Review Reports - Limitations and Opportunities of Spatial Planning to Enhance Wildfire Risk Reduction: Evidences from Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Introduction
A sufficient role of spatial plans in the general process of protection and management of natural resources is not given. What have been the intentions of the planning process at the regional and local levels in recent years? What are their connections with international conventions and directives related to this issues? Which of them indicates the problems that your work deals with? Is there any example of good practice where the problem was alleviated through the spatial plan and the level of functionality of wildfire risk reduction was improved?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study area
Please provide a little more information about the research area. Especially those that represent input risk factors - temperature extremes, lack of precipitation, soil types, land cover, etc. In addition to this, perhaps in this part it would be good to point out the spatial element of risk to natural resources or to the population.
Please show the territory of Portugal in the wider spatial context of Europe. I think that the first indication of the research territory should be in this part.
2.2. Material and Methods
Please provide a little more clarity in your presentation of the methodological procedures. Some elements of the methods are not clear enough. Consider presenting the applied methodological process in the form of a graphic or an algorithm.
3. Results
This entire chapter is shown in much details, which is commendable. However, you should consider whether certain results have sufficient relevance for later conclusions. In addition to this, if possible, it would be good to show some of the obtained results on a map - perhaps through the classification of some results at the level of administrative division (borders of municipalities). The table presentation of the data is difficult to "read". Consider that it is possible to reduce the naming of individual columns and rows.
4. Discussion and 5. Conclusion
I believe that additional effort should be made on these chapters in order to improve them. The connection between spatial plans and wildfire management is not sufficiently clear and emphasized. In addition to this, there is a clear criticism of the existing planning system and the status of wildfire management, but there is no visible model for the improvement of this sector. I think that without at least a conceptual model for improving the quality of the spatial plan, the work conceived in this way has no scientific value.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (R1):

1. Introduction:
A sufficient role of spatial plans in the general process of protection and management of natural resources is not given. What have been the intentions of the planning process at the regional and local levels in recent years? What are their connections with international conventions and directives related to this issues? Which of them indicates the problems that your work deals with? Is there any example of good practice where the problem was alleviated through the spatial plan and the level of functionality of wildfire risk reduction was improved?

Authors’ reply: The role of spatial planning in this theme is discussed throughout the introduction, especially in lines 43-127. FireSmart is the most relevant directive in this context and is now displayed between lines 129-136. Between lines 157-163, there is the desideratum of national planning for the articulation between these two spheres. It should be noted that there is no perfect practice, and the ethos of this paper is to analyse the challenges that are faced with articulating spatial planning and wildfire management policies with the focus on Portugal as a case study.

2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study area
Please provide a little more information about the research area. Especially those that represent input risk factors - temperature extremes, lack of precipitation, soil types, land cover, etc. In addition to this, perhaps in this part it would be good to point out the spatial element of risk to natural resources or to the population.
Please show the territory of Portugal in the wider spatial context of Europe. I think that the first indication of the research territory should be in this part.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for the recommendation. Between lines 199 and 255, the intended context was reviewed.

2.2. Material and Methods
Please provide a little more clarity in your presentation of the methodological procedures. Some elements of the methods are not clear enough. Consider presenting the applied methodological process in the form of a graphic or an algorithm.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for the recommendation. A new graphic representing the applied methodological process is presented in page 8.

3. Results
This entire chapter is shown in much details, which is commendable. However, you should consider whether certain results have sufficient relevance for later conclusions. In addition to this, if possible, it would be good to show some of the obtained results on a map - perhaps through the classification of some results at the level of administrative division (borders of municipalities). The table presentation of the data is difficult to "read". Consider that it is possible to reduce the naming of individual columns and rows.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for the suggestion. However, it is not possible to present a map with the indexing of the respective municipal responses since the maintenance of anonymity was promised to all respondents.

4. Discussion and 5. Conclusion
I believe that additional effort should be made on these chapters in order to improve them. The connection between spatial plans and wildfire management is not sufficiently clear and emphasized. In addition to this, there is a clear criticism of the existing planning system and the status of wildfire management, but there is no visible model for the improvement of this sector. I think that without at least a conceptual model for improving the quality of the spatial plan, the work conceived in this way has no scientific value.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for the suggestion. The Discussion section was improved, given the new made proposals with the aim of increasing the alignment between the two spheres under analysis. Now, policy implications, research limitations and opportunities are presented in the Conclusion section. As mentioned above, the conceptual model or the ethos of this paper is to analyse the challenges that Portugal face in aligning the spatial planning and wildfire management policies through the IMSRF implementation, what is achieved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Most importantly, the contribution is not clearly discussed. As it currently stands, this paper is an application of what has been done in other regions like in North American countries and Australia. The analysis has to show clearly the contribution i.e. how the nature of Portugal and its characteristics might differ from the outcomes found in the literature.

The introduction needs to be improved, please focus on spatial planning applied to fire mitigation, and please adequately discuss the value of spatial planning from social, economic, and ecological aspects.

Spatial planning and fire mitigation have to be well defined in the introduction showing the linkage and all potential gains. The authors cited Godschalk et al. who have discussed this extensively. Also, Gonzalez-Mathiesen et al. [15] reported challenges that need to be further discussed in a paragraph rather than bullet points.

The conclusion should clearly summarize the take-home messages, and discuss the policy implications, limitations, and future work on this topic like quantifying the social and economic value of spatial planning to mitigate fire risk in a framework.

Minor comments are as follows:

Abstract: “… this paper aims to identify which are the main difficulties and opportunities regarding the implementation …”.

Introduction: “… based on respect to environmental and socioeconomic suitability [13].”

Materials and Methods: “ … without wildfire hazard; with very low wildfire hazard; with low wildfire hazard; with medium wildfire hazard; high wildfire hazard; and very wildfire high hazard for each municipality …”

Figures 1 and 4 are not clear, the font in Figure 4 should be in black to make it readable.

Some references are not consistent with the journal style

Author Response

Reviewer 2 (R2)

Although this paper addresses an important topic given its integrated framework and sustainable long-term impact, the writing is not as clear and the organization needs improvement, further justification is necessary for readers. It was not easy to follow the analysis and discussion, and link those to the study objectives, thus this has to be revisited. The quotation can be avoided. Most importantly, the contribution is not clearly discussed. As it currently stands, this paper is an application of what has been done in other regions like in North American countries and Australia. The analysis has to show clearly the contribution i.e. how the nature of Portugal and its characteristics might differ from the outcomes found in the literature. The introduction needs to be improved, please focus on spatial planning applied to fire mitigation, and please adequately discuss the value of spatial planning from social, economic, and ecological aspects.

Authors’ reply: This role is now discussed in the reworked introduction, chiefly between lines 43 and 126.

Authors’ reply: This is now robustly explained in lines 59-77 and 100-127.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for the recommendation. The Discussion section was improved, given the new made proposals with the aim of increasing the alignment between the two spheres under analysis. Now, policy implications, research limitations and opportunities are presented in the Conclusion section.

R2's Minor comments are as follows:

Abstract: “… this paper aims to identify which are the main difficulties and opportunities regarding the implementation …”.

Authors’ reply: It now reads as “…this paper aims to identify which are the main difficulties and which are the major opportunities…”.

Introduction: “… based on respect to environmental and socioeconomic suitability [13].”

Authors’ reply: It now reads as “…based environmental and socioeconomic suitability”.

Authors’ reply: It now reads as “…the representation of areas without wildfire hazard, areas, areas with very low wildfire hazard, areas with low wildfire hazard, areas with medium wildfire hazard, areas with high wildfire hazard; and areas with very wildfire high hazard for each municipality…”.

Figures 1 and 4 are not clear, the font in Figure 4 should be in black to make it readable.

Some references are not consistent with the journal style

Authors’ reply: Thank you for the suggested, which as fully followed. The bibliographical references are fully formatted according to the MDPI requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research is very interesting, with topics of relevant interest.

Discussion can be presented more clearly and precisely, especially by dividing survey outcomes from authors' assessments and opinions.

Difficult-to-read English writing, with complex and too-long sentences. A plain English language and phrasing are needed.

Comments are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer (R3):

The research is very interesting, with topics of relevant interest.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for your appreciation.

Discussion can be presented more clearly and precisely, especially by dividing survey outcomes from authors' assessments and opinions. Difficult-to-read English writing, with complex and too-long sentences. A plain English language and phrasing are needed. Comments are in the attached file.

Authors’ reply: Thank you. All suggestions were followed, and all corrections were made. Responses to comments can be found in the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

A brief summary (one short paragraph)

The aim of this study was to identify which are the main difficulties and opportunities, regarding the implementation of the new Integrated Management System for Rural Fires (IMSRF) in Portugal.

General concept comments

Article:

Article is very clear and readers could easy understand the aim of this research. Chapters of the article explain important things, hypothesis is clear and metodology is scientifically relevant.

Review:

Authors work in the beginning suggest that article has just local character. On the contrary, spatial planning to enhance wildfire is really serious problem especially in many mediterranean countries. Because of that spatial planning in wildfire risk reduction needs to be explain from different point of view. Experiences from another countries could help and improve research and impact on rural areas. In my opinion authors did nice work.

Specific comments

Referring to pages (2-3):

Introduction: Research aims are very clear and reasonable pointed in four research question (RQ).

Referring to pages (16-17):

Discussion: Authors explain four research questions in order 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. In my opinion authors could improve that chapter with citation of some similar research from other countries.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Reviewer 4 (R4):

A brief summary (one short paragraph):

The aim of this study was to identify which are the main difficulties and opportunities, regarding the implementation of the new Integrated Management System for Rural Fires (IMSRF) in Portugal.

General concept comments:

Article:

Article is very clear and readers could easy understand the aim of this research. Chapters of the article explain important things, hypothesis is clear and metodology is scientifically relevant.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for your appreciation.

Review:

Authors’ reply: Thank you.

R4's specific comments:

Referring to pages (2-3): Introduction: Research aims are very clear and reasonable pointed in four research question (RQ).

Authors’ reply: Thank you.

Referring to pages (16-17): Discussion: Authors explain four research questions in order 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. In my opinion authors could improve that chapter with citation of some similar research from other countries.

Authors’ reply: Thank you. The Discussion section was improved, given the new made proposals with the aim of increasing the alignment between the two spheres under analysis with citation of research that corroborated the research findings. Now, policy implications, research limitations and opportunities are presented in the Conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was improved within the framework in which the authors could perform. I agree with this content and form of work in this state.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing the comments and improving the overall significance of the study.