Understanding cross-sectoral wildfire risk governance: Lessons from mix-method analysis of the wildfire risk governance in Italy, Greece, and Land Brandenburg

Wildfires are becoming an increasingly severe and complex risk across Europe, driven by climate change, land-use transformations, and socio-economic pressures. While fire is a natural ecological process, recent trends highlight the need for integrated wildfire risk (WFR) governance systems. Despite policy advances at EU and global levels, limited research exists on how WFR governance systems function across different national and subnational contexts. This paper aims to enhance understanding of WFR governance, by identifying patterns and characteristics of cross-sectoral collaborations, and to inform integrated WFR governance strategies across Europe. Based on a mix-method research, combining social network analysis with thematic analysis, the research examines WFR governance systems of two countries (Italy, Greece) and one region (the German federal state of Brandenburg), all participating in the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) Peer Review Programme. The findings show that WFR governance networks across three cases are cross-sectoral yet hierarchical, centred on civil protection authorities as key brokers, with strong coordination and cooperation links but weaker integration of consultation, information-sharing, and scientific actors across all cases. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on WFR governance by advancing understanding of how integrated WFR governance operates across diverse institutional and legal contexts. By providing a structured analysis of governance networks, refining insights into the types and functions of cross-sectoral relationships, and demonstrating the analytical value of peer review reports, the study supports ongoing efforts to foster more integrated, comprehensive, and adaptive WFR governance across Europe. • Wildfire risk governance networks are cross-sectoral but hierarchical • Civil protection authorities often act as central brokers across sectors • Cooperation dominates, while consultation and science integration lag • UCPM peer eview reports enable systematic analysis of governance networks • Identifying network patterns can support more integrated wildfire risk governance