Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3728
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3728
18 Aug 2025
 | 18 Aug 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).

Structural uncertainty in the direct human forcing of future global burned area

Oliver Perkins, Olivia Haas, Matthew Kasoar, Apostolos Voulgarakis, and James D. A. Millington

Abstract. The first fire model intercomparison project (FIREMIP) gave rise to two distinct proposals around how best to improve the fire modules of dynamic global vegetation models. The first proposal was to develop representation of direct human impacts on burned area, particularly managed fire use in agriculture and other land management. The second proposal was to improve representation of the ecological dimensions of fire, including relationships of fuel load, connectivity, dryness and fire. Here, we present future projections from two models that have attempted to advance model representation and understanding of the human (WHAM-INFERNO) and ecological (Haas) dimensions of global fire regimes. The models project radically different future burned area for the same sets of scenario forcings. There is particularly strong disagreement regarding direct human impacts (or “direct human forcing”) of global burned area: differences in model assessment of the impact of direct human forcing is greater between models than between scenarios. We show how such structural uncertainty constrains understanding of climate change adaptation, including its limits and pitfalls. Differences in model outputs are largely traceable back to model assumptions. Hence, we argue that advances made by the two models could be combined in a future fire model that better captures the socio-economic and ecological drivers of burned area. We identify key challenges to the development of such integrated socio-ecological models, highlighting crucial uncertainties around how anthropogenic and biophysical factors interact to produce patterns of fuel fragmentation and hence fire spread. Overall, advancing understanding of the interactions between human and biophysical drivers of fire remains a central challenge in fire science.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Oliver Perkins, Olivia Haas, Matthew Kasoar, Apostolos Voulgarakis, and James D. A. Millington

Status: open (until 14 Oct 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Oliver Perkins, Olivia Haas, Matthew Kasoar, Apostolos Voulgarakis, and James D. A. Millington

Data sets

Supporting files for: Structural uncertainty in the direct human forcing of future global burned area Oliver Perkins, Olivia Haas, Matthew Kasoar, Apostolos Voulgarakis, James Millington https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16635272

Oliver Perkins, Olivia Haas, Matthew Kasoar, Apostolos Voulgarakis, and James D. A. Millington

Viewed

Total article views: 288 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
275 11 2 288 9 12 10
  • HTML: 275
  • PDF: 11
  • XML: 2
  • Total: 288
  • Supplement: 9
  • BibTeX: 12
  • EndNote: 10
Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Aug 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Aug 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 283 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 283 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 08 Sep 2025
Download
Short summary
Humans impact fire indirectly through climate change, but also directly through land use and different fire management strategies. We compare two recently-developed models of global burned area with very different assumptions about the role of direct human impacts on fire. We contrast their future projections and explore the implications of differences between them for climate change adaptation and fire science more broadly.
Share