Wildfire Risk in the Complex Terrain of the Santa Barbara Wildland–Urban Interface during Extreme Winds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments: 

1. Current version of abstract is not independent summary of whole work. It      MUST be precise and straight forward so that the potential readers can
    find the following events easily:

   (i) Problem definition; (ii) Solution methodologies and (ii) remarkable
       finding that valid for wide range of pertinent parameters.

2.  The 'research gap' is has not been revealed very clearly by surveying

    existing literature in the introduction. Hence, it is recommended to revise      the current version of introduction as 'introduction' can be treated as the
   'heart' of an article.    

3. Methodologies MUST be explained very clearly for the convenience of
   our potential readers. 

4.  The FARSITE fire spread model  is  required  to be explained a bit more
     for clear  understanding again for our potential readers. 

5.  The quality of Figure 7 is pretty poor and hence it MUST be revised.

6.   Since authors have performed numerous simulations using FARSITE,  model validation  is necessary  and which is missing ! 

7. Discussion and Conclusions MUST be split into two sections.  In case of
    conclusion, it is required to be precise summary of the whole work as an
    abstract. Besides, it MUST have consistency with the abstract as well. 

 

       

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. On line 62, the authors state that there are three basic factors in the external environment (referred to as the triangle) that affect the spread of fire, namely fuel, topography, and wind. The authors only marginally further mention that there are also other factors that influence the spread of fire in space, e.g., high ambient temperatures that affect fuel moisture, implemented preventive measures. The authors should give more reasons why they consider these other factors to be rather minor.

 

2. For the study, the authors used the FARSITE fire model, despite the fact that the limitation of the model is the inability to take into account the effect of hilly terrain on the spread of the fire (the model does not allow this effect to be taken into account). However, hilly terrain occurs in the research area. The authors should give more reasons why they chose the FARSITE model despite this limitation, which may be significant in the given case.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I'm very thankful and happy to read and help with this interesting article.

The authors examine wildfire risk in a fire-prone area of southern California using the simulation capabilities of the FARSITE modeling system. They used three different patterns of ignition and three different wind regimes characteristic of the regions.

The manuscript is interesting, scientifically-sound and well written and I recommend its publication.

I only have a few minor comments for the authors:

- Figure 1: Some writings are difficult to read and the resolution is quite low. If possible, provide a clearer image. Moreover, can you add a reference map to locate the study area?

-line 171: Please, add a reference for this data (website will do)

- Fire data: can you briefly explain the need of 3 databases (look that there is little overlapping...)

- line 336– 370: The synthesis of results represented by boxplots of simulated wildfire sizes (fig 7) and the grid cells hit (fig 8) may be better placed within section 3.2.4 together with the results of combined combined simulations

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please wait for the comments from the Editorial office.