4.7 Article

Bio-cultural fire regions of Guinea-Bissau: Analysis combining social research and satellite remote sensing

期刊

APPLIED GEOGRAPHY
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102203

关键词

Biocultural fire regions; Fire governance; Land use change; People and pixels; Political ecology; Socio-ecological systems

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [PTDC/AFR/111546/2009, PTDC/AFR/1117785/2010]
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia I.P. (FCT), Portugal [UID/AGR/00239/2019, UIDB/00239/2020]
  3. Guinea-Bissau Government
  4. Portuguese Government
  5. Portugal-Africa Foundation
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/AFR/111546/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ever since colonial times, the rural inhabitants of Guinea-Bissau have been blamed for lighting uncontrolled fires all over the country. Based on in-depth ethnographic research in two regions, a country-level rapid rural appraisal, and analysis of satellite active fire data, this essay shows how burning practices are, however, diversified according to cultural, socio-economic, demographic and agm-ecological conditions, and how they have been changing recently as a locally-developed adaptation to new farming systems. Many new bush-fire uses correspond to current best practices (e.g., use of firebreaks, backfiring, burning at cooler hours of the day), but under a scenario of changing climate and land uses there is room for improving fire management to reduce negative environmental impacts, while preserving cultural, economic and biodiversity benefits generated by some traditional burning practices. The design of public policies for reducing material damages, biodiversity loss, and carbon emissions from fires requires an understanding of their local drivers. Following from that, the development of ecological management practices must engage with farmers' knowledge and networks/institutions and meet their priorities and needs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据