Research

INTRODUCTION

War is one of the oldest, most tragic features of human societies, with long-lasting and pervasive consequences for people and the social-ecological systems to which they belong (Levy et al. 1997, Kugler et al. 2013, Hassoun et al. 2025). Studies from the developing field of war ecology reveal that war can result in ecosystem degradation (Machlis and Hanson 2008, Gurses 2012), habitat fragmentation (Mason 2011, Gbanie et al. 2018), disturbance to soils and vegetation (Certini et al. 2013, Meaza et al. 2024), water pollution (Czub et al. 2018), a decrease in wildlife populations (Gorsevski et al. 2013, Daskin and Pringle 2018), and deforestation (Gurses 2012, Gorsevski et al. 2013, Gbanie et al. 2018). However, war can also lead to ecological benefits because of limited human access to contested territories and altered settlement patterns, limiting intensive land uses like agriculture or logging, and promoting forest growth (Stevens et al. 2011, Gorsevski et al. 2013, Sánchez-Cuervo and Aide 2013, Burgess et al. 2015). Reduced resource exploitation during war can likewise benefit wildlife populations (Hanson et al. 2009, Beare et al. 2010). The implications of war for social-ecological systems are complex, multiscale, often cross disciplinary boundaries, and produce effects that range from intuitive to unexpected (Mason 2011, Hanson 2018).

Fire can play a key role in shaping landscapes in times of conflict. Studies have shown that during war, fire often increases across the landscape due to deliberate use by armies to clear space, improve visibility, or damage enemy land (Zubkova et al. 2021, Daiyoub et al. 2023). Fire may also be an indirect consequence of warfare linked to the use of explosives or weakened environmental management (Gorsevski et al. 2013, Lindenmayer et al. 2016, Grimes et al. 2023). Analyses of satellite data indicate that similar patterns emerge in multiple conflict settings: during the South African Border war (1966–1990), fires were provoked by military artillery and the burning of vegetation during combat (Humphrey et al. 2021); in Syria (2002-2018), war promoted fire activity by increasing ignitions and decreasing fire suppression (Zubkova et al. 2021, Jaafar et al. 2022); in South Sudan (1980–2001 and 2003–2010) and Mozambique (1986–1992), efforts to promote responsible fire management ceased (Shaffer 2010, Gorsevski et al. 2013); whereas in Turkish Kurdistan (mid 1980s–late 1990s), the Turkish army burned forests, fields, and villages as a strategy in the conflict against guerrilla forces (de Vos et al. 2008). In some cases, the impact of war on fire regimes are visible only after the conflict has ended. Such is the case in the Colombian Amazonia, where wildfires have increased in several protected areas and surrounding regions following the 2016 peace agreement, largely driven by land grabbing, cattle ranching, and weakened territorial control in the post-conflict context (Armenteras et al. 2019, Tebbutt et al. 2021).

The effects of war on fire activity are context specific and often unpredictable. Although fire is used as a warfare weapon in some cases, its military use can also be limited, and changes in fire regimes may be driven by other, more indirect war-linked factors, such as population displacement (Gorsevski et al. 2012) or broader social-ecological dynamics, including shifts in fire-based livelihood practices and governance (Eriksen 2007, Mistry et al. 2016, Smith et al. 2022). Changes in fire regimes are relevant as burning in fire-dependent social-ecological systems plays a crucial role in supporting ecosystems and livelihoods (Bowman et al. 2011, Moura et al. 2019, Smith et al. 2024).

Across the Global South, regular anthropogenic burning has long been a tool for landscape management, contributing to vegetation diversity and ecosystem functioning (Bond et al. 2005, Cochrane and Ryan 2009, Kelly et al. 2020, McLauchlan et al. 2020). Yet, the ability to burn in fire-dependent social-ecological systems is often constrained by historic policies that criminalize customary burning and by social power dynamics, conflict included, that dictate who may burn and for what purposes (Eriksen 2007, Butz 2009, Shaffer 2010, Moritz et al. 2014, Spies et al. 2014, Copes-Gerbitz et al. 2021, Humphrey et al. 2021). Indirect effects of war on burning practices not related to warfare itself, however, have received limited attention.

Although the scars of wars on human societies have been extensively studied, the complex effects of war on social-ecological systems mediated by fire, and the multiple drivers shaping them, are seldom well understood (Shaffer 2010, Gorsevski et al. 2012, 2013, Humphrey et al. 2021). This may in part result from research on fire and war relying almost exclusively on remote sensing analyses (see de Vos et al. 2008, Gorsevski et al. 2013, Zubkova et al. 2021, Daiyoub et al. 2023, Grimes et al. 2023), whereas field-based approaches are rare. Another key factor may be that fire research has long focused on the ecological and physical processes and determinants (see Countryman 1972, Kitzberger et al. 2007, Archibald et al. 2009, Aldersley et al. 2011, Yang et al. 2014, dos Santos et al. 2021, Lan et al. 2021), with limited attention to the social and political influences shaping fire regimes (Coughlan and Petty 2012, McCaffrey et al. 2012, Kim et al. 2021, Chuvieco et al. 2021). More generally, there remains little agreement on the extent to which humans, relative to abiotic factors, influence fire regimes, and the answer is likely to be context dependent (Archibald et al. 2009, Hantson et al. 2015, Teckentrup et al. 2019, Burton et al. 2024).

In this article, we investigate a range of drivers shaping fire regimes during a prolonged civil conflict, including drivers both directly and indirectly linked to warfare itself. Our study has not only historical value, but important implications for contemporary and future fire management strategies applied to conflict and post-conflict scenarios. War often has a “tabula rasa” effect, obscuring the reality that existed before the conflict and disrupting historical practices, with lasting consequences for both livelihoods and landscapes. This is particularly true for long-lasting wars that span many decades. Yet, wars are relatively exceptional events in modern times, and identifying the continuities and discontinuities marked by conflict can play an important role in shaping our understanding of broader social-ecological relations, practices, and narratives.

Angola provides a suitable case for mapping these continuities and discontinuities for several reasons. The country underwent a prolonged war of independence (1961–1974) followed by a civil war (1975–2002), which combined make up one of the longest conflicts of the 20th century (Asam 2024). Also, Angola is one of the countries with the highest fire activity in the world (considering the proportion of land burned annually) (Archibald et al. 2010), and yet the effects of the war on fire regimes remain unexplored. More generally, Angolan ecosystems are some of the least studied in Africa (Huntley and Ferrand 2019). This is particularly the case in the east (van Wilgen et al. 2022, Lourenco et al. 2023), which hosts some of the best-preserved woodlands and forests of the continent (Andrews et al. 2024). The highlands of East Angola in the Moxico Province have mosaics of vegetation comprising flammable savannas intertwined with non-flammable forests. This area is one of the most remote and marginalized of the country, with the isolation due at least in part to political affiliations with guerrilla forces that lost the war (Brinkman and Alessi 2009).

Landscapes relatively free from external influences, such as state administration and market economy, offer a valuable opportunity to examine how local social-ecological interactions shape and are shaped by broader phenomena. As we will argue, fire in this context is a fundamental tool that mediates these interactions, a role that becomes evident during extreme circumstances such as those that the civil war brought about for local communities. A potential major shift in fire practices driven by the conflict may be linked to broadscale changes in fire regimes, livelihoods, and local governance. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for informing fire management strategies that align with local practices, particularly in regions where state presence is minimal. Furthermore, examining how conflict-driven changes in fire regimes have reshaped livelihoods and governance in East Angola can provide insights into how marginalized communities navigate environmental and political instability, offering lessons for future conservation and land management efforts.

Taking a remote region of East Angola as our case study, we reconstruct fire activity during the Angolan civil war (1982–2002) and after the war ended (2003–2018). We address the following key research questions (RQs): (1) What were the trends of fire activity during the Angolan civil war? (2) Are there differences in fire activity between the war and post-war periods? (3) What can explain any differences and war-related trends? To answer these questions, we combine historical remote-sensing analyses of burned area (BA) with interviews from elders and local residents from three communities in the Moxico Province with direct experience of the war.

METHODS

Study area

We conducted ground-based work in three villages in the Luchaze municipality in the highlands of Moxico in East Angola (Fig. 1). This municipality is poorly connected to road networks and markets and has the lowest population density of the country at 0.4 persons/km², with an estimated population of 19,523 inhabitants in 2024 (Instituto Nacional de Estatística). Remote-sensing analyses covered a greater area of 184,220 km² (blue polygon, Fig. 1). Our study area is dominated by dry forests and miombo woodlands at upper elevations and grasslands and rivers at lower elevations (Lourenco et al. 2023, Andrews et al. 2024). Climate is seasonal, with high temperatures and wet conditions during the summer and low temperatures and dry conditions during the winter. The dry season, when fires are common, starts in May and lasts until October. Temperature ranges from 10°C to 28°C and rainfall averages 1037mm ± 99 mm (mean ± SD) per year (United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2020). Elevation ranges from 1228 to 1580 masl.

Fire regimes in the study area are characterized by frequent, cool, and small fires, with smaller areas experiencing frequent, intense, and large fires (Archibald et al. 2013). Grass-dominated river valleys burn more frequently and earlier than miombo woodlands and forests, which have later-season fires, yet the highest proportion of unburnt area (Stellmes et al. 2013, van Wilgen et al. 2022, Lourenço et al. 2023). Fires are generally ignited by local peoples for different subsistence activities (Catarino et al. 2020), in particular agriculture, honey harvesting, and hunting.

Population in the area is clustered in small villages, with kinship ties that exert control over assigned territories. The socio-political organization is based on a tribal structure headed by the King, as the highest authority of the Luchaze territory, and sobas (an inherited role like the King’s) as the authorities that lead each village alongside a council of elders. The main languages spoken in the area are Luchaze and Tchokwé. The absence of state infrastructure in East Angola is reflected in the lack of paved roads, electricity grids, communication networks, state schools or hospitals. Formal markets are inaccessible, with most villages being a 2–3 d walk from the nearest urban centers. Healthcare is largely dependent on traditional medicine, and education is mainly provided through community-managed schools. Governance over natural resources is based on customary rules and practices, and it usually does not involve the intervention of provincial and municipal administrations. There is little external pressure on land use, as population densities remain low and subsistence activities dominate. The remoteness of the study area has inhibited scientific research and infrastructural development, reinforcing the region’s dependence on locally adapted livelihoods and land management practices.

Eastern Angola was one of the regions most heavily affected by the long and costly civil conflict (1975–2002), which followed the war of independence against the Portuguese colonial power (1961–1974). The province of Moxico was the stronghold of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola, UNITA) guerrilla forces, which fought for over two decades against the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola, MPLA). Many residents in the area actively took part in the war (fulfilling different roles such as combatants, nurses, sentinels, etc., mostly for UNITA), and livelihoods were heavily impacted by the conflict. The war ended in 2002 with the victory of the MPLA and the disbanding of the guerrilla units. Since then, MPLA has governed the country.

Data collection methods

Spatial data

To identify changes in fire activity, we used the Fire_cci v1.1 product (Chuvieco et al. 2020) developed by the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Climate Change Initiative, which derives BA from NOAA’s AVHRR-LTDR satellite. We considered the years from 1982 to 2018 (excluding 1994 as there were no data available). The civil war began in 1975, but we did not find satellite fire products before 1982. The AVHRR-LTDR product calculates BA using temporal composites of global images at ca. 5 km resolution, incorporating daily surface reflectance data in the red, near infrared (NIR), and md-wave infrared (MWIR) spectral bands, along with atmospheric, temperature, and land cover data from CCI and Copernicus (ESA) to help distinguish burnable from unburnable areas. Burned areas are generally identified through characteristic changes in surface reflectance and temperature, alongside temporal composites, which helps distinguish BA from vegetation changes caused by other factors (Chuvieco et al. 2019). The FireCCI51 (MODIS, 2001–2018) data set is used to train the BA detection algorithm with a random forest approach to produce the AVHRR-LTDR monthly data set. The burned proportion of each pixel is presented as monthly composites, capturing pixels that burn more than once during a calendar year (Otón 2020). This product has been previously validated in different contexts, demonstrating its suitability for long-term BA assessments (Barbosa et al. 1999, Loboda and Csiszar 2004, Oton et al. 2019). In addition, we obtained data for our study area from the same time period (1982–2018) for rainfall and temperature (Landsat 5 monthly climate data set, USGS 2020), to assess if changes in BA were driven instead by shifts in climatic conditions.

Qualitative data

In order to understand historical patterns of fire use during and after wartime, we conducted 34 in-depth individual (13 interviews) and group interviews (two or maximum three people, 21 interviews) with elders (both men and women), comprising a total of 42 interviewees. Interviews were carried out in three villages within the region of study: Samununga (376 residents; 14 interviewees), Sete (256 residents; 12 interviewees), and Sapele (164 residents; 16 interviewees), all within the Luchaze municipality. Interviewees were selected in collaboration with the village soba, in accordance with local customs. To identify candidates for interviews, we asked the soba in each village to invite all elders who lived in the area during the war and who were available to speak to us during our fieldwork. Although an anagraphic approach considering evidence such as ID cards would have been preferable, this was not possible in this context as most people do not have ID cards and do not keep close track of their age. We gave priority to elders as we assumed they would be able to provide a more comprehensive assessment of changes in fire patterns and experiences during the war. However, we also included younger people in our sample (> 35 yr old) as they lived through part of the war and had direct experience of it, often as child soldiers in the case of males. Our sample included: 60% men and 40% women; 25% between 35 and 50 yr old and 75% between 50 and 80 yr old (see Append. 1 for a summary of interviewee demographics). We considered that we had reached thematic saturation when similar responses recurred across participants. In addition, given the relatively small number of elderly residents in each village, we aimed to achieve sample saturation by interviewing the majority of elders in each community. Fieldwork took place intermittently from May 2022 to October 2023, and the actual time on the ground totaled 2 mo. Interviews were conducted with the support of a local interpreter who spoke Portuguese and Luchaze/Tchokwé.

Data analyses

Spatial analyses: burned area

From the AVHRR-LTDR data set, we extracted BA estimates within the study region (blue polygon shown in Fig. 1), masking negative values (from places that do not burn, such as water bodies). We calculated the total BA by year from 1982 to 2018 (RQs 1 and 2) by summing the monthly BA values obtained for each year (the total accumulated BA did not exceed the size of the pixel, ca. 25 km, for any pixel). We then conducted a breakpoint regression analysis to explore changes in BA per year over the time series, using the package Segmented v.2.0-3 (Muggeo 2023) in R Statistical Environment (R Core Team 2024). This analysis uses a linear model with “burned area” as a function of “year” but then performs a segmented regression to help identify points during the studied time frame where the relationship between BA and year significantly changes. After building models with different numbers of breakpoints (0, 1, 2, 3), we chose the model with the highest adjusted r². We compared the AICc of each model and chose the one with the lowest value (which matched the regression with the highest adjusted r²).

We also explored relationships among climatic variables and BA through linear regressions. Furthermore, the breakpoint analyses were repeated including precipitation and temperature (the year before and the same year) to evaluate if including these covariates improved the model (as judged by lowering the AIC value more than two units), and if so, whether it changed the value of the estimated breakpoints. To assess temporal autocorrelation (Di Cecco and Gouhier 2018), we obtained the residuals of the breakpoint analyses and conducted a Moran’s I test, using packages MuMIn v.1.47.5 (Bartoń 2023) and ape v.5.7.1 (Paradis and Schliep 2019) in the R Statistical Environment. The results showed no significant temporal autocorrelation (p = 0.32).

Subsequently, we divided the data set before and after each year of the time series (e.g., before 1983 and after 1983, before 1984 and after 1984, etc.) and conducted an ANOVA comparing the mean BA before vs. after each year. We then recorded the dividing year that produced the highest F statistic, indicating the year across the time series when the greatest mean change in BA occurred. We also compared the mean BA during the war (1982–2002) and after war (2003–2018) using a two-sample t-test.

Finally, we classified fires by early (April to June) and late (July to October) dry season. This classification was based on conversations with local residents, who explained that fire behavior and ignition patterns depend on the month. According to residents, a greater proportion of early dry season fires are planned, whereas accidental fires occur more often in the late dry season. Considering early vs. late dry season fires in our analysis allowed us to assess more thoroughly not only the impact of the war on BA but also patterns of fire seasonality, which are generally linked to different causes and types of fires.

Qualitative analyses: interview data

We used an inductive thematic coding approach based on grounded theory to analyze the qualitative data from interviews. Grounded theory is a method based on exploring key concepts and relationships among the data during the collection process (Glaser 2002). Here, we used it to identify themes linked to fire use and changes in fire activity during wartime, which directly relate to our research questions. The themes identified for fire patterns during wartime were: (a) use (or absence of use) of fire as a tool for warfare (RQs 1 and 2), (b) demographic changes (RQ 3), (c) governance of fire (RQs 1 and 3), and (d) changes in fire use (RQs 2 and 3). We coded the data with Nvivo v.20.

RESULTS

Fire activity trends from satellite data during and after the war

Results show that total BA was, on average, significantly lower (36%) during the war (1982–2002) compared with subsequent peacetime (2003–2018) (t₃₄ = -6.14, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). The lowest BA occurred in 1998 (51% less than the average during peacetime) followed by 1991–1992 (46% less than the average in peacetime) and 1986–1987 (37% less than during peacetime). The highest BA was observed in 2003, the year after the conflict ended (60% increase from the average during the war).

In terms of spatial patterns (Fig. 3), during the study period (1982–2018), the southwest of the study area exhibited the least fire activity, and the north had consistent, but low fire. Most fire activity occurs in the east and west boundaries of the study area, possibly linked to proximity to more populated areas. During the year with the lowest BA (1991; Fig. 3b), many places, particularly in the south of the study area, remained unburned, or with little fire activity.

The breakpoint analyses depicted 1998 and 2002 as years where the fire regime shifted significantly (Fig. 4). From 1982 to 1998, we found a gradual decrease in BA and then a sharp increase from 1998 until 2002. The year 2000 best divided the data between “low fire” (during war) and “high fire” (after 2000) (F₃₄ = 42.9, p < 0.05). To assess whether variations in rainfall or temperature could explain the decrease in fire activity during the war, we tested climatic variables as predictors of BA. Neither rainfall (t₃₄ = 1.1, p = 0.27) nor temperature (t₃₄ = 0.34, p = 0.73) were significant predictors of BA, and including them in the breakpoint analyses did not improve model performance (no decrease in AICc). These results suggest that the reduction in fire activity was likely primarily driven by a reduction in ignitions rather than climatic factors.

Most burning occurred in the late dry season (between July and October), with an average of 75% of the BA recorded compared with only 11% in the early dry season (April to June, Fig. 5). This average remained relatively constant through our time series. However, early season fires decreased by approximately 42% relative to the mean early season BA during the height of the war, specifically 1993, 1998–1999 and 2001–2002. Also, during the war, the decrease in early dry season fires did not seem to cause an increase in late dry season fires.

Local perspectives on fire patterns during the war and their drivers

Overall, respondents reported a decrease in fire events during the civil war. Interviews were key to identify the primary reasons behind this change. We present here the main themes that emerged from our conversations, which are linked to one or more of our research questions: (a) use of fire as a tool for warfare (RQs 1 and 2), (b) demographic changes (RQ 3), (c) governance of fire (RQs 1 and 3), and (d) changes in fire use (RQs 2 and 3).

Use of fire in warfare

There was a general agreement that, during the war, none of the parties used fire as a warfare tool to deliberately burn the forest, although villages were routinely burned as a tactic to weaken local support to guerrilla units. Occasionally fires resulted from warfare activities, particularly from the use of incendiary weapons on villages, including different types of bombs. Yet, according to witnesses, damage to the vegetation was minimal.

There were different types of bombs: some only released smoke but others, when they exploded at night, made so much fire! It looked like it was daytime. ...Phosphorus bombs produced lots of fire, they would light up the floor. (Male respondent, 67 yr old.)

If those bombs exploded during dry times, there would be fires where there were grasses. But there weren’t so many bombs so they didn’t cause much fire. (Male respondent, 65 yr old.)

Demographic changes

During the war, the highlands of East Angola witnessed a widespread displacement of the population, with some people relocating to urban centers, which were considered safer, whereas many others enrolled in combat units, transferring to military bases and moving around the country. Those who stayed in the area were forced to move frequently, living precarious and mobile lives to escape violence.

We never stayed in one place: today you sleep here, tomorrow somewhere else. If you heard the military, you had to leave immediately. You built a house, stayed a month or a year, then moved again, because if you stayed, they would kill you. Only when peace came did people start building neighborhoods. (Female respondent, 65 yr old.)

Fire governance

Many respondents mentioned a sharp change in management and governance of fire during the war. Using fire for subsistence activities (cooking, agriculture, hunting, etc.) was strictly limited throughout the war, and particularly during periods of more intense fighting. One of the main concerns during the war was that fire could reveal the presence of people in certain areas, putting them at risk. Flames and smoke were easily detected by helicopters and planes monitoring the region, potentially exposing the locations of guerrilla troops and civilians. As forests provided critical shelter during wartime, there was also fear that uncontrolled fires might spread through dense vegetation, endangering those hiding.

Woodlands didn’t burn back then, burning wasn’t acceptable. If you burned, then where were you going to hide?... Fire and smoke can travel far so you would signal your location to the enemy. (Male respondent, 53 yr old.)

If you burned during wartimes, when planes passed through, helicopters or MiGs* would see you, so you had to be in dense woodlands and hid in the bushes. (Female respondent, 51 yr old.) *Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau, or MiG, were Soviet aircraft which played a key role in the conflict, as the Soviet Union supported the MPLA during the war (Scholtz 2009).

Because of the potentially deadly implications, collective norms on fire use changed radically during the war. Interviewees reported that strict restrictions for burning were in place alongside dire consequences for violating the rules, ranging from corporal punishment to death.

...If you burned, that was a crime! You were going to get the others killed! ... If people set fires anarchically, soldiers would ask, who burned? And they would kill them. After that, others wouldn’t burn anymore, because that was the rule. (Male respondent, 67 yr old.)

Those who burned by mistake would be punished, they’d beat you or give you a punishment. You cannot go against soldiers’ orders, that is the law...they would beat your body, they whipped you, they could do 100 or 200 whippings... (Male respondent, 64 yr old.)

On the contrary, the end of the war marked a shift toward a weak governance and enforcement of fire-related norms in these communities: the high level of organization and control that was dominant during the conflict appears to be in stark contrast to the post-war period, when people burn without such coordination or fear of punishment. As an indirect consequence of the war, the elders also reported a disruption of traditional practices related to fire (such as collective hunting with fire or celebrations with bonfires), with a particular emphasis on loss of knowledge transmission. They believe the war caused a loss of fire knowledge, and nowadays, younger generations are less conscious of how to use fire, which leads to more fire accidents.

Changes in fire use

Still, in remote rural Angola, living without fire is extremely challenging, as communities rely entirely on subsistence agriculture, hunting, and non-timber product harvesting. Even in wartime, some burning activities were necessary and allowed, but under strict and coordinated control from the community and armed groups. Controlled burns, and particularly firebreaks around crop fields (called kuvahuila in Luchaze), were practiced whenever possible during the early dry season to prevent late dry season intense fires (kutzimika), although controlled burns were carried out significantly less than in peacetime. In the late dry season, fires used in rotation farming were lit only at night or where there was no immediate presence or activity of enemy troops. The burning had to start late at night when helicopters were not around, and be put out before dawn. Some reported that instead of using fire to create firebreaks around the fields, people had to switch to manually cutting vegetation to stop fire from spreading. They also had to stay away from the crop fields because helicopters could easily spot people in open areas, and when they burned the fields, it was safer to go away and come back days later. Moreover, as agriculture was limited by the conflict, locals had to rely heavily on honey, wild fruits, mushrooms, and caterpillars as sources of food.

Other subsistence activities were affected too. Hunting was possible but limited, and the practice of burning as a collective hunting technique (chikuna, in the local language Luchaze), commonly used in peacetime, was not practiced during the war. Harvesting of honey using burnt wood sticks to smoke away bees was done after dusk to decrease the risk of fire (dropped embers could be easily spotted and extinguished). Indeed, this activity is indicated as one of the main causes of uncontrolled fires in the region nowadays, as it sometimes happens that the wood stick falls to the ground and, in dry conditions, causes accidental fires. To avoid accidents during the war, the harvesting was done by groups of two to three people so that one person could climb the tree to harvest and the others would wait under the tree to put out flames. As for cooking, households shifted the preferred tree species for firewood to those that produce less smoke (i.e., from Julbernardia paniculata to Bobgunia madagascarensis). They also used a technique where they placed wood underneath cut termite mounds and set cooking pans on top. This prevented both fire and smoke from spreading far.

It was hard to cook, the rule then was to light the fire after 6 p.m. until 4 a.m. I used munhenhe (in Luchaze, referring to Bobgunia madagascarensis), because it doesn’t make smoke... Big firewood could only be lit at night, removing the bark so that it burns slowly, and the coal that remains you’d use to cook in the morning because it doesn’t produce smoke anymore. (Female respondent, 65 yr old.)

Lastly, respondents reported changes in the vegetation due to prolonged periods of fire suppression, particularly a densification and expansion of forested areas, an aspect that deserves further investigation.

DISCUSSION

Our findings point toward an overall decrease in BA during the Angolan civil war, followed by an increase in fire as the conflict neared its end, and most notably after peace was restored in 2003. Within our time series, we observed the most pronounced decrease in BA from 1985 until 1998, with 1991, 1992, and 1998, as the years with the lowest BA, which coincide with periods of intensification of the conflict (Asam 2024; see Append. 2 for further information). Altered fire regimes over the assessed time period were not correlated to climatic factors, suggesting that other drivers were likely responsible.

In-depth interviews with elder residents who lived in the region during and after the conflict were instrumental to identify three main reasons that can explain the decrease in fire activity during the war, namely the displacement of populations due to the conflict, strict fire governance, and changes in fire use by local communities. Additionally, the fact that the use of fire in warfare was rather limited likely played a crucial role in explaining the pattern. This is particularly relevant as most of the literature focusing on war and fire has indicated the likelihood of an increase in fire risk, fire activity, and BA as a result of warfare (Syria: Zubkova et al. 2021 and Daiyoub et al. 2023, Turkey: Dinc 2021, Iraq: Eklund et al. 2021, Israel: Levin et al. 2016, Ukraine: Matsala et al. 2024 and Rodriguez-Jimenez et al. 2024, China: Zhang et al. 2023). Our study points in a different direction, documenting a decrease in fire activity during conflict and identifying key mechanisms that could explain these results. Although fire in the context of war is often catalogued as a warfare tool or as an intended or unintended consequence of warfare (Gorsevski et al. 2013, Daiyoub et al. 2023, Zhang et al. 2023), we highlight here how, for rural communities, fire holds far greater significance, even in wartime. In fact, in Moxico, warfare appears to be marginal as a direct driver of fires. It was interesting, for instance, that respondents rarely mentioned burning caused by bombs when directly asked about the use of fire as a weapon. In general, they tended to emphasize changes in livelihoods, governance, and displacement as the most evident war-related factors that were responsible for the decrease in fire activity.

This study reveals important shifts in land use and management coinciding with the peace agreement and the post-war period. Notably, our findings align with previous research studies on fire regimes in Angola since the war (Catarino et al. 2020, Lourenco et al. 2023; time frame analyzed: 2001–2020), which report the highest values of BA between 2003 and 2005. This increase has been linked to the end of the civil war (Catarino et al. 2020) alongside a rapid expansion of agricultural areas (Schneibel et al. 2013, Loft et al. 2024), and a canopy opening in East Angola peaking after the conflict, potentially linked to the resettlement of displaced populations (Andrews et al. 2024). The drastic increase of 60% in BA in 2003, compared with the average from 1982–2002 in our study, indicates a transition from limited fire activity during the war to a regained autonomy of local fire use during peacetime. This might be driven by the return of displaced populations, the restoration of pre-war livelihood practices involving the use of fire (mainly agriculture, hunting, and honey production), and marginally, by expansion of market connections promoting agricultural production for trade, all likely exacerbated by fuel accumulation resulting from limited fire activity during wartime. Similar patterns have been observed elsewhere, where fire suppression policies have led to fuel accumulation, increasing the risk of larger and more intense fires (Bilbao et al. 2019, Kreider et al. 2024). In particular, the reduced use of early dry season fires, typically deliberate and intentional, as documented in our study and in other conflict zones (Shaffer 2010, Gorsevski et al. 2013), especially during the years with the lowest BA, suggests a suppression of customary fire use. Indeed, where early season, small-scale burns are practiced, the likelihood of destructive late season fires tends to decrease (Mistry et al. 2005, Sletto and Rodriguez 2013).

Interestingly, the increase in fire activity in Angola after 2002 has been seen as an exception (Catarino et al. 2020), whereas, based on our findings, we suggest that the exception might rather be the marked decrease of fire activity during the war. This is an important argument not only for the academic debate on human–fire interactions but also because of its implications for environmental and fire governance in the region. Perceptions on what is the “baseline” fire regime in the east have likely been affected by the sharp contrast in fire activity between wartime and peacetime, with the sudden rise in peacetime being suggested as the exception. Yet, if the exception is rather the sharp decrease during wartime, the implication may lead to the need to reconsider current fire regimes as the baseline under peaceful conditions. In fact, if we look at BA data in the 19-yr post-war period (2003–2021; Catarino et al. 2020, Lourenco et al. 2023; Fig. 4), the trend is not of a progressive increase, but of a relatively consistent pattern. This has important implications for fire management in this landscape, as suppression or control-oriented policies that aim to address the post-war increase in BA may disrupt livelihoods that depend on fire (Shaffer 2010, Eloy et al. 2019). Using long low-fire periods as the baseline regime can, therefore, obscure historical patterns and give rise to narratives not necessarily grounded in ecological or livelihood assessments. Approaches that align policy with ground realities, such as community-based fire management (Croker et al. 2023) or integrated fire management (Oliveras Menor et al. 2025), offer ecologically and socially informed alternatives. However, none of these approaches has yet incorporated a conflict or post-conflict lens, which, as we have shown, may prove crucial to fully capture the nature and drivers of fire regimes.

Changes in fire activity during the Angolan civil war not only reshaped local social dynamics at the time, but may also continue to affect livelihoods in the present day, highlighting the lasting influence of war-induced changes in fire patterns. For example, considerable shifts in fire governance and management during conflict have had a long-lasting impact on community fire practices in the region. Before the war, collective management of fire was more common (as reported by elders), possibly driven by long-standing traditions aimed at managing land and resources. In turn, during the war, strict control on fire use and harsh punishments were introduced, under the lead and supervision of guerrilla units. When the war ended, the system quickly lost its purpose as an important survival strategy and faded, and, by this time, the pre-war traditions were lost. At present, fire governance across the region is rather weak, and fire practices are largely driven by individual decisions. Likewise, in other contexts where fire use is guided by customary practices, a shift from collective to individual decision making has been noted (Mistry et al. 2005, Walters 2010, Bilbao et al. 2019). In the case of Angola, this shift may be attributed to the prevailing peace, an abundance of resources, and landscapes and livelihoods adapted to fire, where fire is not necessarily perceived as a threat.

The shift in fire governance, from practices shaped by the conditions of the war to those implemented after the conflict, has likely influenced intergenerational relationships. In elders’ narratives, a tension emerges between preserving customary fire knowledge and the alleged lack of interest to acquire and implement this knowledge by younger generations, likely another indirect effect of the war. Furthermore, colonial legacies and contrasting narratives around customary burning, often reflecting dominant policy frameworks, economic development, and conservation paradigms, may also play a role in shaping current local fire governance (Moura et al. 2019).

Our results highlight the importance of human, and particularly political, drivers in shaping and altering fire regimes over time (Kull 2002, Eriksen 2007, Archibald 2016, Cary 2023). They demonstrate the sheer significance of war for local communities and the substantial disruption it can cause to livelihoods and social-environmental relationships. We have documented how, in remote rural regions relying exclusively on subsistence agriculture and hunting and gathering, the main change in social-ecological equilibria in wartime was determined by fire. In this part of Angola, fire is the most important tool used by people to manage their landscape, and an external shock such as the civil war redefined the relationship between local communities and fire, and as a consequence, with their entire environment. These changes were so widespread that almost every aspect of households and individual lives were affected, from hunting, harvesting, and cooking, to agriculture and governance. To our knowledge, this is the first study to document how significant and pervasive these dynamics are, and how fire plays a crucial role in understanding the consequences of war for remote rural communities in Angola and beyond.

The lack of attention toward the nuances of human–fire interactions can be viewed, we argue, as the symptom of a broader conceptualization of fire in the literature mostly as a danger or a natural disaster, rather than a crucial productive tool for rural communities. Although the case of Moxico (with its remoteness, absence of state, and marginalization) may represent an extreme situation even for rural Africa, conflicts can disproportionally affect marginalized and poorer groups within societies (Mohanty 2017, Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2024), and it is therefore important to consider the complex and unexpected consequences that changes in fire regimes, triggered by wars, bring to these communities. Although the relationship between warfare and fire activity can vary significantly depending on local contexts, ecological conditions, and the nature of the conflict itself, comparable patterns might emerge in other landscapes affected by conflict, emphasizing the need for further interdisciplinary and mixed methods social-ecological research to explore how these dynamics manifest in different landscapes.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. The use of coarse-resolution AVHRR data (ca. 5 km) may have led to the under-detection of small fires. In general, remote-sensing analyses face known challenges in reconstructing historical fire regimes, including low early satellite resolution, technological inconsistencies over time, and the scarcity of ground-truth data for validation (Wooster et al. 2021). Regarding the qualitative data, although interviews with elders provided valuable historical insights into past fire regimes, such recollections are subject to memory bias and may not precisely align with the timing or extent of events detected in satellite records. The qualitative component was likely further limited by a low sample size, reflecting the challenges of accessing a remote landscape. Researching sensitive topics like war also required ethical considerations and sensitivity, which at times limited the depth of the inquiries in order to respect respondents’ comfort. In addition, working with interpreters who were not formally trained introduced translation-related challenges, potentially causing some information and meanings to be inadvertently lost or distorted. These factors underscore the need to validate the data through mixed method approaches and to interpret the results in light of these methodological constraints.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals the significant impact of war on fire regimes, as evidenced by the decrease in BA during the Angolan civil war in East Angola, an aspect not sufficiently considered in the already scarce literature on fire and war, or war ecology. These findings highlight the crucial role of local communities in shaping fire regimes, even in a landscape prone to burning and under extreme conditions of violence and precarity. This calls for a need to reconsider when and where ecological variables are the main determinants of fire and to rethink fire not solely as an environmental process but also as a socio-political one (Moritz et al. 2014, Petty et al. 2015, Guyette et al. 2016, Shuman et al. 2022).

The evidence presented here is relevant for fire management and conservation policy making, emphasizing the need for context-specific fire governance. Although it might be assumed that, in the study area, increased fire activity following the war has been exceptional, therefore orienting policy toward a growing control on fire to reduce its impact on the landscape, we suggest here that the post-war trend might rather be a return to a peacetime “baseline” condition, which would require a different approach and understanding.

Finally, this study highlights the value of using field-based data collection methods, particularly those that document local perspectives, as they offer valuable and unique insights into how local human dynamics shape landscape patterns. Interdisciplinary approaches are crucial to acknowledge the complex social-ecological systems that influence fire regimes. Future research could replicate this approach in other African conflict zones, incorporate long-term monitoring of fire regimes, and further explore the interplay among local practices, governance, and landscape dynamics to inform post-conflict fire management strategies.

LITERATURE CITED

Aldersley, A., S. J. Murray, and S. E. Cornell. 2011. Global and regional analysis of climate and human drivers of wildfire. Science of the Total Environment 409(18):3472-3481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.032

Andrews, C. A., S. Bowers, L. F. Escobar-Alvarado, K. Collins, K. G. Dexter, and C. M. Ryan. 2024. Resilience, remoteness and war shape the land cover dynamics in one of the world’s largest miombo woodlands. Trees, Forests and People 17:100623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100623

Archibald, S. 2016. Managing the human component of fire regimes: lessons from Africa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371:20150346. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0346

Archibald, S., C. E. Lehmann, J. L. Gómez-Dans, and R. A. Bradstock. 2013. Defining pyromes and global syndromes of fire regimes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(16):6442-6447. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211466110

Archibald, S., D. P. Roy, B. W. van Wilgen, and R. J. Scholes. 2009. What limits fire? An examination of drivers of burnt area in Southern Africa. Global Change Biology 15(3):613-630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01754.x

Archibald, S., R. J. Scholes, D. P. Roy, G. Roberts, and L. Boschetti. 2010. Southern African fire regimes as revealed by remote sensing. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19(7):861-878. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10008

Armenteras, D., L. Schneider, and L. M. Dávalos. 2019. Fires in protected areas reveal unforeseen costs of Colombian peace. Nature Ecology and Evolution 3:20-23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0727-8

Asam, A. L. 2024. The stages towards the peaceful settlement of the Angolan Civil War 1975–2002. Global Scientific Journals 12(7):584-586.

Barbosa, P. M., J. M. Grégoire, and J. M. C. Pereira. 1999. An algorithm for extracting burned areas from time series of AVHRR GAC data applied at a continental scale. Remote Sensing of Environment 69(3):253-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00026-7

Bartoń, K. 2023. MuMIn: multi-model inference (version 1.47.5) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn

Beare, D., F. Hölker, G. H. Engelhard, E. McKenzie, and D. G. Reid. 2010. An unintended experiment in fisheries science: a marine area protected by war results in Mexican waves in fish numbers-at-age. Naturwissenschaften 97(9):797-808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-010-0696-5

Bilbao, B., J. Mistry, A. Millán, and A. Berardi. 2019. Sharing multiple perspectives on burning: towards a participatory and intercultural fire management policy in Venezuela, Brazil, and Guyana. Fire 2(3):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire2030039

Bond, W. J., F. I. Woodward, and G. F. Midgley. 2005. The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. New Phytologist 165(2):525-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01252.x

Bowman, D. M. J. S., J. Balch, P. Artaxo, W. J. Bond, M. A. Cochrane, C. M. D’Antonio, R. DeFries, F. H. Johnston, J. E. Keeley, M. A. Krawchuk, C. A. Kull, M. Mack, M. A. Moritz, S. Pyne, C. I. Roos, A. C. Scott, N. S. Sodhi, and T. W. Sitnam. 2011. The human dimension of fire regimes on Earth. Journal of Biogeography 38(12):2223-2236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02595.x

Brinkman, I., and S. Alessi. 2009. From “lands at the end of the earth” to “lands of progress”? Communication and mobility in South-Eastern Angola. Pages 193-220 in M. Fernández-Ardèvol and A. Ros, editors. Communication technologies in Latin America and Africa: A multidisciplinary perspective. University of Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.

Burgess, R., E. Miguel, and C. Stanton. 2015. War and deforestation in Sierra Leone. Environmental Research Letters 10(9):095014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095014

Burton, C., S. Lampe, D. I. Kelley, W. Thiery, S. Hantson, N. Christidis, L. Gudmundsson, M. Forrest, E. Burke, J. Chang, H. Huang, A. Ito, S. Kou-Giesbrecht, G. Lasslop, W. Li, L. Nieradzik, F. Li, Y. Chen, J. Randerson, C. P. O. Reyer, and M. Mengel. 2024. Global burned area increasingly explained by climate change. Nature Climate Change 14:1186-1192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02140-w

Butz, R. J. 2009. Traditional fire management: historical fire regimes and land use change in pastoral East Africa. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18(4):442-450. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF07067

Cary, M. M. 2023. Pyropolitics and the Production of territory. Environment and Society 14(1):104-121. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2023.140107

Catarino, S., M. M. Romeiras, R. Figueira, V. Aubard, J. M. N. Silva, and J. M. C. Pereira. 2020. Spatial and temporal trends of burnt area in Angola: implications for natural vegetation and protected area management. Diversity 12(8):307. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12080307

Certini, G., R. Scalenghe, and W. I. Woods. 2013. The impact of warfare on the soil environment. Earth-Science Reviews 127:1-15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.009

Chuvieco, E., F. Mouillot, G. R. van der Werf, J. San Miguel, M. Tanase, N. Koutsias, M. García, M. Yebra, M. Padilla, I. Gitas, A. Heil, T. J. Hawbaker, and L. Giglio. 2019. Historical background and current developments for mapping burned area from satellite Earth observation. Remote Sensing of Environment 225:45-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.02.013

Chuvieco, E., M. L. Pettinari, and G. Otón. 2020. ESA fire climate change initiative (Fire_cci): AVHRR-LTDR burned area pixel product, version 1.1. Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, Chilton, UK. https://doi.org/10.5285/b1bd715112ca43ab948226d11d72b85e

Chuvieco, E., M. L. Pettinari, N. Koutsias, M. Forkel, S. Hantson, and M. Turco. 2021. Human and climate drivers of global biomass burning variability. Science of the Total Environment 779:146361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146361

Cochrane, M. A., and K. C. Ryan. 2009. Fire and fire ecology: concepts and principles. Pages 25-62 in M. Cochrane, editor. Tropical fire ecology. Springer Praxis Books, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77381-8_2

Copes-Gerbitz, K., S. M. Hagerman, and L. D. Daniels. 2021. Situating Indigenous knowledge for resilience in fire-dependent social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 26(4):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12757-260425

Coughlan, M. R., and A. M. Petty. 2012. Linking humans and fire: a proposal for a transdisciplinary fire ecology. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(5):477-487. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11048

Countryman, C. M. 1972. The fire environment concept. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Range and Experiment Station, Berkeley, California, USA.

Croker, A. R., J. Woods, and Y. Kountouris. 2023. Changing fire regimes in East and Southern Africa’s savanna-protected areas: opportunities and challenges for indigenous-led savanna burning emissions abatement schemes. Fire Ecology 19:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-023-00215-1

Czub, M., L. Kotwicki, T. Lang, H. Sanderson, Z. Klusek, M. Grabowski, M. Szubska, J. Jakacki, J. Andrzejewski, D. Rak, and J. Bełdowski. 2018. Deep sea habitats in the chemical warfare dumping areas of the Baltic Sea. Science of the Total Environment 616:1485-1497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.165

Daiyoub, A., P. Gelabert, S. Saura-Mas, and C. Vega-Garcia. 2023. War and deforestation: using remote sensing and machine learning to identify the war-induced deforestation in Syria 2010–2019. Land 12(8):1509. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081509

Daskin, J., and R. Pringle. 2018. Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa’s protected areas. Nature 553:328-332. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25194

de Vos, H., J. Jongerden, and J. van Etten. 2008. Images of war: using satellite images for human rights monitoring in Turkish Kurdistan. Disasters 32(3):449-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01049.x

Di Cecco, G. J., and T. C. Gouhier. 2018. Increased spatial and temporal autocorrelation of temperature under climate change. Scientific Reports 8:14850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33217-0

Dinc, P. 2021. Forest fires in Dersim and Sirnak: conflict and environmental destruction. Pages 263-278 in S. E. Hunt, editor. Ecological solidarity and the Kurdish freedom movement: thought, practice, challenges, and opportunities. Lexington Books, London, UK. https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/portalfiles/portal/108793543/Ecological_Solidarity_and_the_Kurdish_Freedom_Move_PD.pdf

Dos Santos, A. C., S. Rocha Montenegro, M. C. Ferreira, A. C. S. Barradas, and I. B. Schmidt. 2021. Managing fires in a changing world: fuel and weather determine fire behavior and safety in the neotropical savannas. Journal of Environmental Management 289:112508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112508

Eklund, L., A. M. Abdi, A. Shahpurwala, and P. Dinc. 2021. On the geopolitics of fire, conflict and land in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Remote Sensing 13(8):1575. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13081575

Eloy, L., B. A. Bilbao, J. Mistry, and I. B. Schmidt. 2019. From fire suppression to fire management: advances and resistances to changes in fire policy in the savannas of Brazil and Venezuela. The Geographical Journal 185(1):10-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12245

Eriksen, C. 2007. Why do they burn the ‘bush’? Fire, rural livelihoods, and conservation in Zambia. Geographical Journal 173(3):242-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00239.x

Gbanie, S., A. Griffin, and A. Thornton. 2018. Impacts on the urban environment: land cover change trajectories and landscape fragmentation in post-war Eastern Area, Sierra Leone. Remote Sensing 10(1):129. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10010129

Glaser, B. G. 2002. Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2):23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100203

Gorsevski, V., M. Geores, and E. Kasischke. 2013. Human dimensions of land use and land cover change related to civil unrest in the Imatong Mountains of South Sudan. Applied Geography 38:64-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.11.019

Gorsevski, V., E. Kasischke, J. Dempewolf, T. Loboda, and F. Grossmann. 2012. Analysis of the impacts of armed conflict on the Eastern Afromontane forest region on the South Sudan-Uganda border using multitemporal Landsat imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 118:10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.023

Grimes, E. S., M. L. Kneer, and J. F. Berkowitz. 2023. Military activity and island-dependent wildlife: a warfare ecology perspective. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 20(6):2153-2161. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4767

Gurses, M. 2012. Environmental consequences of civil war: evidence from the Kurdish conflict in Turkey. Civil Wars 14(2):254-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2012.679495

Guyette, R., M. Stambaugh, D. Dey, J. Marschall, J. Saunders, and J. Lampereur. 2016. 350 years of fire–climate–human interactions in a Great Lakes sandy outwash plain. Forests 7(9):189. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090189

Hanson, T. 2018. Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: a warfare ecology perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1429(1):50-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13689

Hanson, T., T. M. Brooks, G. A. B. Da Fonseca, M. Hoffmann, M. Lamoreux, J. F. Machlis, C. G. Mittermeier, R. A. Mittermeier, and J. D. Pilgrim. 2009. Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology 23(3):578-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01166.x

Hantson, S., G. Lasslop, S. Kloster, and E. Chuvieco. 2015. Anthropogenic effects on global mean fire size. International Journal of Wildland Fire 24(5): 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF14208

Hassoun, A., K. Al-Muhannadi, A. Haddarah, F. Slim, D. Iriqat, A. Hamad, A. Faddoul, and M. Buheji. 2025. Environmental consequences of conflict: lessons from the recent war on Gaza. Pages 173-188 in A. Hassoun, editor. War on Gaza: consequences on sustainability and global security. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-88500-6_11

Humphrey, G. J., L. Gillson, and G. Ziervogel. 2021. How changing fire management policies affect fire seasonality and livelihoods. Ambio 50(3):475-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01351-7

Huntley, B. J., and N. Ferrand. 2019. Angolan biodiversity: towards a modern synthesis. Pages 1-12 in B. Huntley, V. Russo, F. Lages, and N. Ferrand, editors. Biodiversity of Angola. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03083-4_1

Jaafar, H., L. Sujud, and E. Woertz. 2022. Scorched earth tactics of the “Islamic State” after its loss of territory: intentional burning of farmland in Iraq and Syria. Regional Environmental Change 22(4):120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01976-2

Kelly, L. T., K. M. Giljohann, A. Duane, N. Aquilué, S. Archibald, E. Batllori, A. F. Bennett, M. F. Clarke, L. E. Cullen, M. A. McCarthy, F. Montané, M. A. Moritz, J. A. Myers, B. M. Rogers, A. D. Syphard, and J. E. Keeley. 2020. Fire and biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Science 370(6519):eabb0355. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb0355

Kim, Y. S., M. Rodrigues, and F. N. Robinne. 2021. Economic drivers of global fire activity: a critical review using the DPSIR framework. Forest Policy and Economics 131:102563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102563

Kitzberger, T., P. M. Brown, E. K. Heyerdahl, T. W. Sitnam, and T. T. Veblen. 2007. Contingent Pacific–Atlantic ocean influence on multicentury wildfire synchrony over eastern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(2):543-548. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606078104

Kreider, M. R., P. E. Higuera, S. A. Parks, W. L. Rice, N. White, and A. J. Larson. 2024. Fire suppression makes wildfires more severe and accentuates impacts of climate change and fuel accumulation. Nature Communications 15(1):2412. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46702-0

Kugler, T., K. K. Kang, J. Kugler, M. Arbetman-Rabinowitz, and J. Thomas. 2013. Demographic and economic consequences of conflict. International Studies Quarterly 57(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12002

Kull, C. A. 2002. Madagascar aflame: landscape burning as peasant protest, resistance, or a resource management tool? Political Geography 21(7):927-953. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(02)00054-9

Lan, Z., Z. Su, M. Guo, E. C. Alvarado, F. Guo, H. Hu, and G. Wang. 2021. Are climate factors driving the contemporary wildfire occurrence in China? Forests 12(4):392. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040392

Levin, N., N. Tessler, A. Smith, and C. McAlpine. 2016. The human and physical determinants of wildfires and burnt areas in Israel. Environmental Management 58(3):549-562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0715-1

Levy, B. S., S. S. Gurinder, and L. Chen. 1997. The environmental consequences of war. Pages 51-64 in B. S. Levy and V. W. Sidel, editors. War and public health. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Lindenmayer, D. B., C. MacGregor, J. Wood, M. J. Westgate, K. Ikin, C. Foster, F. Ford, and R. Zentelis. 2016. Bombs, fire and biodiversity: vertebrate fauna occurrence in areas subject to military training. Biological Conservation 204:276-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.030

Loboda, T., and I. A. Csiszar. 2004. Estimating burned area from AVHRR and MODIS: validation results and sources of error. Pages 415-421 in Proceedings of the 2nd Open All-Russia Conference: Current aspects of remote sensing of earth from space. Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.

Loft, T., N. Stevens, F. M. P. Gonçalves, and I. Oliveras Menor. 2024. Extensive woody encroachment altering Angolan miombo woodlands despite cropland expansion and frequent fires. Global Change Biology 30:e17171. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17171

Lourenco, M., S. Woodborne, and J. M. Fitchett. 2023. Fire regime of peatlands in the Angolan Highlands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 195:78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10704-6

Machlis, G. E., and T. Hanson. 2008. Warfare ecology. BioScience 58(8): 729-736. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580809

Mason, M. 2011. The application of warfare ecology to belligerent occupations. Pages 155-173 in G. E. Machlis, T. Hanson, Z. Špirić, and J. E. McKendry, editors. Warfare ecology: a new synthesis for peace and security. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1214-0_11

Matsala, M., A. Odruzhenko, T. Hinchuk, V. Myroniuk, I. Drobyshev, S. Sydorenko, S. Zibtsev, B. Milakovsky, D. Schepaschenko, F. Kraxner, and A. Bilous. 2024. War drives forest fire risks and highlights the need for more ecologically-sound forest management in post-war Ukraine. Scientific Reports 14(1):4131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54811-5

McCaffrey, S., E. Toman, M. Stidham, and B. Shindler. 2012. Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(1):15-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF11115

McLauchlan, K. K., P. E. Higuera, J. Miesel, B. M. Rogers, J. Schweitzer, J. K. Shuman, A. J. Tepley, J. M. Varner, T. T. Veblen, S. A. Adalsteinsson, J. K. Balch, P. Baker, E. Batllori, E. Bigio, P. Brando, M. Cattau, M. L. Chipman, J. Coen, R. Crandall, L. Daniels, N. Enright, W. S. Gross, B. J. Harvey, J. A. Hatten, S. Hermann, R. E. Hewitt, L. N. Kobziar, J. B. Landesmann, M. M. Loranty, S. Y. Maezumi, L. Mearns, M. Moritz, J. A. Myers, J. G. Pausas, A. F. A. Pellegrini, W. J. Platt, J. Roozeboom, H. Safford, F. Santos, R. M. Scheller, R. L. Sherriff, K. G. Smith, M. D. Smith, and A. C. Watts. 2020. Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers. Journal of Ecology 108(5): 2047-2069. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13403

Meaza, H., T. Ghebreyohannes, J. Nyssen, Z. Tesfamariam, B. Demissie, J. Poesen, M. Gebrehiwot, T. G. Weldemichel, S. Deckers, D.G. Gidey, and M. Vanmaercke. 2024. Managing the environmental impacts of war: what can be learned from conflict-vulnerable communities? Science of the Total Environment 927:171974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171974

Mistry, J., A. Berardi, V. Andrade, T. Krahô, P. Krahô, and O. Leonardos. 2005. Indigenous fire management in the cerrado of Brazil: the case of the Krahô of Tocantíns. Human Ecology 33(3):365-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-005-4143-8

Mistry, J., B. A. Bilbao, A. Berardi. 2016. Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371(1696):20150174. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174

Mohanty, R. K. 2017. The extant of conflict among marginalised communities: a study in Kandhamal District of Odisha. Sociological Bulletin 66(2):174-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022917708452

Moritz, M. A., E. Batllori, R. A. Bradstock, A. M. Gill, J. Handmer, P. F. Hessburg, J. Leonard, S. McCaffrey, D. C. Odion, T. Schoennagel, and A. D. Syphard. 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 515(7525):58-66. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13946

Moura, L. C., A. O. Scariot, I. B. Schmidt, R. Beatty, and J. Russell-Smith. 2019. The legacy of colonial fire management policies on traditional livelihoods and ecological sustainability in savannas: impacts, consequences, new directions. Journal of Environmental Management 232:600-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.057

Muggeo, V. M. R. 2023. Segmented: regression models with break-points/changepoints estimation (Version 2.0-3). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=segmented

Oliveras Menor, I., N. Prat-Guitart, G. L. Spadoni, A. Hsu, P. M. Fernandes, R. Puig-Gironès, D. Ascoli, B. A. Bilbao, V. Bacciu, L. Brotons, R. Carmenta, S. de-Miguel, L. G. Gonçalves, G. Humphrey, V. Ibarnegaray, M. W. Jones, M. S. Machado, A. Millán, R. de Morais Falleiro, F. Mouillot, C. Pinto, P. Pons, A. Regos, M. Senra de Oliveira, S. P. Harrison, and D. Armenteras Pascual. 2025. Integrated fire management as an adaptation and mitigation strategy to altered fire regimes. Communications Earth and Environment 6(1):202. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02165-9

Otón, G. 2020. ESA CCI ECV fire disturbance: D4.2.2 product user guide - AVHRR-LTDR (Version 1.0). https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/fire/keydocuments

Otón, G., R. Ramo, J. Lizundia-Loiola, and E. Chuvieco. 2019. Global detection of long-term (1982–2017) burned area with AVHRR-LTDR data. Remote Sensing 11(18):2079. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11182079

Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2024. Global multidimensional poverty index 2024: poverty amid conflict. OPHI and UNDP, Oxford, UK. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdp-document/mpireport2024en.pdf

Paradis, E., and K. Schliep. 2019. ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35(3):526-528. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633

Petty, A. M., V. deKoninck, and B. Orlove. 2015. Cleaning, protecting, or abating? Making indigenous fire management “work” in northern Australia. Journal of Ethnobiology 35(1):140-162. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-35.1.140

R Core Team. 2024. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Rodriguez-Jimenez, F., A. Novo, and J. V. Hall. 2024. Influence of wildfires on the conflict (2006–2022) in eastern Ukraine using remote sensing techniques (MODIS and Sentinel-2 images). Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 35:101240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2024.101240

Sánchez-Cuervo, A., and T. M. Aide. 2013. Consequences of the armed conflict, forced human displacement, and land abandonment on forest cover change in Colombia: a multi-scaled analysis. Ecosystems 16:1052-1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9667-y

Schneibel, A., M. Stellmes, R. Revermann, M. Finckh. 2013. Agricultural expansion during the post-civil war period in southern Angola based on bi-temporal Landsat data. Biodiversity and Ecology 5:311-319. https://doi.org/10.7809/b-e.00285

Scholtz, T. 2009. The air war over Angola, 1987–1988: an analysis. Journal for Contemporary History 34(1):237-265. https://scholar.ufs.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/3a116919-3c4c-4d23-80da-861318e13c35/content

Shaffer, L. J. 2010. Indigenous fire use to manage savanna landscapes in southern Mozambique. Fire Ecology 6(2):43-59. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0602043

Shuman, J. K., J. K. Shuman, J. K. Balch, R. T. Barnes, P. E. Higuera, C. I. Roos, D. W. Schwilk, E. N. Stavros, T. Banerjee, M. M. Bela, J. Bendix, S. Bertolino, S. Bililign, K. D. Bladon, P. Brando, R. E. Breidenthal, B. Buma, D. Calhoun, L. M. V. Carvalho, M. E. Cattau, K. M. Cawley, S. Chandra, Melissa L Chipman, Jeanette Cobian-Iñiguez, Erin Conlisk, Jonathan D Coop, Alison Cullen, Kimberley T Davis, Archana Dayalu, Fernando De Sales, M. Dolman, L. M. Ellsworth, S. Franklin, C. H. Guiterman, M. Hamilton, E. J. Hanan, W. D. Hansen, S. Hantson, B. J. Harvey, A. Holz, T. Huang, M. D. Hurteau, N. T. Ilangakoon, M. Jennings, C. Jones, A. Klimaszewski-Patterson, L. N. Kobziar, J. Kominoski, B. Kosovic, M. A. Krawchuk, P. Laris, J. Leonard, S. M. Loria-Salazar, M. Lucash, H. Mahmoud, E. Margolis, T. Maxwell, J. L. McCarty, D. B. McWethy, R. S. Meyer, J. R. Miesel, W. K. Moser, R. C. Nagy, D. Niyogi, H. M. Palmer, A. Pellegrini, B. Poulter, K. Robertson, A. V. Rocha, M. Sadegh, F. Santos, F. Scordo, J. O. Sexton, A. S. Sharma, A. M. S. Smith, A. J. Soja, C. Still, T. Swetnam, A. D. Syphard, M. W. Tingley, A. Tohidi, A. T. Trugman, M. Turetsky, J. M. Varner, Y. Wang, T. Whitman, S. Yelenik, and X. Zhang. 2022. Reimagine fire science for the Anthropocene. PNAS Nexus 1(3):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac115

Sletto, B., and Rodriguez, I. 2013. Burning, fire prevention and landscape productions among the Pemon, Gran Sabana, Venezuela: toward an intercultural approach to wildland fire management in neotropical savannas. Journal of Environmental Management 115:155-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.041

Smith, C., J. Ainscough, R. S. Alare, A. R. Croker, K. M. De Freitas, J. D. Millington, J. Mistry, O. Perkins, K. Schreckenberg, F. Seijo, and H. J. Thompson. 2024. How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives. Ecology and Society 29(1):35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14850-290135

Smith, C., O. Perkins, and J. Mistry. 2022. Global decline in subsistence‐oriented and smallholder fire use. Nature Sustainability 5(6):542-551. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893‐022‐00867‐y

Spies, T. A., E. M. White, J. D. Kline, A. P. Fischer, A. Ager, J. Bailey, J. Bolte, J. Koch, E. Platt, C. S. Olsen, D. Jacobs, B. Shindler, M. M. Steen-Adams, and R. Hammer. 2014. Examining fire-prone forest landscapes as coupled human and natural systems. Ecology and Society 19(3):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06584-190309

Stellmes, M., D. Frantz, M. Finckh, and R. Revermann. 2013. Fire frequency, fire seasonality and fire intensity within the Okavango region derived from MODIS fire products. Biodiversity and Ecology 5:351-362. https://doi.org/10.7809/b-e.00288

Stevens, K., L. Campbell, G. Urquhart, D. Kramer, and J. Qi. 2011. Examining complexities of forest cover change during armed conflict on Nicaragua’s Atlantic coast. Biodiversity and Conservation 20:2597-2613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0093-1

Tebbutt, C. A., T. Devisscher, L. Obando-Cabrera, G. A. G. García, M. C. M. Elizalde, D. Armenteras, and I. Oliveras Menor. 2021. Participatory mapping reveals socioeconomic drivers of forest fires in protected areas of the post-conflict Colombian Amazon. People and Nature 3(4):811-826. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10222

Teckentrup, L., S. P. Harrison, S. Hantson, A. Heil, J. R. Melton, M. Forrest, F. Li, C. Yue, A. Arneth, T. Hickler, S. Sitch, and G. Lasslop. 2019. Response of simulated burned area to historical changes in environmental and anthropogenic factors: a comparison of seven fire models. Biogeosciences 16(19):3883-3910. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-3883-2019

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. Landsat 5 (LT05) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) reflectance [LANDSAT/LT05/C01/T1_TOA]. NASA/USGS, Washington, D.C., and Reston, Virginia, USA. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/

van Wilgen, B. W., H. M. de Klerk, M. Stellmes, and S. Archibald. 2022. An analysis of the recent fire regimes in the Angolan catchment of the Okavango Delta, Central Africa. Fire Ecology 18(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-022-00138-3

Walters, G. 2010. The land chief’s embers: ethnobotany of Batéké fire regimes, savanna vegetation and resource use in Gabon. Dissertation, University College, London, UK. https://iris.unil.ch/handle/iris/260039

Wooster, M. J., G. J. Roberts, L. Giglio, D. P. Roy, P. H. Freeborn, L. Boschetti, and J. San-Miguel-Ayanz. 2021. Satellite remote sensing of active fires: history and current status, applications and future requirements. Remote Sensing of Environment 267:112694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112694

Yang, J., H. Tian, B. Tao, W. Ren, J. Kush, Y. Liu and Y. Wang. 2014. Spatial and temporal patterns of global burned area in response to anthropogenic and environmental factors: reconstructing global fire history for the 20th and early 21st centuries. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 119:249-263. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002532

Zhang, S., H. Liu, G. Li, Z. Zhang, X. Chen, Z. Shi, A. Zhou, G. Dong. 2023. Warfare impact overtakes climate-controlled fires in the eastern Silk Roads since 2000 B.P. PNAS Nexus 2(12):408. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad408

Zubkova, M., L. Giglio, M. L. Humber, J. V. Hall, and E. Ellicott. 2021. Conflict and climate: drivers of fire activity in Syria in the twenty-first century. Earth Interactions 25(1):119-135. https://doi.org/10.1175/EI-D-21-0009.1