Theoretical Foundations of Cultural Burning and Fire Ecology
Theoretical conceptualisations of bushfire mitigation differ significantly across contemporary literature regarding how Indigenous knowledge intersects with landscape fire science. A decolonial theoretical perspective contends that conventional fire science systematically mischaracterises Australian forest landscapes by treating post-colonial conditions as baseline natural ecosystems (Fletcher et al., 2021). This approach argues that effective bushfire adaptation requires dismantling institutional barriers and transitioning from post-hoc consultation to genuine, equal scientific collaboration with Indigenous communities. In contrast, public health and ecological frameworks conceptualise severe wildfires through a One Health paradigm, defining fire risk as a complex, multifaceted challenge that directly threatens humans, non-human animals, and broader ecological systems (Burning for Balance, 2025). Rather than focusing strictly on governance restructuring, the One Health approach positions Indigenous-led cultural burning as an adaptive, interdisciplinary mechanism that restores dynamic ecological balance while safeguarding human and non-human animal well-being. Furthermore, deep-time Earth system frameworks ground these conceptual models in palaeoecological and archaeological evidence, demonstrating that long-term cultural burning sustained fine-grained vegetation mosaics and minimal fuel continuity across millennia prior to colonial fire suppression (Tracing Fuels for Fire, 2026). While decolonial theories emphasise institutional equity and political reform, One Health frameworks prioritise holistic multispecies health, and palaeoecological analyses offer quantifiable historical baselines of fuel reduction. Synthesising these complementary theoretical approaches establishes that comprehensive bushfire adaptation necessitates integrating institutional decolonisation, multispecies well-being, and deep-time landscape stewardship to counteract escalating fire risks.