Team leader | Speaker | Landscape architect at Wageningen Environmental Research,
Wageningen University and Research
In September 2025, PSI spoke with Bertram de Rooij, a professional with a dual role as researcher and firefighter. He offers a unique perspective on wildfires and the essential role of spatial planning and nature-based solutions (NBS) in mitigation and prevention. His work is vital to climate security and hence great relevance to the Planetary Security Initiative (PSI). As a veteran of the Dutch national fire department, de Rooij has witnessed the shifting nature of the challenge that wildfires pose. Besides being a firefighter, he works as landscape architect, senior researcher and team leader at Wageningen University and Research on regional development and spatial use.
Currently, de Rooij is a part-time station commander for the fire brigade Wageningen. In an exclusive interview with PSI, he zooms in on the importance of moving beyond a focus solely on repression towards a focus on prevention.
Could you describe your roles and responsibilities and how you manage to navigate your dual practice, as a firefighter and as a researcher?
De Rooij: As a researcher, my focus is on bringing about transitions in climate and biodiversity, often using nature-based solutions. As a firefighter, I've seen that climate change means a substantial shift in fire occurrence and fire behavior. Already today, climate change puts a high demand on available resources and practices, showing that size, intensity and speed of fires pose a big challenge to these tactics. This forces a rethink: to be prepared, we must be proactive and improve the landscape for wildfire management. At the same time, we must combine it with other environmental and societal challenges, like better water management and improving biodiversity.
My dual role allows me to link what I see in practice with the latest research, scientific insights, and strategies. As researchers and within the fire brigade, we are trying to identify best practices, processes and potential links between domains. Within wildfire management and spatial strategies, we look at how to bring these elements together in a more sustainable way.
How could a more widespread adoption of nature-based solutions impact operational safety, and the safety of the overall landscape?
De Rooij: Frequent, low-intensity fires are a safe nature-based solution because they reduce fuel load in nature (editor’s note: the energy required for the ignition and spread of fires). This requires more proactive measures like frequent fuel management, including prescribed burnings (editor’s note: planned fires intentionally set under safe conditions for fuel and land management purposes). Crucially, we need to create compartments in the landscape, which give firefighters more time for action and at the same time – if planned properly – also make use of the benefits of fire for nature. Moreover, we need empirical evidence to test what works. Firefighting is a ‘living lab’: we must test strategies in practice, evaluate them and adapt.
Prescribed burnings are essential. In the 1930s, the Netherlands abandoned “managed” burning because of its perceived negative impact on the economy. At that time, many natural areas were transformed into production forests (editor’s note: areas that are specifically managed to produce wood and other forest products). In the end, this has also led to a shift in society: fire is perceived as being bad and not natural. Nowadays, public concern over smoke leads to numerous emergency calls, misunderstandings, and hindrance, which complicates the use of fire and creates issues in fire prevention. Bringing back traditional practices like prescribed burning, alongside new techniques and nature-based solutions, is critical.
On a general level, we must redefine our approach by looking at landscapes more holistically. This means improving landscapes not only from a fire perspective but also by integrating water management, biodiversity, and sustainability. One example is to proactively retain more water and improve soil conditions to reduce fire risk, which at the same time can help tackle the societal challenge of water availability and improve biodiversity.
Can you give an example of ways to integrate spatial planning into a long-term design or preventive strategies?
De Rooij: When planning new housing projects in fire-prone areas, the key questions must be: what type of buildings are we constructing, and how do we manage fire fuels around them? In the US, the National Fire Protection Association's Firewise Program requires homeowners in fire-prone areas to take preventive measures to be insured. Responsibility must be shared between citizens and authorities.
In the Netherlands, development in low-lying areas poses flood risks, while higher areas face wildfire risks. Both must be considered early on in spatial planning. Every urban development project should include a conversation about environmental risks at the start, which can also lead to innovative design solutions. To make this more tangible: in the Netherlands, stone and concrete buildings are relatively safe from fires. The main issue is vegetation directly around the houses. In Spain, we lost whole building structures because burning trees reached right up to front doors. In the US, embers on roofs or gutters are a major risk. Regulations such as clearing surroundings and using resistant roofing materials can make a big difference.
Are there any trade-offs when implementing Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), and which dimensions are conflicting?
De Rooij: Since every NBS must be tailored to its specific case and context, the largest risk lies in the uncertainty of results. NBS are constantly changing living systems that must successfully take root and adapt to their specific environment, such as a newly planted forest for flood control or a restored wetland for water cleanup. While this constant change brings uncertainty, making it difficult to guarantee results with ‘hard’ numbers right away, the practical experience is that successful work mostly yields positive results once the solution is matured and fully working in its environment.
One core conflict is that the ideal ecological solution, like a diverse and managed forest for maximum fire break protection (editor’s note: firebreaks are natural or man-made barriers to stop the growth of a fire), is relying on available land, full commitment of all landowners and, of course, allocated budgets. Interestingly, it’s not just land ownership that tends to be fragmented - the budgets often are too. Furthermore, society's acceptance can oppose nature's benefit. For example, a town may reject a wetland functioning as a fuel break-line because it consumes vital farmland, is feared to attract unwanted insects, or might pose another risk to the community. Involving communities from the start is crucial.
On a practical operational level, do you think there are current weaknesses in terms of plans around evacuation, infrastructure and crisis communication to citizens?
De Rooij: Yes, there are weaknesses. We need to look at our tactics using a multi-layered system – similar to flood management – that includes landscape improvement and evacuation routes. In the Netherlands, the population isn't generally acquainted with wildfire risk, in contrast to Southern European countries. Institutionally, a huge budget goes to repression, like firefighting aircrafts and equipment in Southern Europe, while landscape management – even though planning often seems to be in place – is hampered in being translated into real action and implementation.
Inaction comes with immense costs and disruptive circumstances. This summer I worked in Spain as part of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, where I saw the importance of landscape management to manage fires and reduce their potential impact. If management is lacking, you are constantly overtaken by reality. In the Netherlands, the largest fires we have faced were 527 and 800 hectares and they are seldom. In Southern Europe, this summer alone wildfires burned more than 1 million hectares. In Ourense (Galicia) where we were stationed, we faced fires of sometimes 25,000 hectares each. With a total of more than 90.000 hectares, this caused major disruptions in society, from closed roads, many structures and villages destroyed, to smog and unfortunately also several people’s lives lost.
We must therefore ask ourselves: when do we start with proactive land management and overcome current barriers to full-scale implementation? These questions need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Why is that? Is it because there are institutional barriers that are preventing existing plans from being put into action?
De Rooij: There are multiple barriers. Land tenure is one problem: you need to get the numerous landowners onboard to close a firebreak line, which is both a societal and institutional challenge. In the Netherlands, the focus has historically been on ecological targets rather than risk reduction. However, this is changing: the Dutch Parliament recently allocated a budget to improve wildfire risk reduction in natural areas. While this is a positive step, the ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’: it is not enough to just make plans. They must be put into practice. To achieve this, we need dedicated action from policymakers and a societal shift, as the responsibility for tackling risk is not only a policy issue but also a societal one.
Wildfire management is about finding the right balance and communicating why ‘preventive’ or integrated management measures are necessary. In Southern Europe, prescribed burning and grazing are increasingly common and socially accepted methods, yet in the Netherlands, the smoke from such controlled practices often causes social commotion, even though uncontrolled wildfires produce far more smoke and pose much greater health risks.
If you were to make one key recommendation to bring about this change, what would it be?
De Rooij: The key recommendation is to bring advanced spatial planning and NBS to the forefront. This is where the greatest strides can be made, with comparably low costs and multiple benefits. We must engage society and policymakers to understand that we need fast, clear commitment from them, but also that those people at highest risk have a direct responsibility. We must have a dialogue on these risks from the start, by including all stakeholders, and consider what and whom we are putting at risk when we build new houses or critical infrastructure.
On a practical level, we need a three-layer approach to crisis management. First, preventive measures such as fire compartments and fuel management. Second, spatial planning, integrating risks when constructing housing or infrastructure. Third, crisis management, including evacuation. Sometimes evacuation is riskier than sheltering in fire-resistant buildings. There are great examples of educating citizens to prepare their homes and stay safe during fires. Communication and public awareness are essential to achieve this.
Is there a strong connection between the research and practical fields within the firefighting community?
De Rooij: The Dutch Institute of Physical Safety (NIPV) in the Netherlands serves as an important bridge. We are actively working together to improve the linkages. For example, following a recent big wildfire, a timeline was built of what firefighters saw in the field and connected to scientific insights on the specific fire's main dynamics to compile evidence. This is crucial for bridging research with practical, validated understanding and potential measures. At the same time, we try to have a multidimensional view of hazards and risks that come together in the landscape. Wildfires are just one risk and always interconnect with others.
To this end, we must bring in various stakeholders to gain different perspectives but involving everyone is a difficult process. In the Netherlands, we have a lot of stakeholders in and around natural areas, in land ownership, in water companies or electricity companies, or in housing and camping. . This creates a complex planning process and requires multilevel governance. Within this governance, one needs to think about how you arrange supervision and create and manage responsibilities and ownership.
In the Netherlands, until a few years ago wildfires were considered the sole responsibility of the fire department. However, in the last decade this has shifted, also towards a more regional and spatial approach. This also means that different government levels should be on board – ministries, provinces and municipalities. Navigating between values, needs and objectives, with and between all these actors, is complex but highly necessary. There is no single roadmap.
Additionally, we must bring in skills and knowledge about how to navigate the societal debate and put the landscape at the forefront when facing climate change and extreme weather events. I was proud that after our tough deployment in Spain, many of my firefighting colleagues were constantly recalling the phrase ‘you have to read the landscape’ in their interviews with media. They understand what the science behind ‘reading the landscape’ meant in practice. It is about three things: what is happening? What could be happening? And lastly, what are my opportunities? Our mission in Spain got a lot of attention in the media and we must keep this attention – with a positive outlook on the future.
About this series:
In recent years, PSI has conducted interviews with several climate security practitioners. See below for an overview of interviews conducted between 2023 and 2025:
Johnson Nkem: In our interview with Johnson Nkem, Senior Climate and Security Advisor at the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), we explored how climate change intensifies local and cross-border insecurities in one of the world’s most fragile contexts. He discussed the central role of water governance, renewable energy, and livelihood adaptation in strengthening resilience and peace. Nkem also reflected on the evolving recognition of climate security within the UN and the need to balance defence, development, and diplomacy in a rapidly changing climate landscape.
Johanna Lauritsen: In our interview with Johanna Lauritsen, Environmental Coordinator at the Civilian Operations Headquarters of the EEAS, we explored her efforts to mainstream environmental considerations across EU civilian CSDP missions. She highlighted the progress made in integrating sustainability into both internal operations and external tasks, including tackling environmental crime, managing environmental risks, and improving green procurement. Lauritsen also reflected on the importance of staff training, interdepartmental collaboration, and the challenges of working in complex and often unstable environments.
Wilfred Boerrigter: In our interview with Wilfred Boerrigter, Head of Operations at Mandalay Yoma Energy, we explored his work in maintaining solar mini grids in rural Myanmar amid ongoing conflict. He highlighted the severe energy poverty in the country and the role of renewables in enhancing community resilience by improving access to electricity, healthcare, and safety. Boerrigter discussed the challenges of operating in active conflict zones, including site accessibility, neutrality concerns, and infrastructure security. He emphasized that despite these hurdles, renewable energy remains a crucial tool for stability and development in Myanmar.