Monchique’s Innovation Laboratory—A Space for Dialogue and Knowledge Sharing to Foster Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper focuses on the reduction of community disaster risk. If the following issues are headed, the paper quality may be improved.

1. Please give more quantitative indicators to illustrate the reliability of the conclusion.

2. The innovation of the work needs to be described in more detail.

3. Please give more details about the research methods.

4.    The authors established a collaborative innovation laboratory and have done a lot of work. To explain the significance of the work in more detail, please add some quantitative comparative analysis.

5.    This paper has some deficiencies in previous studies, such as less than 10 references. On this basis, the innovation of the proposed research content is questionable. So please add more content and describe the meaning of the work more clearly.

6.    There is a need to improve the grammatical structure of the statements made by the authors.

The language of the paper needs to be examined carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In line with the proofreading criteria of the publisher, I prepared a reviewer’s report, which would be as follows:

The content of the proposed paper on high level meets the objectives of the journal and special issue.

Using the scientific methods (described in Section 2) applied in accordance with the author’s scientific objectives resulted useful scientific achievements.

The main strength of the study is that the author’s scientific work may have positive impact on optimizing forest fire safety knowledge and strategy. The present work of the authors provides useful assistance to both fire protection authorities and local self government’s organisations and institutions.

The references used in the main sections are relevant and assist the reader to understand the authors proposals. The illustrations used are regular and correct.

In addition to acknowledging the high-quality work, I propose the following small amendment:

1. It is recommended to develop the research topic in more detail in the Section 1., during which it is recommended to introduce and analyze the related European Union legal regulations and the scientific literature in detail. Literature review of the article in its current form is not sufficient (8 references).

2. When presenting the methodology in Section 2. of this article, it is recommended to compare it with the methodology of scientific projects created for a similar purpose and to present the novelties and differences.

3.  It is recommended to change the title of Section 3. as follows: “3. Results and Discussion”.

4. In Section 3, it is recommended - in addition to the location specific information - to examine the conclusions, proposals and results of similar regional or international scientific research projects.

Based on the above, after the revision of the article, I suggest the publication of reviewed article.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be accepted.