Claudia Berchtold

Escalating extreme wildfires, fueled by the confluence of climate change, land use patterns alterations, ignitions by humans, and flammable fuels accumulation, pose significant and increasingly destructive risks to critical infrastructure (CI). This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of wildfire impacts and the corresponding CI resilience strategies employed across the EU and the US. It examines the vulnerability of CIs to the devastating effects of wildfires and their inadvertent contribution to wildfire ignition and spread. The study evaluates the EU’s CER Directive and the US National Infrastructure Protection Plan and assesses European Commission wildfire resilience-related initiatives, including FIRELOGUE, FIRE-RES, SILVANUS, and TREEADS flagship projects. It synthesizes empirical evidence and extracts key lessons learned from major wildfire events in the EU (2017 Portuguese fires; 2018 Mati wildfire) and the US (2023 Lahaina disaster; 2025 Los Angeles fires), drawing insights regarding the effectiveness of various resilience measures and identifying areas for improvement. Persistent challenges impeding effective wildfire resilience are identified, including governance fragmentation, lack of standardization in risk assessment and mitigation protocols, and insufficient integration of scientific knowledge and data into policy formulation and implementation. It concludes with actionable recommendations aimed at fostering science-based, multi-stakeholder approaches to strengthen wildfire resilience at both policy and operational levels.

Escalating extreme wildfires, fueled by the confluence of climate change, land use patterns alterations, and flammable fuels accumulation, pose significant and increasingly destructive risks to Critical Infrastructure (CI). This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of wildfires impacts, and the corresponding CI resilience strategies employed across the EU and the US. It examines the vulnerability of CIs to the devastating effects of wildfires and their inadvertently contribution to wildfire ignition and spread. The study evaluates EU's CER Directive and US National Infrastructure Protection Plan and assesses European Commission wildfire resilience related initiatives including FIRELOGUE, FIRE-RES, SILVANUS, and TREEADS flagship projects. It synthesizes empirical evidence and extracts key lessons learned from major wildfire events in the EU (2017 Portuguese fires; 2018 Mati wildfire) and the US (2023 Lahaina disaster; 2025 Los Angeles fires), drawing insights regarding the effectiveness of various resilience measures and identifying areas for improvement. Persistent challenges impeding effective wildfire resilience are identified, including governance fragmentation, lack of standardization in risk assessment and mitigation protocols, and insufficient integration of scientific knowledge and data into policy formulation and implementation. It concludes with actionable recommendations aimed at fostering science-based, multi-stakeholder approaches to strengthen wildfire resilience at both policy and operational levels.

The impact of research is gaining increasing importance, as science is increasingly seen as a means to address humanity’s grand challenges. Consequently, interaction between science and policymakers is essential — a process formalized through Science-Policy Interfaces (SPIs). But who actually participates in these processes? This question is crucial, as scientific findings are not always consistent: they may be subject to interpretation, contradict each other, or be shaped by underlying normative frameworks. This paper explores the potential of bibliometric analysis to trace science-policy interactions, using the Wildfire Risk Management (WFRM) domain as a case study. Drawing on data from the Dimensions database, we examine publication and policy trends, disciplinary coverage, and the influence of Altmetrics on policy citations. Our key findings indicate that: There is a significant time lag (6–9 years) between scientific publication and policy adoption. The number of publications in a research field correlates with policy citations, but not all disciplines are equally represented in policy documents. Altmetrics, particularly social media attention, influence policy uptake, suggesting that visibility beyond academia plays a role in knowledge transfer. Data quality issues in linking scientific research to policy documents persist, limiting full traceability. Despite these limitations, the study highlights the potential of bibliometric approaches to support the development of more transparent and accountable SPIs. With improved data infrastructure, such methods could help policymakers better identify and integrate relevant scientific insights.

Wildfire risk has been exacerbated across Europe by climate change favoring more damaging and severe wildfire events. This evolving wildfire risk context interacts with a broad landscape of EU policies including those on nature conservation, forestry, bioeconomy or climate and energy, all of which may increase or reduce fire hazard and the level of exposure and vulnerability of the values at risk. Coherently addressed, policies may support wildfire disaster risk management synergistically while reducing potential dysfunctions. This research conducts a content analysis of EU policies and initiatives under the European Green Deal with respect to integrated wildfire risk management and related nature-based solutions. The results show that a consistent EU policy framework to address wildfire risk reduction in a synergic way exists, with no major conflicts in the policy design. Nevertheless, better guidance on fire-smart land management practices and the conceptualization of wildfire-related nature-based solutions may enhance a more coherent policy implementation. Additional suggestions around the legal status of wildfire protection and ‘whole of government’ governance frameworks are discussed. Notably, within the laws, policies and initiatives analyzed, the beneficial side of fire addressed by integrated fire management is either missing or not explicitly mentioned, although it is considered in policy-related supporting guidelines.

The need to enhance individual and collective disaster resilience is becoming more urgent considering the increasingly complex and interconnected risks that arise from numerous natural, and not only hazardous, events. Many initiatives to encourage citizen participation in creating a resilient society exist, yet are typically fragmented. This fragmentation can result in unclear responsibilities for building disaster resilience to mitigate the impact of natural hazards. New emerging technologies can play a vital role in supporting the preparedness and response to disasters, however, there is limited understanding on how to implement them effectively during different phases of managing disaster risk. Traditionally, approaches used by Civil Protection Authorities (CPAs) to build resilience have focused on the managerial and technical aspects of ‘crisis’ response, whilst engagement with citizens about existing risks and preparedness measures have typically focused on one-way, top-down risk communication. At the same time, citizen and volunteer initiatives, often applying social media communication technologies, are created but are not necessarily coordinated with activities implemented by authorities. As a result, risk perceptions and actions of citizens, as well as the risk perceptions of citizens and CPAs remain frequently unaligned resulting in a Risk Perception Action Gap (RPAG).This work presents the overall objectives of RiskPACC project, which focuses on increasing the preparedness actions undertaken by citizens and narrowing the Risk Perception Action Gap (RPAG). The project follows a co-creation approach that will facilitate interaction between citizens and CPAs by evolving their collaboration into a two-way communication flow. By jointly identifying their needs and develop potential procedural and technical solutions, disaster resilience before, during and after the occurrence of natural and human induced hazards can be enhanced. RiskPACC facilitates a collaboration between citizens, CPAs, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), researchers and developers through seven case studies that will provide a live test bed to jointly design and prototype novel solutions. At the same time, a set of technological tools are also presented which include a framework and methodology to understand and close the RPAG, a repository of international best practice, and tooled solutions based on new forms of digital and community-centred data and associated training guidance. These are developed and integrated into an efficient platform that offer advanced information and co-operation to citizens and CPAs to enhance disaster risk management and enhance mitigation and adaptation actions to natural hazards.Acknowledgments:This research has been financed by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No 101019707, project RiskPACC (Integrating Risk Perception and Action to enhance Civil protection-Citizen interaction). For more information about the RiskPACC project visit the website https://www.riskpacc.eu/.

Disaster response actors are facing new challenges, which encompass not only new and ever more complex threats but also the need to collaborate across organizational boundaries and even state borders. Depending on scale, these interactions have to work across governance setups, political and legal conditions, organizational cultures, as well as personal preferences and experiences that vary among actors, organizations, and countries. But which concrete measures are taken by crisis management actors at different scales to bridge these challenges and which of these could serve others as example to address comparable challenges in their contexts? This study made attempts to analyze whether certain solutions across organizations and states exist that facilitate effective interorganizational crisis management in the member states of the European Union (EU). It is based on selected expert interviews with representatives of different types of disaster response organizations (health services, police services, fire services, and other crisis management organizations) from seven EU member states (Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Austria, and Greece).

A review of risk assessment research in the context of extreme weather events (EWE) reveals that conceptual approaches addressing the risk of critical infrastructures (CI) focus primarily on single components and factors of CI that are at risk. The objective of the paper is to introduce an integrative framework that considers the complex set-up of CI and links it to newer conceptualizations of risk management and adaptation. Drawing on existing risk and resilience approaches, this paper brings together aspects of the engineering community, which currently dominate CI-related research, and of disaster risk reduction research communities, resilience and adaptation research in the context of natural hazards. The paper thereby presents an adapted approach that particularly addresses interdependencies of infrastructures as well as future dynamics. The risk concept applied is based on the IPCC framework and considers the manifold impacts of CI failures upon society, economy and environment. Recommendations for risk management regimes are thereby formulated in the context of EWE. Based on a more holistic socio-ecological systems’ perspective, the approach covers the dynamic transformation of a system’s resilience state. The framework provides a tool and concept to improve the understanding of the multitude factors determining the risks of EWE for CI. Additional research is required for the further operationalization of the conceptual framework, such as the development of indicators, in order to enable the practical implementation for the support of risk management concepts.