L. Scott Johnson
There are two all-meadow tiles (not counting the fire) and no other meadow-on-four-sides tiles. (Conversely, there are no all-forest tiles although there are other forest-on-four-side tiles).
I can see the design reason for the difference, but that doesn't stop me from wanting more variety. Especially when the meadows are drawn early (pretty much a waste of a turn).
For that reason, the variants:
1) Treat both tiles (but not the fire) as the pre-civ versions of Cloisters. The player can play a meeple in the Cloister (to score identically to the scoring of Cloisters in the original game) or can place a meeple in the meadow as usual.
2) Alternatively (if you don't like the idea of a low-effort 9-point meeple tile), treat it as a special lake with 6 fish. Can't fish it (no rivers), but you can drop a "safe" fishing hut on it for end-of-game 6 points. Six points may be too few here -- I have't tried this variant yet.
3) Replace one (or both) tiles with meadow-on-four-side tiles but with an embedded forest (dividing up the meadow into two, three, or four segments -- whichever you find more interesting or easy to implement). It's worth 2 points for a meeple drop, but, more importantly, provides another way to protect against hunters "poaching" in "your" meadow. It's the least dramatic change of the three (in terms of game play), but has the drawback of requiring a physical change in the tiles (or the use of toothpicks or somesuch to mark the forest divison -- be sure to agree on the formation of the forest(s) beforehand, of course).