Understanding ‘Community’ in Wildfire Research in High-Latitude Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explore the importance and understanding of "community" in wildfire research. I appreciate the effort the authors have put into this research. The proposed tools and approaches are standard for review research and the technical part was adequate, well-written, and structured. This work is in my opinion appropriate for publication in the journal Fire. The article is interesting and could be useful to readers. However, this article has some weaknesses that could be improved. Although the reference list is good. Some references are missing from recent studies. The international scopus could be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and giving your suggestion about this manuscript. We really appreciate your suggestions, which helped us a lot in improving this manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

The manuscript addresses the interpretation of the concept of “community” within wildfire risk reduction literature in high-latitude areas. The authors explore the evolution of community-based approaches and their intersection with social identity, participation, and governance, supported by a robust methodological framework and a well-structured narrative.

The manuscript contributes to the literature on disaster risk reduction (DRR), particularly regarding the social sciences' engagement with community concepts in wildfire contexts. Its focus on heterogeneity, Indigenous knowledge, and participatory dynamics makes it especially valuable for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers in climate adaptation and risk governance.

Nevertheless, several areas require revision to meet the standards of methodological clarity, conceptual precision, and academic rigour.

 

Specific Comments

Major revisions:

1. Clarity and depth of the conceptual framework (Section 2.2):
• The six-dimensional framework is conceptually rich but suffers from overlap and ambiguity, particularly between the dimensions of “power relations” and “participatory approach.” Consider refining and justifying these categories more clearly.
• The integration of literature from Aiken et al. (2017) and others is commendable, yet insufficiently critical in addressing the normative assumptions behind community-based research. More synthesis is needed.
2. Operationalisation of the coding system (Tables 3.1 and 3.2):
• The criteria for classifying interpretation and participation levels as "partial," "informed," or "consistent" are not operationalised transparently. Include concrete examples from the reviewed studies to justify these designations.
• The coding reliability (e.g., inter-coder agreement) is not mentioned. This weakens the methodological rigour of the review and should be addressed, especially given the subjective nature of the assessments.
3. Reflexivity and Positionality (Section 3.6 & Discussion):
• Only two studies were found to offer consistent reflexivity, yet the manuscript does not itself demonstrate critical reflexivity about the authors’ own role and positionality in reviewing these works. This omission is a missed opportunity and weakens the study’s epistemological stance.
4. Inclusion criteria justification (Section 2.1 & Table 1):
• The focus on articles from 2015–2024 is reasonable but not theoretically justified. Explain why the past decade was selected as the temporal scope. Also, reflect on the implications of language and database restrictions (English-only, Scopus) on the representation of Indigenous and non-Western perspectives.
5. Underdeveloped critical analysis in the discussion:
• The discussion offers a good overview of themes but lacks analytical sharpness. The authors should more clearly differentiate between descriptive trends and critical implications, particularly concerning research fatigue, tokenism, and knowledge extraction from marginalised communities.
6. Absence of meta-data summary table:
• The manuscript would benefit greatly from a summary table of the 31 reviewed articles, including columns for country, year, community type, method, participation level, etc. This would enhance transparency.

 

Minor Revisions:

1. Abstract:
• The abstract lacks specificity regarding the number of articles reviewed and key patterns identified. Quantify findings more precisely.
2. Grammar and style:
• There are multiple instances of awkward phrasing (e.g., “the community is embedded with diversity”) that require revision for clarity.
• Sentences such as “The enforcement of being a community…” are semantically unclear. Recommend language editing.
3. Figure:
• Figure 1 (ROSES diagram) requires minor improvements in terminology and alignment with PRISMA-ScR conventions to further strengthen its clarity and academic rigour.
4. References:
• The reference list in the manuscript exhibits several formatting inconsistencies that require correction for publication. These include variation in the presentation of author names, with some entries using initials before surnames and others in the reverse format, as well as inconsistent use of periods and spacing in initials. Journal names appear both in full and abbreviated forms, and the application of italics to journal titles and volume numbers is uneven. Some references include complete DOI links, while others only provide partial identifiers or omit them altogether. Additionally, there is inconsistency in the inclusion of volume and issue numbers, and the formatting of titles varies in punctuation and capitalisation. Standardising these elements across all entries is necessary to ensure adherence to the journal's referencing style.
5. Ethical considerations:
• While the study doesn’t involve primary data, it would be appropriate to include a brief statement on ethical considerations related to interpreting community-defined identities.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and making very detailed and clear comments. We really appreciate your suggestions, which helped us a lot in improving this manuscript. We have revised this article based on each comment as follows and included the corresponding revision highlighted in the resubmitted files. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript presents a very interesting systematic study in which you have conducted a well-founded methodological review of the existing literature.

To further improve the paper, I would like to offer a few minor suggestions:

1. While the methodology for selecting studies is sufficiently clear, the approach to evaluating qualitative differences between the studies is less so. I would suggest including a table that assesses the quality of each individual study.

2. Although the analysis is grounded in existing theoretical frameworks (e.g., Aiken et al.), it would benefit from a deeper theoretical discussion. This could include how various theoretical approaches (such as theories of power, identity, or social capital) can help structure the understanding of “community” in wildfire research.

3. The manuscript primarily focuses on academic analysis. I recommend adding a section in the discussion that provides practical recommendations for policymakers—for example, how to design community inclusion in national risk management strategies.

4. Given that many wildfires occur rapidly and unexpectedly, it may be useful to reflect on the logistical and ethical challenges of working with communities during and immediately after disasters.

5. The paper could be enriched by adding concise charts or tables that visualize key findings (e.g., by types of communities, levels of participation, or countries), which would enhance the clarity and readability of the study.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and making very detailed and clear comments. We really appreciate your suggestions, which helped us a lot in improving this manuscript. We revised this article based on your suggestions as follows and included the corresponding revision highlighted in the resubmitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

The revised manuscript incorporates substantial improvements in line with the initial peer review. Conceptual precision, methodological transparency, and analytical clarity have all been strengthened. The authors have effectively responded to concerns regarding framework justification, coding practices, reflexivity, and critical engagement with community participation. The study now provides a coherent and structured scoping review that contributes meaningfully to the literature on community-based wildfire research in high-latitude areas.

 

Specific Comments:

1. Abstract

The abstract now clearly identifies the number of studies included and outlines the analytical dimensions used in the review. Key findings are stated concisely, and the focus on community heterogeneity and reflexivity is incorporated.

2. Introduction

The background presents a clear rationale for the study. The positioning of the research within the broader context of disaster risk reduction and the role of community in wildfire resilience is adequately framed.

3. Methodology

The scope and design of the review are now more clearly described. The rationale for the 2015–2024 time frame is supported by reference to the Sendai Framework. The use of the ROSES protocol, supported by a PRISMA-ScR-compliant flow diagram, clarifies the review process. The conceptual framework has been refined, and the categorisation of dimensions such as power relations and participatory approach is now more clearly delineated. The coding procedure includes references to the EPPI tool and outlines the team-based review approach.

4. Results

The data are presented in a structured and accessible manner. Updates to Tables 3.1 and 3.2 improve the clarity of classification criteria. Examples provided in the narrative enhance understanding of how community interpretations and participatory levels were assessed. A comprehensive metadata table in the appendix documents the characteristics of each included study.

5. Discussion

The discussion now integrates a more critical perspective on the implications of the findings. Issues such as research fatigue, tokenism, and limited community influence are examined with greater analytical depth. The absence of reflexivity in most studies is noted, and its consequences for community engagement and representation are addressed. The discussion links findings to broader concerns about power asymmetries and the operationalisation of community within disaster research.

6. Limitations

A clear limitations section has been added. It addresses the influence of language and database restrictions, the temporal focus of the review, and the potential subjectivity of qualitative coding. These elements are transparently acknowledged.

7. Grammar and style

The manuscript shows improvement in clarity and structure. Several previously unclear phrases have been revised. The writing is more precise and the flow is consistent throughout.

8. Figure

The revised Figure 1 fully aligns with recognised standards for systematic reviews. Tables are formatted consistently and support the narrative effectively.

9. References

The reference list has been revised to correct inconsistencies in formatting, naming conventions, and DOI presentation. Citation style is now more uniform.

10. Ethical considerations

A formal institutional review board statement has been included, addressing ethical considerations related to the study design.