Protected Areas Show Substantial and Increasing Risk of Wildfire Globally

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have some comments to clarify your manuscript. You can see them below:

Line 2–3: A more limited title or one that highlights methodological limitations is preferable.
Line 98–107: Different data sources are provided for missing countries (China, India, Türkiye, etc.). The heterogeneity of the data sets undermines clarity. This section needs to be rephrased.
Line 83: MODIS data (2001–2024 usage) and WDPA (2025 version). These parts are confusing. There is a time discrepancy.
Line 176–177: There's a situation where the same areas are burning again. This is causing misunderstanding. This part needs to be articulated better.
Line 217–227: %PAF and %PA increase. The analysis is correct, but the results need to be reinterpreted. It should be revised.
Line 230–239: The Wilcoxon test results do not have the required multiple testing correction. Why is this?
Line 266–268: Reading this section, the terms "overproportion" and "underproportion" are unclear. The criteria for over/under fire, and the reference base (e.g., across all biomes or based on regional fire frequency) are not clearly defined. Therefore, this section should be revised. 
Line 281–285: There is an emphasis on the threat of fires contributing to ecosystem health, etc., but the conceptual contrast should be clearly stated.
Line 288–293: Solutions should be suggested for the predictions with the 30% target of the GBF.
Line 296–298: “This section may be divided by subheadings …”. The editorial note was not deleted. This section should be eliminated.

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 2–3: A more limited title or one that highlights methodological limitations is preferable.

Response 2: It is unclear as to why we should change the tile, especially as methodological limitations (which all studies have) are part of the discussion. Happy to hear some specific suggestions, though.

Comment 2:Line 98–107: Different data sources are provided for missing countries (China, India, Türkiye, etc.). The heterogeneity of the data sets undermines clarity. This section needs to be rephrased.

Response 2: Agreed. We have added “We acknowledge that heterogeneity in data sources is undesirable, but also unavoidable”, (L108)

Comment 3: Line 83: MODIS data (2001–2024 usage) and WDPA (2025 version). These parts are confusing. There is a time discrepancy.

Response 3: This is not a discrepancy. The 2025 version of the WDPA includes all protected areas between 2001-2024, and also the year of establishment. Thus it includes data for the same period as MODIS.

Comment 4: Line 176–177: There's a situation where the same areas are burning again. This is causing misunderstanding. This part needs to be articulated better.

Response 4: Yes, this is clarified in L180, where we state that “This does not mean that wildfires have affected the entirety of PAs, as some areas burned more than once (wildfire impacts have concentrated over 23.7% of global PA coverage, while 76.3% remains unburned).”

 
Comment 5: Line 217–227: %PAF and %PA increase. The analysis is correct, but the results need to be reinterpreted. It should be revised.

 

Response 5: We have reworded this as (L228): “This result is pointing towards an overproportion in the incidence of wildfires within PAs globally, which is substantiated by the fact that %PAF increases at a significantly faster pace than the cover of PAs (Sen’s D (difference across slopes) = +0.19 % yr⁻¹, Mann-Kendall test, P<0.0001). “

Comment 5: Line 230–239: The Wilcoxon test results do not have the required multiple testing correction. Why is this?

 

Response 5: Because here wea are not doing multiple testing. Just pairwise comparisons between %PAF against %PA in different biomes.

Comment 6: Line 266–268: Reading this section, the terms "overproportion" and "underproportion" are unclear. The criteria for over/under fire, and the reference base (e.g., across all biomes or based on regional fire frequency) are not clearly defined. Therefore, this section should be revised. 

 

Response 6: We have replaced “Underproportion” by “decreases in”, to make it more clear (L275)

Comment 7: Line 281–285: There is an emphasis on the threat of fires contributing to ecosystem health, etc., but the conceptual contrast should be clearly stated.

 

Response 7: We are unclear as to what criticism is being raised here, sorry.

Comment 8: Line 288–293: Solutions should be suggested for the predictions with the 30% target of the GBF.

 

Response8: Covering how to implement fire prevention within protected is beyond scope, particularly because the literature on fire prevention is rich. To address this, we are now citing a “classic” paper on how to incorporate fire prevention in protected areas (L304):

“We thus encourage that PA management includes active fire prevention plans [33].”

Comment 9: Line 296–298: “This section may be divided by subheadings …”. The editorial note was not deleted. This section should be eliminated.

 

Response 9: We have deleted the editorial note. Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is well developed as an important diagnosis; however, to become a scientific article, it requires work on the conclusions section (which is not included). It would be desirable to explore the implications of the suggested actions and their potential application in more depth. Perhaps in the future, an economic evaluation of what it would entail to coordinate the implementation of the suggested actions could be carried out.

The figures are well worked and clear, although in figures 1 and 2 the title of the figure should be separated from its description.

Author Response

Comment 1: This work is well developed as an important diagnosis; however, to become a scientific article, it requires work on the conclusions section (which is not included). It would be desirable to explore the implications of the suggested actions and their potential application in more depth. Perhaps in the future, an economic evaluation of what it would entail to coordinate the implementation of the suggested actions could be carried out.

Response 1: Thanks for the feedback. We now have a separate discussion section, which is more elaborated than before (L272-314).

Comment 2: The figures are well worked and clear, although in figures 1 and 2 the title of the figure should be separated from its description.

Response 2: I understand that this something for production. Thanks again for the feedback

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strengths
• The manuscript analyzes a global assessment of fire incidence in Protected Areas (PAs), allowing for comparisons across biomes and regions.
• The use of statistical methods such as Sen's slope, Mann-Kendall, and Wilcoxon, which lend rigor to the analysis of temporal trends and differences between biomes.

The paper brings important advances on this topic.

I suggest accepting it in its current form.

Author Response

Comments 1:

Strengths
• The manuscript analyzes a global assessment of fire incidence in Protected Areas (PAs), allowing for comparisons across biomes and regions.
• The use of statistical methods such as Sen's slope, Mann-Kendall, and Wilcoxon, which lend rigor to the analysis of temporal trends and differences between biomes.

The paper brings important advances on this topic.

I suggest accepting it in its current form.

Response 1. No changes made. Thank you.