Review Reports - From Wind to Smoke: A Unified WebGIS Platform for Wildfire Simulation and Visualization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper give information about how to make a WebGIS-based tool that can simulate and display how fires and smoke move. The study has a lot of useful information for people who make decisions and run fire departments. However, the article still requires improvement.

1- Details of the algorithms used in fire spread and smoke modeling should be provided.

2- Parameters, boundary conditions, and the model validation process should be explained in more detail.

3- The sources, resolutions, and historical scope of the data used (wind, topography, fuel load, etc.) should be provided.

4- The developed model should be compared with real fire data. Simply presenting a simulation is not sufficient; performance must be measured (e.g., with accuracy, margin of error, ROC, or other metrics).

5- Some figures are low resolution, and the maps lack reference information (scale, directional arrow, coordinate system).

6- Inconsistent numbering exists between tables and figures.

7- Some parts of English writing aren't flowing well, and some lines are too long and repeat themselves too many times.

The introduction is quite general. The originality of the study should be emphasized more clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some parts of English writing aren't flowing well, and some lines are too long and repeat themselves too many times.

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper gives information about how to make a WebGIS-based tool that can simulate and display how fires and smoke move. The study has a lot of useful information for people who make decisions and run fire departments. However, the article still requires improvement.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We have carefully revised the paper according to these suggestions. Below we provide a detailed response to each point.

Comment 2: 1. Details of the algorithms used in fire spread and smoke modeling should be provided.

Parameters, boundary conditions, and the model validation process should be explained in more detail.

Response 2: We appreciate this important observation. In fact, following the first round of review, we already expanded the description of the algorithms, parameters, boundary conditions and model validation process in the revised version of the manuscript. All these aspects are fully described in our previous publications, which are appropriately cited here. In line with the journal’s guidelines, the number of self-citations has been kept below 15%. At the same time, reproducing extensive methodological details would not only exceed the length limitations of the present article but also risk self-plagiarism. For this reason, we provide concise descriptions and direct the reader to the cited works for comprehensive technical details. We have clarified this point in the revised text and strengthened the references. Additionally, a more complete account of the algorithms is presented in a recent manuscript currently under review, which unfortunately cannot yet be cited.

Comment 3. The sources, resolutions, and historical scope of the data used (wind, topography, fuel load, etc.) should be provided.

Response 3: We acknowledge the need for a clearer presentation of the data. The meteorological datasets were already described in the original manuscript, and we have now revised the text to provide a more explicit summary of the cartographic inputs. In particular, we have added the reference that specifies the sources, resolutions, and temporal scope of the cartographic datasets. This information reflects all the data available to us for the case study.

Comment 4. The developed model should be compared with real fire data. Simply presenting a simulation is not sufficient; performance must be measured (e.g., with accuracy, margin of error, ROC, or other metrics).

Response 4: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. In response, we have calculated a spatial similarity index (Sorensen and Jaccard) between the simulated and observed fire perimeters. This provides a quantitative measure of model performance in terms of overlap between predicted and actual burned areas. We believe this metric is more appropriate than the ROC curve, which is mainly designed for binary classification problems rather than for evaluating spatially distributed fire perimeters.

Comment 5. Some figures are low resolution, and the maps lack reference information (scale, directional arrow, coordinate system).

Response 5: We respectfully clarify that the figures are screenshots taken directly from the simulation platform, and they are intended to illustrate the interface and visualization available to the user. Adding cartographic elements such as scale, orientation arrow, or coordinate system would alter the appearance of the platform as it is experienced in practice. To avoid confusion, we have clarified this in the figure captions. On the other hand, we appreciate this suggestion and will incorporate in future developments the possibility of downloading simulation result maps that include all traditional cartographic elements. This point has also been included in the lines for future work described in the Conclusions.

Comment 6. Inconsistent numbering exists between tables and figures.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for noticing this oversight. The numbering of all tables and figures has been thoroughly revised and verified against the official template, and no inconsistencies have been identified. Nonetheless, if the reviewer has identified a specific inconsistency, we would be grateful for further clarification so that it can be addressed.

Comment 7. Some parts of English writing aren't flowing well, and some lines are too long and repeat themselves too many times.

Response 7: We acknowledge this concern and have carefully revised the entire manuscript to improve fluency, remove redundancies, and make sentences more concise. The revised text has been proofread for clarity and readability.

Comment 8: The introduction is quite general. The originality of the study should be emphasized more clearly.

Response 8: We agree that the originality of the work should be emphasized more clearly. Accordingly, we have revised the Introduction by adding a new paragraph at the end that underlines the novelty and practical impact of the study. This paragraph highlights the unique aspects of our contribution and emphasizes the direct applicability of the tool to decision-making in fire management.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposed a unified webgis platform designed to support wildfire management. The platform’s design integrates the coupling of physical models with the usability of WebGIS, and its basic applicability has been verified through case studies. However, certain aspects of the paper require further clarification.

As shown in Table 2 and related analyses, compared to existing tools, this model integrates wind field, wildfire spread, and smoke dispersion processes into a single WebGIS platform. It is good in areas such as "model coupling," "WebGIS support," and "fuel map editability." Nevertheless, some aspects of the model design need additional explanation, such as how the 3D factors, such as wind field, influences 2D wildfire spread.

The paper mentions that the PhyFire model has an optional feature that allows for the integration of stochastic phenomena such as fire spotting, but it does not elaborate on how the scope of its impact is determined. As the fire spotting is considered, the scope of its impact is decided?

A wind speed model with a coarser resolution will affect wildfire spread differently. How do physical models of wind under varying surface topographies impact simulations? What is the sensitivity? And how do they influence the rate of spread?

What impact do the physical simplifications in the experimental process have on experimental results? From this perspective, it is necessary to clarify the model’s input and output variables, as well as the rules for matching temporal and spatial resolutions.

The WebGIS platform proposed in this paper has application prospects in wildfire simulation. The authors should revise and improve the paper to address the above issues before acception.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper proposed a unified webgis platform designed to support wildfire management. The platform’s design integrates the coupling of physical models with the usability of WebGIS, and its basic applicability has been verified through case studies. However, certain aspects of the paper require further clarification.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments, which point to important aspects in the further development of the platform. Below we provide our responses to each issue raised.

Comment 2: As shown in Table 2 and related analyses, compared to existing tools, this model integrates wind field, wildfire spread, and smoke dispersion processes into a single WebGIS platform. It is good in areas such as "model coupling," "WebGIS support," and "fuel map editability." Nevertheless, some aspects of the model design need additional explanation, such as how the 3D factors, such as wind field, influences 2D wildfire spread.

Response 2: We acknowledge that the interaction between the 3D wind field and the 2D fire spread model is a fundamental research question. As correctly noted by the reviewer, the influence of wind field resolution and scale on wildfire spread is a key aspect of our current investigations. These issues, however, go beyond the objectives of the present work, which focuses on the integration of the different physical models into a usable WebGIS framework. We have added a statement in the Conclusions to acknowledge this limitation and to indicate that this topic is the subject of ongoing research.

Comment 3: The paper mentions that the PhyFire model has an optional feature that allows for the integration of stochastic phenomena such as fire spotting, but it does not elaborate on how the scope of its impact is determined. As the fire spotting is considered, the scope of its impact is decided?

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to this feature. The implementation of fire spotting in PhyFire, including how the scope of its impact is determined, has been fully documented in a previous publication already cited in the manuscript. This reference has been added in the corresponding sentence. Since fire spotting is not central to the current study — which focuses on the integration of the models into a WebGIS platform — we did not expand on it here. We have clarified this point in the revised text.

Comment 4: A wind speed model with a coarser resolution will affect wildfire spread differently. How do physical models of wind under varying surface topographies impact simulations? What is the sensitivity? And how do they influence the rate of spread?

What impact do the physical simplifications in the experimental process have on experimental results? From this perspective, it is necessary to clarify the model’s input and output variables, as well as the rules for matching temporal and spatial resolutions.

The WebGIS platform proposed in this paper has application prospects in wildfire simulation. The authors should revise and improve the paper to address the above issues before acception.

Response 4: We agree that this is a crucial issue. The sensitivity of wildfire spread to wind field resolution and surface topography is indeed a key area of our ongoing research. Previous works, which are cited in the manuscript, have examined model sensitivity, simplifications, and the treatment of input and output variables with respect to temporal and spatial resolutions. In the present paper, however, our main objective is to demonstrate the feasibility of coupling the models within a unified WebGIS platform rather than to revisit these analyses in detail. We have clarified this point in the revised text and strengthened the references. Furthermore, a statement has been added in the Conclusions to highlight that the influence of wind resolution, topography, and model simplifications remains an open research question that we are currently addressing. We also thank the reviewer for recognizing the application prospects of the platform.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 15-16: “causing problems” is unspecific. Could be tightened to specify economic losses, ecosystem damage, and human health impacts.
Line 23-24: Transition is good, but “in addition to their destructive impact” repeats earlier point unnecessarily.
Line 28-29: “Notable share” is subjective—better to quantify relative to EU or global share.
Line 29. "emmissions" should be "emissions".
Line 40-49: "There is currently a wide range of mathematical approaches..." and "A substantial number of simulator models have been..." should be combined for clarity.
Line 128: “Many of the wildfire simulation models mentioned above..." repeats earlier discussion of model evolution.
Line 187-192: “The Front-End application..." should be broken into two shorter ones. Actually, It reads more like an instruction manual than a scientific explanation.
Line 207: What is the meaning of "unique communication channel." The phrase (“apart from the internal maps server”) confuses the “unique” claim.
Line 216: “The communications module is set to network in two scopes...” needs rephrasing.
Line 238: "Additionally, users can now upload new geospatial layers..." A positive feature, but the phrase "users can now upload" sounds informal.
Line 260-261: “The map server is the component responsible for enhancing...” sounds like marketing lingo (“enhancing user experience”). It needs to stay technical.
Line 270-273: “It has to be noted that...” is an odd statement. It could simply state the facts.
Line 273-277: The phrase "classified according to the NFFL system" is not explained.
Line 570: Please specify this phrase "based on the available cartographic and contextual data".
Line 585-605: The impact area size (23 km²) seems small compared to the affected area (219.61 ha = 2.19 km²); why such a large buffer? Justification needed.
Line 606-618: There's a quantitative discrepancy here: 144.15 hectares vs. 219.61 hectares → this is about a 35% underestimate. "a reasonably accurate" might be an overstatement. I strongly recommend providing a quantitative measure of error (e.g., percentage difference between simulated and observed environment, F1 score).
Line 618: Smoke simulation is described (line 543), but since no observed smoke data exist, this remains hypothetical. This limitation should be emphasized.
Line 624: The phrase “his integration” should be changed to “this integration.”
Line 655: “Sufficient level of maturity to enable reliable reproduction” is overstated given earlier results (35% area underestimation). Needs more cautious wording.
Line 707-708: “Complete simulation” is misleading — two-way coupling isn’t implemented yet, and smoke validation is limited. I recommend: “integrated simulation.”.
Line 710-711: “Sufficient accuracy” is not understood. Please should tie back to validation results.
Line 720-727: Conclusion should synthesize.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is clear overall but could be improved by shortening long sentences and reducing redundancies.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the very detailed and precise comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to these suggestions. Below we provide a point-by-point response.

Line 15–16: “causing problems” is unspecific. Could be tightened to specify economic losses, ecosystem damage, and human health impacts.

Response: We agree. The phrase has been replaced with a more precise formulation referring explicitly to economic losses, ecosystem degradation, and human health impacts.

Line 23–24: Transition is good, but “in addition to their destructive impact” repeats earlier point unnecessarily.

Response: We agree and have removed the redundant phrase.

Line 28–29: “Notable share” is subjective—better to quantify relative to EU or global share.

Response: We agree. The text has been revised to provide a more objective expression. Where precise data are available, we report them; otherwise, we refer to the significant proportion of wildfires in the European context.

Line 29: "emmissions" should be "emissions".

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this error out. We have corrected it.

Line 40–49: “There is currently a wide range of mathematical approaches...” and “A substantial number of simulator models have been...” should be combined for clarity.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the stylistic suggestion. The two sentences have been combined into one clearer statement.

Line 128: “Many of the wildfire simulation models mentioned above...” repeats earlier discussion of model evolution.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this stylistic suggestion. In response, we have condensed the two passages into a single, more concise paragraph that integrates the discussion of the evolution of wildfire simulation models with the historical development of PhyFire, thereby improving clarity and avoiding redundancy.

Line 187–192: “The Front-End application...” should be broken into two shorter ones. Actually, it reads more like an instruction manual than a scientific explanation.

Response: We agree and have split the paragraph into shorter sentences for improved readability. The more descriptive, instruction-like content was already moved to the Appendix.

Line 207: What is the meaning of "unique communication channel"? The phrase (“apart from the internal maps server”) confuses the “unique” claim.

Response: We agree this wording was confusing. The phrase has been revised to: “a dedicated communication channel, in addition to the internal maps server.”

Line 216: “The communications module is set to network in two scopes...” needs rephrasing.

Response: The sentence has been rephrased to: “The communications module is configured to operate at two levels: local intranet and external internet access.”

Line 238: "Additionally, users can now upload new geospatial layers..." A positive feature, but the phrase "users can now upload" sounds informal.

Response: We agree the original phrasing was too informal. It has been revised to: “Additionally, the platform allows users to upload new geospatial layers.”

Line 260–261: “The map server is the component responsible for enhancing...” sounds like marketing lingo (“enhancing user experience”). It needs to stay technical.

Response: We agree and have rephrased it to: “The map server is the component responsible for rendering and serving geospatial data layers to the client application.”

Line 270–273: “It has to be noted that...” is an odd statement. It could simply state the facts.

Response: We agree. The phrase has been simplified to a direct factual statement.

Line 273–277: The phrase "classified according to the NFFL system" is not explained.

Response: We have added a brief explanation: “ a fuel type map classified according to the National Forest Fire Laboratory (NFFL) system, which groups fuels into standard categories based on their physical and combustion characteristics”

Line 570: Please specify this phrase "based on the available cartographic and contextual data".

Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. In response, we have revised the sentence to improve clarity. The phrase has been reworded as: ‘To validate the simulation tool, a real wildfire event was selected and reproduced using the platform, based on the available cartographic and event data, with details provided later in this section.’ In addition, the subsequent part of the section has been expanded to include more explicit details or references on the datasets used.

Line 585–605: The impact area size (23 km²) seems small compared to the affected area (219.61 ha = 2.19 km²); why such a large buffer? Justification needed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this. The domain was defined larger than the burned area to ensure that the fire would not reach the domain boundary, as homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions are assumed. In addition, the domain was slightly expanded to facilitate visualization of the smoke dispersion in the figures. This adjustment is purely for visualization purposes and does not affect the numerical calculations.

Line 606-618: There's a quantitative discrepancy here: 144.15 hectares vs. 219.61 hectares → this is about a 35% underestimate. "a reasonably accurate" might be an overstatement. I strongly recommend providing a quantitative measure of error (e.g., percentage difference between simulated and observed environment, F1 score).

Response: We agree that this discrepancy is significant. In the revised version, we provide similarity indices (Sorensen and Jaccard) between simulated and observed perimeters to quantify model performance. The description has been revised to avoid overstating accuracy.

Line 618: Smoke simulation is described (line 543), but since no observed smoke data exist, this remains hypothetical. This limitation should be emphasized.

Response: We agree and have explicitly stated this limitation in the text: since no observed smoke data were available, the smoke dispersion results should be considered hypothetical. We also note that such observational data are rarely available for real wildfire events.

Line 624: The phrase “his integration” should be changed to “this integration.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this error out. We have corrected it.

Line 655: “Sufficient level of maturity to enable reliable reproduction” is overstated given earlier results (35% area underestimation). Needs more cautious wording.

Response: We agree and have replaced it with more cautious wording: “…has reached a sufficient level of development to support integrated simulation within the platform, while recognizing the observed limitations in perimeter accuracy.”

Line 707–708: “Complete simulation” is misleading — two-way coupling isn’t implemented yet, and smoke validation is limited. I recommend: “integrated simulation.”.

Response: Revised to “integrated simulation.”

Line 710–711: “Sufficient accuracy” is not understood. Please should tie back to validation results.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have included quantitative similarity measures between the simulated and observed fire perimeters. Specifically, the Jaccard index (0.603) and the Sørensen index (0.752) were calculated, providing an objective assessment of model performance. The revised text replaces the previous expression ‘reasonably accurate’ with a more cautious description and explains the source of the observed discrepancy.

Line 720–727: Conclusion should synthesize.

Response: We note that while Reviewer 3 suggested a shorter conclusion, other reviewers requested an expanded one. To balance these perspectives, we have retained the extended conclusion but revised it to improve synthesis, clarity, and avoid redundancy.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sharing your work that aims to support efforts in wildfire management, that is such a critical and challenging issue. I particularly appreciated your efforts to provide increased computational efficiency, while maintaining an interface that can be used by a broader audience of stakeholders that do not necessarily have the technical background to use more complex tools. The paper is well written and provides a comprehensive presentation of the work that has already been done in this area, as well as a detailed description of your platform and its innovative elements. I found the description of the platform to be very text heavy. I would suggest using the nice figures you have added to the appendix, in the main body of the manuscript, and to describe the tool based on those. This would guide the readers through your text. On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial to have more detail and discussion regarding the use of the interface for the case study and your results. And given the fact that you did not find information regarding smoke generation, distribution and impact for the particular incident, which was a limitation to perform analysis related to the smoke generation simulation, did you consider exploring an additional case study to attempt to fully highlight the potential of your work? Maybe this is future work, but do think it would add a lot to fully highlight the efficiency and effectiveness of the tool. Especially since you seem to be discussing with stakeholders about a broader use of the platform. I would also be very interested in having some more detail regarding the entities that have expressed an interest in your work. Have they already been familiarized with it? Have they discussed how they intend to use it? How are you planning to collect feedback from them?

I also have a few more text specific comments: 1. Figure 1: the quality of this figure can be improved. 2.Figure 3. You could present those figures one below the other. This would improve their arrangement in the manuscript but also allow the readers to better observe the details of the interface and the visualization. 3. How would you define 'a reasonably a reasonably approximation of the real fire extent (line 612) 4..Line 624 use 'the'.

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for sharing your work that aims to support efforts in wildfire management, that is such a critical and challenging issue. I particularly appreciated your efforts to provide increased computational efficiency, while maintaining an interface that can be used by a broader audience of stakeholders that do not necessarily have the technical background to use more complex tools. The paper is well written and provides a comprehensive presentation of the work that has already been done in this area, as well as a detailed description of your platform and its innovative elements. I found the description of the platform to be very text heavy. I would suggest using the nice figures you have added to the appendix, in the main body of the manuscript, and to describe the tool based on those. This would guide the readers through your text. On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial to have more detail and discussion regarding the use of the interface for the case study and your results. And given the fact that you did not find information regarding smoke generation, distribution and impact for the particular incident, which was a limitation to perform analysis related to the smoke generation simulation, did you consider exploring an additional case study to attempt to fully highlight the potential of your work? Maybe this is future work, but do think it would add a lot to fully highlight the efficiency and effectiveness of the tool. Especially since you seem to be discussing with stakeholders about a broader use of the platform. I would also be very interested in having some more detail regarding the entities that have expressed an interest in your work. Have they already been familiarized with it? Have they discussed how they intend to use it? How are you planning to collect feedback from them?

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the very positive and encouraging feedback on our work. We greatly appreciate the recognition of our efforts to increase computational efficiency while ensuring accessibility for a broad range of stakeholders.

Regarding the description of the platform, we note that some of the figures were moved to the Annex in response to the request of another reviewer, who expressed concern that the manuscript resembled a user manual rather than a scientific paper. With seven reviewers providing feedback, sometimes with contradictory recommendations, it has been challenging to satisfy all perspectives simultaneously. This is also the reason why we did not further expand the description of the case study setup in the main text.

As suggested, we are indeed conducting additional simulations of more recent real wildfire events. Unfortunately, this past summer has been particularly tragic in Spain, providing several new case studies. However, performing these analyses requires first gathering and harmonizing all the necessary datasets, which goes beyond the scope and objectives of the present paper. We consider this line of work as a natural extension for future research.

We also appreciate the reviewer’s interest in the engagement with stakeholders. At present, the regional government and its wildfire management services, as well as some private companies, have expressed interest in the platform. For confidentiality reasons, we cannot provide further details at this stage, but these collaborations are expected to help refine the platform and guide its broader application.

Concerning the specific comments:

Figure 1: the quality of this figure can be improved.

Response 1: We agree with the reviewer’s observation. In the revised version, we have improved the image resolution and increased the font size to enhance clarity and readability.

Figure 3. You could present those figures one below the other. This would improve their arrangement in the manuscript but also allow the readers to better observe the details of the interface and the visualization.

Response 2: We have followed the suggestion and arranged the figures one below the other to enhance readability. We would like to note that the original figure layout adhered to the formatting guidelines specified in the official submission template.

How would you define 'a reasonably a reasonably approximation of the real fire extent (line 612)

Response 3: This has been clarified to explicitly refer to the similarity indices (Jaccard and Sorensen) between the simulated and observed fire perimeters.

Line 624 use 'the'.

Response 4: Corrected as This.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the extensive scientific contribution, summarize the weaknesses and implications of the simulation tool presented in the article at the end of the article—list them in a table—for the technical, data, and user areas.

In conclusion, the authors state that the platform's design prioritizes scientific accuracy and usability, allowing both experts and non-experts to configure and run simulations with minimal effort—what requirements must non-experts meet in order to run simulations?

Author Response

Comment 1: Despite the extensive scientific contribution, summarize the weaknesses and implications of the simulation tool presented in the article at the end of the article—list them in a table—for the technical, data, and user areas.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. A new table has been added to the Conclusions, summarizing the main weaknesses and their implications, grouped into the technical, data, and user domains. This addition provides a concise overview of the current limitations and their practical consequences.

Comment 2: In conclusion, the authors state that the platform's design prioritizes scientific accuracy and usability, allowing both experts and non-experts to configure and run simulations with minimal effort—what requirements must non-experts meet in order to run simulations?

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s request for clarification. Non-expert users are not required to possess technical knowledge of the underlying models. Instead, they simply need to follow the descriptions and instructions provided in the Appendix, which guide them step by step through the configuration and execution of a simulation. This design ensures that non-specialists can operate the tool with minimal training.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your work!

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for carefully addressing the comments and making the necessary revisions. The manuscript has improved significantly, and I appreciate the effort put into the revision process.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Τhank you for the revisions, that have improved your manuscript, and for the clarifications provided.

I still think that the figures you have in the appendix would be more useful in the main body of the manuscript, however I understand that you followed another colleague's suggestion and will not insist on that if you are happy with it.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research objectives of this paper are clear and closely aligned with the actual needs of disaster prevention decision-making. The technical approach is coherent, demonstrating significant practical value and academic significance. The tool design adequately considers the usability for non-expert users, in line with the current trends in environmental decision support systems.

Pages 1-3, Lines 18-85: It is recommended to condense the summary. The introduction currently lacks depth. The references section contains only 33 entries; it is suggested to increase this to over 50 to enhance the comparative analysis of domestic and international research, thereby emphasizing the necessity and innovation of this study.
Pages 6-10: The data interaction mechanism among the three models is not explained. Please supplement the design of input/output parameter interfaces for model interactions.
Pages 14-17: Add a case study section that quantitatively analyzes the discrepancies between simulated results and real data (e.g., error rates of burned area, deviations in smoke concentration) and discusses the sources of uncertainty.
Pages 17-18: The discussion does not compare the advantages and disadvantages of existing tools (such as WIFIRE and FARSITE).
Pages 17-18: Include a comparative table in the discussion to highlight the unique advantages of this platform in terms of model coupling, usability, and 3D visualization.

Author Response

Comment 1

Response:

We thank the reviewer for the encouraging assessment of the manuscript’s potential, as well as for the constructive feedback provided. We have carefully considered all observations and implemented substantial revisions to improve the clarity, rigor, and coherence of the study.

Comment 2: Pages 1-3, Lines 18-85: It is recommended to condense the summary. The introduction currently lacks depth. The references section contains only 33 entries; it is suggested to increase this to over 50 to enhance the comparative analysis of domestic and international research, thereby emphasizing the necessity and innovation of this study.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response to your recommendation about the summary, we have revised and condensed the abstract to improve its clarity and conciseness. However, we would like to note that the previous version was written considering the 200-word limit required by the Fire journal for abstracts.

In response to the introduction, we would like to clarify that the previous version of the manuscript actually included 49 references rather than 33. Nevertheless, we have carefully revised and expanded the introduction to improve both depth and clarity. In doing so, we have significantly updated and enriched the bibliography, with a particular focus on including more internationally relevant studies to strengthen the comparative context and highlight the innovation of our work. In line with the editor’s suggestions, we have also reduced the number of self-citations to maintain balance and objectivity in the literature review.

Comment 3: Pages 6-10: The data interaction mechanism among the three models is not explained. Please supplement the design of input/output parameter interfaces for model interactions.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have improved Figure 2 and its accompanying description, as well as the corresponding paragraph on page 6, to clarify the interaction mechanism among the three models, input and output data to better illustrate how the models exchange information. We hope these improvements address your concern and enhance the clarity of the manuscript.

Comment 4: Pages 14-17: Add a case study section that quantitatively analyzes the discrepancies between simulated results and real data (e.g., error rates of burned area, deviations in smoke concentration) and discusses the sources of uncertainty.

Response:

We sincerely thank you for consistently highlighting this important aspect. Since all reviewers agree that the manuscript would be significantly strengthened by including the simulation of a real wildfire event to validate the models, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we have condensed the description of the WebGIS platform in Section 2 to clarify that the platform's usage was not the main objective of this work. Instead, we have emphasized the application of the integrated system in a real-world scenario, which is now presented as a case study in Section 3. This addition allows us to analyze discrepancies between simulated outcomes and real data.

Comment 5: Pages 17-18: The discussion does not compare the advantages and disadvantages of existing tools (such as WIFIRE and FARSITE).

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. While numerous wildfire simulation tools exist beyond those cited, a comprehensive comparison of all of them falls outside the scope of this study. We would like to clarify that the main objective of this work is not to compare existing models, but rather to present the latest stage of our research: the integration and transformation of the PhyFire, HDWind, and PhyNX models into a unified and accessible simulation platform. Nonetheless, we have expanded the introduction to include several of the most relevant simulation tools and have added a comparative table in the Discussion section, along with further reflections in both the Discussion and Conclusion.

Comment 6: Pages 17-18: Include a comparative table in the discussion to highlight the unique advantages of this platform in terms of model coupling, usability, and 3D visualization.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. As mentioned in our response to the previous comment, we have included a comparative table in the Discussion section that highlights the main differences between the proposed platform and other widely used wildfire simulation systems. The table specifically addresses aspects such as model coupling, usability, and 3D visualization capabilities, thereby helping to contextualize the unique contributions of our approach.

We would like to mention that we have expanded both the discussion and conclusion sections to better emphasize the distinctive features of our platform in relation to existing tools. One of its main advantages lies in the fact that the complete modeling framework—comprising the physical models (HDWind, PhyFire, and PhyNX), their numerical implementation, and their integration into the WebGIS interface—has been entirely developed by the same research group. This unified development approach allows for full control over the simulation pipeline and provides a solid foundation for the design of future improvements, something not always possible in systems that incorporate third-party models. Moreover, the integration of these models into a WebGIS platform enables direct access for end users, facilitating interaction with the system and the possibility to gather structured feedback. This feedback is essential for aligning future developments with the practical needs of wildfire management professionals.

The platform also enables users to download the simulation output files for further analysis in external GIS tools. It supports both automatic and manual input of meteorological data and allows users to edit the fuel map by designing firebreaks. This functionality serves a dual purpose: it allows for the correction or updating of existing fuel data available in the platform, and it provides a mechanism to incorporate potential suppression actions into the simulation workflow. These capabilities enhance not only the realism of the simulations but also their adaptability to real-world operational scenarios. Finally, the interface is designed to be intuitive and user-friendly, ensuring accessibility for a wide range of users without compromising the scientific rigor of the underlying models.

Moreover, during the review process, a new functionality was added to the platform that allows users to upload new geospatial layers. This enables comparisons between simulation results and real-world data, as demonstrated in the analyzed case with the final fire perimeter.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper seems as a User Guide for WebGIS excerpt. In the section Materials and methods is usually set a practical experiment for validating a software, then in Results are given the output data and in Discussions there are some output data analysis, comparisons with similar experiments etc. In your article, all the sections present the software and general information about it. The conclusions are also general.

The article, despite the fact that is rather extensive, does not have substance. A practical application of a past wildfire for validation would be more useful.

Author Response

Comment 1: Overall, this paper seems as a User Guide for WebGIS excerpt. In the section Materials and methods is usually set a practical experiment for validating a software, then in Results are given the output data and in Discussions there are some output data analysis, comparisons with similar experiments etc. In your article, all the sections present the software and general information about it. The conclusions are also general.

The article, despite the fact that is rather extensive, does not have substance. A practical application of a past wildfire for validation would be more useful.

Response:

We sincerely thank you for consistently highlighting this important aspect. Since all reviewers agree that the manuscript would be significantly strengthened by including the simulation of a real wildfire event to validate the models, we have restructured and condensed the paper accordingly. The revised version follows a more conventional structure. In the section Materials and methods, we describe the Back-End and Front-End components of the WebGIS and include a representative use case to demonstrate its practical application. In the Results, we analyze the discrepancies between simulated outcomes and real data. Finally, the Discussion section summarizes the main results and limitations, contrasting them with similar existing simulation tools. Another section is Conclusion, which presents the motivation of our work and suggestions for future work.

We also recognize that the previous version may have unintentionally emphasized the platform’s interface and functions, rather than its scientific evaluation. In the revised manuscript, we have worked to eliminate this impression by centering the narrative on a real-world application, supported by analysis and comparison with actual data.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: A unified WebGIS platform is essential for wildfire management and disaster reduction. The authors developed an integrated WebGIS platform incorporating wind field simulation (HDWind), wildfire spread (PhyFire), and smoke dispersion (PhyNX) models, aiming to provide a user-friendly wildfire simulation tool for “non-expert” users. However, the paper exhibits certain shortcomings in innovation statement, model validation, and depth of result visualization, with some technical details insufficiently clarified. It is recommended to address above issues before being published in Fire journal.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their critical assessment and valuable recommendation. We have carefully revised and expanded the introduction to improve the relevance and novelty of the contribution, and restructured the paper to add depth of result visualization. Also, the manuscript has been revised by an English native speaker, as the original version required improvements in clarity and language to better communicate the research. We trust the clarifications and adjustments made in the revised manuscript address the reviewer’s concern.

Specific comments are provided below:

OVERALL COMMENTS

Abstract and Keywords.

There is a logical problem. The authors’ claim that the WebGIS is intended for 'nonexperts' is not entirely appropriate. Which specific group of non-experts are they referring to? This software should primarily serve wildfire management professionals, such as relevant government wildfire agencies. It would be more accurate to state that the platform features a user-friendly interface and intuitive geo-visualization, thereby providing enhanced information service support for emergency management agencies. The value of such specialized software for genuine non-experts (e.g., local residents) seems limited. Additionally, the keyword 'Environmental decision support systems' is recommended to be changed to 'Decision-making support system'.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the phrasing “non-experts” was overly broad and potentially misleading. Our intention was to emphasize the platform’s improved usability for professionals who may not be specialists in GIS or numerical modeling, such as field officers or emergency response coordinators. Accordingly, we have revised the paragraph to clarify that the platform is designed to support wildfire management professionals and emergency management agencies by offering a user-friendly interface and intuitive geo-visualization. We no longer refer to "non-experts" in the general sense, and instead focus on operational users within institutional contexts.

About the reviewer’s suggestion of the keyword, we have replaced “Environmental decision support systems” with “Decision-making support system”, because we agree that this keyword is a more accurate and general term for the context of this study.

In the discussion and conclusion sections, we reflect on the importance of this platform to the configuration and execution of simulations with minimal technical knowledge, making it highly suitable for operational use in risk assessment, emergency planning, and decision-making processes.

Introduction.

This section fails to clearly articulate the existing research gaps and the motivation for the present study. I expected to see this addressed in the fifth paragraph (Lines 56-65). The sixth paragraph (Lines 72-78) appears to attempt describing current research shortcomings, but the limitations mentioned — related to software development aspects (Python, GDAL, etc.) — pertain to technical implementation rather than constituting a fundamental scientific gap.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, the introduction has been substantially revised and expanded to better articulate both the scientific motivation and the research gaps addressed in this work. The revised version now includes a more comprehensive review of the historical evolution of wildfire simulation tools—covering a broad range of modeling approaches and their integration into GIS and WebGIS environments—culminating in a clearer positioning of the current contribution.

We also clarify that one of the key scientific advancements of this work is the incorporation of a fully coupled smoke dispersion model (PhyNX) into the existing wind–fire simulation framework. This represents a significant step forward compared to our previous versions, which focused solely on wind and fire interactions. The integration of smoke dynamics allows for more complete environmental impact assessments and adds operational value in terms of public health and visibility forecasting.

Additionally, we now emphasize more clearly the relevance of providing these modeling capabilities through a user-friendly and accessible WebGIS interface. This platform facilitates real-time interaction by decision-makers and field personnel, enabling simulation execution and interpretation without requiring expertise in numerical modeling or programming. This connection between advanced modeling and operational usability is not commonly addressed in the literature, and we believe it constitutes an important contribution.

Finally, these ideas have also been incorporated into the discussion and conclusion sections, where we reflect on the importance of end-user feedback as a mechanism to guide future improvements and ensure the long-term relevance of both the simulation models and the WebGIS platform.

Materials and Methods.

3.1.Regarding the three models developed by SINUMCC (Lines 88-90): Are there peerreviewed publications supporting these foundational models? Citations should be added. Establishing the scientific reliability of these core components is critical.

Response:

We fully agree with the reviewer on the importance of citing peer-reviewed publications to support the scientific reliability of the foundational models integrated into the platform. However, following the editor’s guidance, we have limited self-citations to under 15% of the total references. This constraint has necessarily limited the number of citations to previous publications from our group.

To address this concern, we have prioritized referencing the most recent and comprehensive works. In particular, we cite the most recent manuscript submitted in April 2025 (currently under review), which details the full integration of the three core models—HDWind, PhyFire, and PhyNX—as well as their joint application in the simulation of a real wildfire scenario. This manuscript includes references to all prior developments of the individual models, thus providing an indirect but complete bibliographic trace of the methodological foundations.

We hope the peer-review process for that manuscript will be concluded soon, as it represents a key reference to fully understand the mathematical formulation, numerical implementation, and coupling strategy of the toolset presented in this work.

3.2.Section 2.2.2. The authors described many tables in the dataset, I suggest to give some table samples in the Appendix to improve the readability.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the inclusion of sample tables to enhance clarity. In the present version of the manuscript, we have opted not to include these tables in the Appendix in order to stay within the page and word limits, especially after incorporating the simulation of a real wildfire case, which added significant content to the paper.

Furthermore, we would like to mention that a complementary manuscript currently under review (submitted April 2025) provides a detailed description of the underlying datasets and data structures used by the platform, including illustrative tables and metadata examples. We believe this additional reference will help address the reviewer’s concern in full once it becomes available.

Nevertheless, if the reviewer or editor considers it essential, we are fully willing to include representative tables as supplementary material.

3.3.Section 2.2.4. The simulation toolset is designed as WPS (web process service)? There are many text contents, and some flow diagrams are suggested. In addition, wind, fire and smoke are closely interrelated. For example, wind can change the fire direction and enhance the rate of spread, fire can also affect the wind direction by the released heat. That’s to say, these elements are spatiotemporal coupling. Three independent models are hard to give a high-accuracy simulation. The authors should clarify this limitation.

In addition, the Figure 2 need to be improved. Many descriptions stated in Ln 349-420 should be reflected in the Figure.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. It is not entirely clear whether the term WPS refers specifically to the OGC Web Processing Service standard or, more generally, to a web-based geospatial processing capability. In any case, we are happy to clarify our approach.

The platform allows remote execution of wind, fire, and smoke simulations through a WebGIS interface based on a RESTful architecture; this part is not based on the OGC WPS specification. This service offers processing functionalities similar in scope to what is commonly described as a web processing service in broader geospatial contexts. It should be clarified that the platform does offer compatibility with other OGC standards, such as WMS and WFS, used for data visualization and access. We have clarified these in the Introduction and Discussion sections.

We have improved Figure 2 and its accompanying description, as well as the corresponding paragraph on page 6, to clarify the interaction mechanism among the three models, input and output data to better illustrate how the models exchange information. We hope these improvements address your concern and enhance the clarity of the manuscript.

3.4.The main parameters in Table 1 are complicated, “non-expert” cannot understand them.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. Indeed, the parameters listed in Table 1 reflect the underlying physical and mathematical structure of the models, and we acknowledge that some of them may be difficult to interpret for users without technical training. To address this, the current implementation of the tool provides default values that have been previously calibrated and validated in prior studies [62, 63], allowing users to run simulations without the need to modify these settings.

At the same time, the system maintains flexibility for advanced users, who can access and customize these parameters when conducting sensitivity analyses or research-oriented simulations. This dual-level configuration is intended to balance scientific rigor with practical usability.

Results.

4.1.Move Figure 3 to Section 3 would be better? As this figure is the workflow, not the result.

Response:

4.2.Model reliability requires further elaboration. How is the reliability of these models substantiated? Evidence should be provided through supporting literature or validation against real-world case studies. While platform/software papers appropriately emphasize system design, service workflows, and front-end presentation, foundational validation of core models remains essential.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important observation, which has been instrumental in improving the structure and depth of the manuscript. In response, we have reorganized Section 2 Materials and Methods, and incorporated in Section 3 Results a simulation of a real wildfire event, executed directly through the WebGIS platform. This case study demonstrates the platform’s capacity to reproduce the spatial extent and dynamics of a historical fire with a satisfactory degree of agreement.

We would also like to clarify that the simulation toolset allows for two modes of execution: (i) from the command line in a local environment, which offers greater flexibility for customizing and improving input data, and (ii) through the WebGIS interface, which facilitates use by operational agencies. The inclusion of the real case simulation in the current version confirms that the integration of the three core models (HDWind, PhyFire, and PhyNX) has reached a sufficient level of maturity to support the retrospective analysis of real wildfire events with reliable performance.

We believe this addition provides clear evidence of the operational readiness of the modeling framework, while also strengthening the scientific validity of the simulation components.

4.3.Has the platform been adopted by relevant government agencies? Specifically, has it been operationally deployed during actual wildfire events? Documented real-world deployment would significantly strengthen the persuasiveness of proposed webgis platform.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important question. So far, the platform has not yet been deployed operationally during actual wildfire events. However, as mentioned in the Conclusion section, several potential end users have already expressed strong interest in the platform.

The adoption and use of the platform by these users in real operational contexts would greatly contribute to its improvement.

Discussion.

The Discussion section is notably brief and requires substantive deepening. More critically, an independent Conclusion section is absent – this must be added to consolidate key findings, limitations, and future work.

Response:

Following the reviewer’s valuable recommendation, we have expanded the Discussion section to include a more thorough analysis of the results. In addition, an independent Conclusion section has been added to clearly summarize the main contributions and future directions of the study.

PARTICULAR COMMENTS

Ln 168. A single sentence is not suitable for a paragraph.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To address this, we have compressed several paragraphs into one so that the content would be more consistent.

Ln 250-264. The paragraph layout looks irregular.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this perceptive observation. In response, we have revised the corresponding lines and ensured that the paragraph is not irregular. The apparent irregularity was due to LaTeX itemization, which is automatically indented by the text editor.

Ln 594-595. The video demonstrating in mdpi figshare is inaccessible, with the note“Error 404 - File not found”. Please the authors check the website.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing this error out. We have replaced the link with this one:

https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/WebGIS_usage_video_for_the_research_paper_entitled_From_Wind_to_Smoke_A_Unified_WebGIS_Platform_for_Wildfire_Simulation_and_Visualization/29673542?file=56661632

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You good determination to publish this paper is commendable and there is some progress towards it, but it is still more of a user guide than a scientific dissemination. The practical example is good, but the article is still to extensive.

Pointing out the main features of the software is good, but it should be rather is form of an analysis of the current capabilities and improvements versus limitations. Phrases like "the Configuration pop-up window is opened", "the user selects the corresponding button from the toolbar...", "users may manually modify these values", "The interface allows users to explore the output dynamically", etc are part of a students lecture or a software presentation to potential clients.

What means "mouse event" (row 607) or "mouse interaction" (row 611)?

Before the section 5 Conclusion, there is a very good table which doesn't have a name, number. This is a good comparison of several software capabilities. This is the kind of information suitable for a scientific paper, not the keys that user has to push to open certain panels. A discussion about the main features and limitations, their impact etc.

In conclusion, my opinion is that the article should be as a "trailer of a movie", briefly presenting the main features of the software and the core should be the practical example and the discussion about the validation, limitations, uncertainties and foreseen ways to overcome these, rather than "an advertisement" for the software.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comments. In response to the observation that parts of the previous Section 2.4 contained phrases more suited to a tutorial or product demonstration, we have removed the section from the main text and replaced it with a concise appendix. Our original intention was to provide operational guidance for potential end users, as the SINUMCC WebGIS is designed not only as a scientific tool but also as an operational application for wildfire management agencies. However, we acknowledge that such content is better placed outside the main manuscript. This change also reduces the paper’s length, addressing the reviewer’s concern.

We have also added a clear title and improved caption to Table 2, and strengthened the Discussion and Conclusion sections by expanding the analysis of the platform’s current capabilities, highlighting both strengths and limitations, and outlining future improvements. These revisions provide a more balanced and scientifically focused presentation in line with the journal’s standards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided thorough point-by-point responses to the my comments. I recommend acceptance after minor revision with the following comment:
(1) The citations of the revised manuscript include those currently under review (mentioned in the response document), which is inappropriate, and should be removed.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and their recommendation for acceptance pending minor revision.

Regarding the remaining comment on the inclusion of a citation to a manuscript currently under review, we fully agree with this observation. The corresponding citation has now been removed from the revised version of the manuscript.

We regret that the review process for the referenced work has taken longer than expected. Our intention was to include that reference because it contains a rigorous description of the simulation models that are integrated into the present platform. We had hoped that the article would be accepted and citable within the timeframe of this revision, but unfortunately, this has not been the case. Consequently, and in compliance with the reviewer’s recommendation, the citation has been omitted.

We again thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and support throughout the review process.