:102458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102458