They are not a monolith; understanding requires looking closely at their lives
A investigadora Rita Ribeiro, da Universidade de Coimbra, concluiu que os incendiários não formam uma categoria homogénea — o fogo que alguém ateia num campo conta uma história diferente daquele que arde numa rua da cidade. O seu trabalho doutoral, defendido em janeiro de 2026, revela que fatores como a idade, o consumo de álcool, a saúde mental e a natureza das relações pessoais moldam perfis distintos de quem recorre ao fogo como ato. Ao nomear essas diferenças com rigor, a investigação abre caminho para intervenções mais precisas — tanto na prevenção como na reintegração de quem já cometeu estes crimes.
- A tendência de tratar todos os incendiários como um grupo uniforme tem comprometido investigações criminais e programas de reabilitação durante décadas.
- Os incendiários rurais — mais velhos, frequentemente dependentes do álcool ou com perturbações mentais — divergem profundamente dos urbanos, que agem por vingança contra pessoas que conhecem.
- Dentro do próprio grupo rural emergem três subtipos distintos, incluindo indivíduos socialmente adaptados que ateiam fogos por razões instrumentais, como limpar terrenos.
- Um programa de intervenção adaptado e testado preliminarmente com três participantes mostrou melhorias no controlo da raiva, nas competências sociais e na relação com o fogo.
- A investigação gerou uma ferramenta prática — uma checklist de perfis — que poderá tornar mais eficaz o trabalho de investigadores criminais e do sistema de justiça.
Rita Ribeiro, investigadora da Universidade de Coimbra, defendeu em janeiro de 2026 uma tese doutoral que desafia uma premissa antiga: a de que os incendiários formam uma categoria única. O seu trabalho mostra que o contexto geográfico — rural ou urbano — é determinante na construção do perfil de quem ateia fogos.
Os incendiários rurais tendem a ser homens mais velhos, com histórias marcadas pelo consumo excessivo de álcool e por problemas de saúde mental. Muitos agiram por irritação difusa, sem sequer conhecerem os proprietários dos terrenos que arderam. Os incendiários urbanos, por sua vez, são movidos pela vingança — conhecem a vítima, têm uma relação com ela, e o fogo é um ato deliberado e pessoal. Apesar das diferenças, ambos os grupos partilham traços comuns: atuam sozinhos, não se afastam muito de casa ou do local de trabalho, e confessam quando confrontados.
No interior do grupo rural, Ribeiro identificou três subtipos: os dependentes do álcool, os que apresentam doença mental, e um terceiro grupo de indivíduos aparentemente adaptados socialmente, que recorrem ao fogo por razões práticas. As mulheres, que representaram 10% da amostra, distribuíram-se por estas mesmas categorias, mas com motivações distintas — a maioria agiu por raiva, muitas vezes como apelo de socorro, com menor recurso a motivações instrumentais e taxas mais baixas de abuso de substâncias.
A investigadora adaptou um programa de intervenção já utilizado em países como a Inglaterra e testou-o com três participantes. Os resultados preliminares foram encorajadores: menor impulsividade, melhores estratégias de gestão emocional, maior assertividade e empatia, e uma relação menos normalizada com o fogo. O trabalho culminou numa checklist de perfis destinada a apoiar investigadores e o sistema judicial — uma ferramenta prática que reconhece, finalmente, que compreender quem ateia um fogo exige olhar para a vida inteira dessa pessoa.
A doctoral researcher at the University of Coimbra has mapped a landscape of arson that looks fundamentally different depending on whether the fire was set in a field or a city block. Rita Ribeiro's thesis, defended on January 6th, challenges the way arsonists have traditionally been studied as a single category—interchangeable, undifferentiated. Her work shows they are not.
The distinction begins with age and circumstance. Rural arsonists tend to be older men, and alcohol runs through their histories with striking prevalence. Mental illness appears in their profiles with regularity. Urban arsonists, by contrast, are a different population entirely, shaped by different pressures and acting from different motives. Yet both groups share certain patterns: they work alone, they do not travel far from home or workplace, and when caught, they confess.
Where the two diverge most sharply is in why they light the fire. Rural arsonists, Ribeiro found, are often driven by annoyance—a generalized irritation rather than anger directed at a specific person. Many did not even know who owned the land they burned. Urban arsonists operate from a different emotional register: revenge. They know their target. They have a relationship with the person whose property burns, sometimes a family tie. The fire is personal, intentional, aimed.
Within rural arson itself, Ribeiro identified three distinct subtypes. One group is defined by alcohol dependency. Another is marked by mental illness and psychiatric problems. A third consists of individuals who appear socially adapted, without the struggles of the other two, who set fires for instrumental reasons—clearing land, for instance, rather than acting from rage or spite. This heterogeneity within the rural category suggests that lumping all rural arsonists together obscures crucial differences in motivation and psychology.
Women arsonists, who made up 10 percent of the study sample, fit into these same three categories, though their motivations diverged in notable ways. The majority acted from anger, often as a cry for help or a bid for attention. They showed less instrumental motivation than men. And while 73 percent of the predominantly male sample had some form of alcohol abuse or mental illness, women showed lower rates—53 percent—with mental illness more prevalent than substance abuse at the time of the crime.
Ribeiro adapted an intervention program already in use in countries like England, originally designed for group settings, and tested it preliminarily with three individuals. The results were encouraging. Participants showed reduced anger overall. Their strategies for managing difficult situations improved. Social competencies, particularly assertiveness and empathy, strengthened. Some showed decreased inappropriate interest in fire itself and less normalization of it as a tool or outlet.
The work produced a checklist intended to help the justice system and criminal investigators profile offenders more accurately and efficiently. It is a practical tool born from theoretical insight—the recognition that arsonists are not a monolith, that understanding who they are and why they act requires looking closely at the texture of their lives, their geography, their relationships, their demons. The next phase will be testing whether these insights, refined through larger-scale intervention, can actually reduce the risk that someone will light another fire.
Notable Quotes
In the literature, they are studied as a general category: arsonists, period. What this study revealed is that differences exist between rural and urban arsonists.— Rita Ribeiro, researcher
Rural arsonists show a greater tendency to set fires out of annoyance, not against someone in particular, and most did not know the property owner.— Rita Ribeiro
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that rural and urban arsonists are different? Aren't they committing the same crime?
The crime is the same, but the person committing it is not. If you want to stop someone from setting fires again, you need to know what drove them to it in the first place. A rural farmer drinking alone and burning a field out of frustration needs something completely different from an urban person burning their ex-partner's apartment out of rage.
So the intervention program—does it actually work?
It's early. Three people is not a proof. But what happened with those three was real: they got angrier less often, they learned to talk about their feelings instead of reaching for fire. One person even stopped being obsessed with fire altogether. That's not nothing.
The women in the study—they seem different from the men.
They are. Fewer of them have alcohol problems, more of them have mental illness. And their reasons for setting fires are often about being heard, about crisis. It's less about revenge or annoyance and more about desperation. That changes how you'd try to help them.
What does the checklist actually do?
It gives police and prosecutors a framework. Instead of treating every arsonist as the same risk, they can ask the right questions: How old are you? Do you know the person whose property burned? Were you drinking? Are you hearing voices? The answers point toward who you're dealing with and what might actually prevent them from doing it again.
Is this just academic, or does it change how the system actually works?
That's the question now. The research is solid. Whether courts and prisons actually use it to make better decisions—that's the next chapter.