Fire as a dimension of historical ecology: a response to Bowman et al. (2011)

Abstract

Bowman et al. (Journal of Biogeography, 2011, 38, 2223–2236) attempt a synthesis of the current status of study into human use of fire as an ecosystem management tool and provide a framework for guiding research on the human dimensions of global fire. While we applaud this ambitious effort, we believe the proposed ‘pyric phase and transition’ model to be too deterministic and simplistic to account for the complexity and diversity in human–fire relationships. After reviewing theoretical problems with the proposed framework, we question policy implications of their conclusions concerning tropical forest systems. We suggest that a theoretically informed perspective should build on an historical fire ecology framework for investigating social and ecological aspects of human–environment interactions.

What is the relevance of pyrogeography to the Anthropocene?

“…This later phase broadly aligns to the Anthropocene, defined as post-1780 (Crutzen, 2002). The 'pyric phase' model has been misconstrued as advocating a simplistic, universal model of progressive human cultural 'development' (Coughlan and Petty, 2013), when in reality the model was designed to organise the diversity of fire regimes that have existed on Earth, with explicit acknowledgment of the coexistence and diversity of these phases in the contemporary period (Roos et al, 2014). Likewise, the Anthropocene concept has been critiqued on grounds that current anthropogenic impacts on the Earth System are not caused by all humans in the past or present, rather that these impacts are disproportionate both within and between cultures and societies owing to differing economic, political and historical circumstances of individual actors (Malm and Hornborg, 2014).…”

Pyrogeography, historical ecology, and the human dimensions of fire regimes

“…Here, we did not advocate total fire suppression in tropical forests with disregard for the livelihood of local populations, many of whom rely on fire use as part of agricultural strategies (cf. Coughlan & Petty, , p. 1011). Our point is that landscape fire‐use for economic activities, industrial combustion and carbon emissions are all interconnected in ways that will require difficult compromises to devise sustainable solutions.…”

“…Coughlan & Petty (, p. 1011) suggest ‘historical ecology’ as a guiding framework for human pyrogeography. However, it is not entirely clear what they mean by this.…”

“…We called for greater integration of the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities to produce a more holistic view of human–fire relationships across space and through time, an approach we term ‘pyrogeography’. Coughlan & Petty (, ) also champion the development of an integrated human–natural fire science, arguing that this is best achieved by ‘historical ecology’, presumably referring to an anthropological paradigm that posits particular relationships between human agency and environmental change (Balée, , ; Coughlan & Petty, ). In making their case they were critical of our synthetic approach, which seeks to blend a diversity of intellectual traditions and approaches, and in making their case appear to have misunderstood our ethos and some specific examples.…”

“…In making their case they were critical of our synthetic approach, which seeks to blend a diversity of intellectual traditions and approaches, and in making their case appear to have misunderstood our ethos and some specific examples. Specifically, Coughlan & Petty () criticize our use of the ‘pyric phase’ model as simplistic, deterministic and based on long discredited anthropological theories. They conflate our use of pyric phases with modes of economic organization and interpret our use of the ‘pyric transition’ as a unifying theory of human–fire relationships.…”