Landscape Planning Integrated Approaches to Support Post-Wildfire Restoration in Natural Protected Areas: The Vesuvius National Park Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Taking the severe wildfire occurrence period in the summer of 2017 as an important node, this study comparatively analyzed the value of ecosystem services in the study area, the burning area and the priority intervention area before and after this period (PRE-fire phase and POST-fire phase). Identifying priority areas for concentrating economic and material resources is the practice of landscape restoration through landscape management planning after fire.

(1) The observation period in this paper is from July 2017 to July 2018, and the occurrence time of wildfires is not fixed. What is the specific period of fires in 2017? This involves the determination of the stage in which the fire occurs.

At the same time, is it reasonable to replace the value of ecosystem services before and after the fire with the value of ecosystem services of the year?

(2) The priority intervention area is a conceptual range defined by individuals, not the area where priority intervention is actually performed when wildfires occur. Is it meaningful to compare and analyze the difference in the value of ecosystem services in the stages before and after the real fire with a conceptual scope?

How the landscape planning described in the theme supports post-fire recovery does not appear to be reflected.

(3) The text shows the scope of the burning area in 2017, which is the summer of 2017? What month of summer is it? Or the whole year of 2017? Wildfire occurrence time is not fixed, so is the spatial extent of Figure 1 a merger of burning areas per day?

Does the identification of this area support a comparison of the amount of ecosystem services before and after wildfires?

(4) The data sources and time periods of Post-fire tree stability, re-burning probability, post-fire erosion hazard, post-fire hydrological hazard, etc. shown in Figure 3 do not seem to be explained. Is the range of priority intervention areas determined by the data mentioned above based on historical data considerations or forecasts?

(5) Is "Intersect_All Objectives" in Figure 5 the priority intervention area? The relationship between the two is not specified.

(6) The priority intervention area is the theoretical area determined in this paper, and the determination of its spatial scope and the discussion of the severity of wildfires are not enough. Just stating that the scope of the priority intervention area overlaps with the scope of “high severity burn” (figure 5), can it explain the rationality of its regional division?

(7) How the fire phase is divided into PRE-fire phase and POST-fire phase. The fire occurrence time is not fixed. Can the fire stages of different spatial scopes be divided uniformly?

(8) Whether the calculation of the burning stage and the ecosystem service value is consistent, and whether the annual ecosystem service value can express the actual ecosystem service value in the two stages before and after burning.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript was nicely described, and it can be accepted after major revisions.

Please find the specific comments for this manuscript:

Line 38 to 45, All three consecutive sentences cite reference 1, and the author could have tried to find more literature to support the idea.

Line 134, Missing space between Arabic numerals and units

Line 136, It is recommended that the citation be punctuated at the end of the sentence, rather than in the middle of the sentence

Line 146, Latitude symbols are present, but longitude symbols are missing

Line 205 and 235, Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 use the same title, authors need to determine if the two subsections are about the same thing and can be combined into one title, otherwise try to use a different title

Section 2.3, The identification of PIA is mainly based on subjective methods such as expert decision making, can we combine more objective methods to make the system method more applicable and simpler.

Line 304-317, Subjective methods such as expert scoring, which are mainly used for the determination of weights, increase the uncertainty of the evaluation system. Have the authors considered and compared objective methods such as entropy used for weight determination.

Section 2, It involves 8 pages of content, some of which are too detailed and lengthy in description. It can be appropriately trimmed down and only the main part retained, or part of the content transferred to the appendix for a better reading experience for the reader.

Line 495, Misspelling of “result” in the title

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the manuscript was nicely revised, and it can be accepted after the final check.