4.4 Article

Forest and agroecosystem fire management in Ghana

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11027-010-9236-z

关键词

Cost effective; Economic cost; Fire risk; Local perception; Mitigation and adaptation; Wildfire education

资金

  1. Academy of Finland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The threat of wildfires to the economic potential of forestry and agriculture is one of the persistent national and international concerns. Improving and applying indigenous wildfire management (IWM) approaches is seen as one of the main hopes for mitigating and adapting to this threat to rural forest communities. Identifying the contextual causes and adaptation measures practiced by local people is essential for planning an appropriate mechanism for IWM. Yet only limited studies are available on IWM practices and most of those studies were conducted outside of this study region. To fill this gap, this study examined the wildfire mitigation and adaptation methods of forest communities in Ghana using interviews with 266 farming households. Their perceptions of the causes, cost and risk factors were also examined. The result suggests that wildfires are annual events. More than half of the wildfires reported were caused by slash-and-burn land preparation, with hunting-related fires in second place. Forest households loose about 208 Ghana cedi (US$ 231 in 2006) in value due to damaged crops and tree seedlings annually (i.e. about 50% of annual income of a Ghanaian farmer). The respondents had the operational skill and coping abilities to deal with small-scale wildfires and were supported by well-established local arrangements, community rules and silvicutural techniques. In addition, they were well informed about the basic risk factors (e.g. fuel load, climate, and presence of ignition triggers) and how these can interact to cause devastating wildfire. Therefore it is critical that policies and institutions that promote IWM initiatives build on the strong underlying community knowledge and local networks to enhance their effectiveness.

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

4.4
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