When tradition burns: Misinterpreting prescribed fire across the science–society gap in Iberia

Background : Wildfires in the Iberian Peninsula have intensified in recent decades, driven by climate change, land‐use change and human‐caused ignitions. Among these, traditional agricultural and pastoral burning remains widespread and socially embedded. At the same time, prescribed fire has emerged as a scientifically grounded management tool for fuel reduction and wildfire mitigation. However, the conditions under which prescribed fire is applied are not always reflected in its public interpretation, leading to confusion between distinct forms of fire use.

Aims : This perspective distinguishes between prescribed fire as a regulated, context‐dependent management practice and traditional fire use as a heterogeneous set of socially embedded practices. It synthesises ecological evidence on fire effects across contexts and examines the socio‐cognitive mechanisms through which scientific knowledge is simplified, reinterpreted or selectively applied. The aim is to understand how the legitimacy of prescribed fire may be extended beyond its original context and to propose a framework to improve the translation of ecological knowledge into practice.

Main Conclusions : Fire effects are strongly context‐dependent and cannot be generalised across fire regimes, management objectives and ecological settings. Prescribed fire can provide ecological and management benefits when applied under appropriate technical conditions, whereas traditional fire use may produce different outcomes when implemented without planning or ecological alignment. The main challenge is not the lack of ecological knowledge, but how this knowledge is interpreted and mobilised in social contexts, where the benefits of prescribed fire may legitimise materially different practices.

Practical Implications : Improving fire governance requires addressing the science‐society gap in the interpretation and application of ecological knowledge. This involves moving beyond deficit‐based communication and fostering approaches based on conceptual clarity, co‐production of knowledge, culturally informed communication and stronger integration of scientific expertise into decision‐making. Although developed from the Iberian case, this framework is applicable to other environmental domains where scientific evidence and practice diverge.