Local Perceptions of Fires Risk and Policy Implications in the Hills of Valparaíso, Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall comments:

Title:  Local Perceptions of fires risk and policy implications in the hills of Valparaíso, Chile

Abstract

Good Abstract  

Introduction

The introduction is also good.

I did not find the study area description with GIS map. This is very important for this study.

Methodology

Straightforward methodology. However, more explanation is needed.

Why authors selected grounded theory rather than other methods? Justification is needed

Authors mentioned that: Five co-authors used Grounded theory to analyse the data.

What is the meaning of this statement? More explanation is needed.

What questioner has been used in the qualitative study (the appendix is needed as evidence- I can’t able to see the additional information ) 

Results and discussion

Good results and discussion section.

Figure one not in a high resolution. Revised figure is needed here.  

Conclusion 

Good

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, an important and timely paper, thank you!

I do have some minor concerns though, mainly about the terms you are using and the conceptual framing of your work. I believe that those issues can be dealt with easily and should not take too much of your time.

(1) Right in the beginning, and later in the text, you speak of 'natural disasters'. You should not use this term. In disaster studies, we may speak of natural hazards, but a disaster is never 'natural', it is social. Indeed, your very own case, fires, clearly demonstrates how risks and disasters are rooted in society and 'culture' in its broadest sense. A hazard is turned into a disaster by societal dealings, and social beliefs and practices, not by 'nature'.

(2) In your introduction, line 39, and elsewhere you state that risk is 'generally described by three factors: hazard, exposure, and vulnerability'. The IPCC definition you are referring to is, in my opion, pretty weak, and surely, risk is not 'generally' described this way. In fact, many of our colleagues will argue that exposure is a core component of vulnerability, and not not something seperate. You may want to refer to Wisner/Blaikie/Cannon/Davis' seminal work "At Risk" for more differentiated and useful understandings of risks and vulnerabilty. In short, vulnerability and exposure are not on the same semantic level. In line 53, when you say that the focus must be on reducing exposure AND vulnerarability, we might argue that reducing vulnerability will have to INCLUDE reducing exposure (and strengthening coping etc.).

(3) In lines 69-76, you draw on several studies on wildfires and perceptions from North America and Australia. I believe that there have been several studies published on the topic from Sweden recently and you may want to check on those, too, to reduce the "North America" bias.

(4) Your study employs Grounded Theory methodology which is great. However, you very much focus on the process of coding (e.g. line 111). In addition to your conclusion later in the text, could you add a few lines more on how your empirical findings served to refine theory (which is what GT is all about)?

(5) My major concern, however, is about the term 'community'. You employ this term very frequently in your text, and do so rather loosely. In chapter 3.4., in particular, you refer to 'community' but the majority of your data and findings prove that, in fact, there is no such thing as a 'community'. Our common understanding of a community is group of people living harmoniously together and sharing views and perceptions. In fact, your paper clealy makes a point how that is usually NOT the case. Lack of 'community' is probably the major factor of why disaster risk management is not succesful. See your own findings, e.g. line 272 'individualism' or line '287' weak community interactions'. Why then would you want to use the term at all? I suggest you take a look at the recent critical overview on 'community' by Titz/Cannon/Krueger: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/3/71

and their ideas about how the concept could be employed in a more useful manner. Maybe you could at least add a short paragraph on the problematic use of the term. Later on, when you speak of 'community barriers', what you are actually saying is that 'community' does not exist, or does not function the way we would all like it to do. Your study is a case in point of the weakness of the community concept as such. Maybe slightly extend your 'Conclusions' section to elaborate on this?

Again, thank you for stressing the importance of taking perceptions into account when dealing with hazards and DRM.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The time involved in submitting your manuscript is greatly appreciated.

Despite this, the article presents a series of issues that must be noted and mended. The recommendations are presented separately by sections. Hopefully, they would be useful.

Title: the title does not adequately reflect the content of the paper. Please, adapt it to better inform the readers about that content.

Abstract:

Less information appears in the abstract. Maybe expanded by adding the most relevant findings.

Introduction:

Firstly, some of the references that you cite are too old. Even though the most relevant studies should be referenced, also the RECENT research must be included. Moreover, I recommend a strong effort in applying the framework of Psychology of Healthy Organizations framework as the theoretical umbrella that covers your research.

At the end of the literature review, the aims and the questions in the research should appear. Maybe to formulate the questions as a hypothesis would be an option to clear this aspect. Another commentary, it is the possibility of including this part at the final of the introduction part; even a separate section could be a good option, in order to clear the final of the introduction and to serve as a connection with the method.

Method:

Please, try to better describe the sociodemographic data of your participants. In the same sense, give the readers with detailed information about the procedure for recruiting participants and collecting data.

Which Ethical committee approved the study protocol? Please, explain it.

Data analyses

Please, explain to the readers which procedures of statistical analyses have been used and justify your decisions.

Results

The results should be presented following the same order as the introduction and hypotheses. Also, the same order must be used in the Tables. This simplifies the work for readers.

Discussion:

First of all, try to better adjust your conclusions to the findings. Or to say in other words, please try to justify more clearly the connection between your conclusions and your findings.

The most important comment is that some of the conclusions, related to the direct analysis of the results, should be revised.

Finally, a section related to limitations, future lines of investigations, and the principal contributions of the research could be interesting. Your paper has a lot of relevant implications for society and policymakers, but you need to elaborate more on this topic.

Conclusion:

They don’t appear new conclusions on this part. This part does not add any new to the rest of the paper. Please, try to condense your findings, or to highlight your main contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf