Geovisualization and Analysis of Landscape-Level Wildfire Behavior Using Repeat Pass Airborne Thermal Infrared Imagery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents a model that captures both full and partial matches simultaneously. This allows us to impose structural constraints differently on different matches and enforce the consistency between directional matches. Experimental results show that the presented model has revealed satisfied matching results in the test areas.

As for the writing, generally, the manuscript is well structured and the main purpose is clear. However, the quality of this manuscript has been reduced due to the following reasons:

1.    The scientific contribution of the presented work is not enough for a high-level research article. In actual, the termed “partial matches” in this manuscript has been already pointed out in some literatures published so far, e.g. the matching pairs with “partial corresponding relationship” has been already defined as well as dealt with in the dissertation of ‘Methods and Implementations of Road-Network Matching’ published in 2009.

2.    Concerning on the experiments, the test areas are a bit too small and not enough to evaluate the general matching performance of the proposed model.

3.    Although the main contribution of the presented work is to propose a ‘new’ method for the partial matches, the manuscript just gives the general statistic matching performance for all matches, with the precision equal to 90% and the recall equal to 92.5%. However, there is no statistic results for the matching performance concerning on the partial matches only.

4.    In the part of ‘Introduction’, several literatures which are very relevant to the presented work have not been introduced and referenced.

Given the issues mentioned above, I recommend a ‘weak reject’ as my general evaluation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Reviewer comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your paper to the Journal of Fire. I have carefully reviewed manuscript number fire-2412946, " Geovisualization and Analysis of Landscape Level Wildfire Behavior using Repeat Pass Airborne Thermal Infrared Imagery". The aim of this research was to create and assess the efficacy of geovisualization tools in analyzing wildfire behavior. Specifically, it focused on examining segments of the Thomas and Detwiler wildfire incidents that took place in California in 2017. I believe that the results of this research could be interesting and useful for various applications, such as active fire mapping. Some sections of the paper require major revisions before any further progress can be made. Thank you again for your submission, and I look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer

 

1- Abstract

1-1- The abstract is well-written and provides a clear overview of the study's objectives, and methods. Overall, the abstract effectively conveys the main points of the paper and provides a good summary for readers. However, it could be improved in the following ways:

·        The abstract section need to complete with more information.

·        The concrete finding of this research need to be added to the abstract section.

·        It would be helpful to provide some details on the dataset used for the experiments.

·        The conclusion could be more explicit and summarize the contributions of the research.

 

2- Introduction

2-1- In the literature review section, use newer references related to your research from 2020 to 2023.

For Example:

1- Afira, N. and Wijayanto, A.W., 2022. Mono-temporal and multi-temporal approaches for burnt area detection using Sentinel-2 satellite imagery (a case study of Rokan Hilir Regency, Indonesia). Ecological Informatics, 69, p.101677. 2- Wei, M., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Li, Q., Du, X., Shi, G. and Ren, Y., 2023. Investigating the Potential of Crop Discrimination in Early Growing Stage of Change Analysis in Remote Sensing Crop Profiles. Remote Sensing, 15(3), p.853.

3- Farhadi, H., Ebadi, H., and Kiani, A.: BADI: A NOVEL BURNED AREA DETECTION INDEX FOR SENTINEL-2 IMAGERY USING GOOGLE EARTH ENGINE PLATFORM, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., X-4/W1-2022, 179–186, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-X-4-W1-2022-179-2023, 2023.

 

2-2- The current literature review lacks specificity and therefore does not provide sufficient evidence of the novelty of the present study. It would be more effective to expand on the unique contributions of the manuscript in the introduction section. Additionally, the manuscript is not particularly innovative, and it would be helpful to provide further details on its originality.

2-3- The writing structure of the article should be improved.

2-4- Research organization not provided.

2-5- What is the difference between this article and previous studies?

2-6- Introduction section were provided in poor way.

 

3- Method

3-1- Research Methodology section were provided in poor way.

3-2- It is suggested to add a sub-section with the title of the study area and data in the methodology section.

3-3- It is suggested to present a research flow chart to visualize and clarify the method.

3-4- Section " 2.2. Exploratory Analysis of Fire Behavior" needs related references.

3-5- The manuscript is presented as a technical report. Software as a tool is essential, but it should not be the article's focus. Try to focus on contributions and innovations.

 

4 - "Results and Discussion

4-1- This section were provided in poor way, too.

 

5- The conclusion section needs to rewrite!

 

6- Reference

6-1- Would you like to add some new and relevant references?

 

7- There are several problems in the text of the article.

Regarding the English language, I have found that it is moderately written, and I recommend that you carefully check all parts of the manuscript and correct any grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors，

Above all，I am very apologized that I have upload the review report of another article in the last round. Now, I have pasted the right one (see details below).

Geo-visualization tools can supplement statistical analyses of landscape-level wildfire behavior by enabling the discovery of nuanced information about relationships between fire spread, topography, fuels, and weather. This study aims at developing and evaluating the effectiveness of geo-visualization tools to analyze (a) the fire spread over multidirectional slope, (b) the differences in spread magnitudes within and between sequences over time, and (c) the relative contributions of fuels, slope, and weather at any given point within the sequences.

As for the general writing, the article is well structured and the main contribution is clear. However, the quality of this manuscript has been reduced by a few flaws. See the detailed comments as follows:

1） The scientific contribution of the presented work is not clear, which is not enough for a research article from my point of view.

2） The visualization tools do not show us an attractive and efficient performance (the figures describing the ‘fire spread’ very clearly and aesthetically.

3） What is the main advantages of the new visualization method of ‘of 3-D ROS Sphere’ ？It is not very clear after reading the manuscript.

4） It is not clear about the relative contributions of fuels, slope, and weather.

5） How to calculate/achieve the ROS accurately? More explanations are necessary for a better understanding.

Given the issues mentioned above, I recommend a ‘minor revision’ as my general evaluation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for submitting your revised paper to Fire. I read carefully manuscript number: fire-2412946, the manuscript entitled: "Geovisualization and Analysis of Landscape Level Wildfire Behavior using Repeat Pass Airborne Thermal Infrared Imagery". In my point of view, the result of this kind of research could be interesting and useful for many applications specifically for the spatial burnt and fire risk mapping. All previous comments were applied. The authors applied all comments point by point and I confirm their revision. The added information is important and useful and led to improving the manuscript. I accept the revised manuscript in this present form. I concur; the final decision is accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx