A Multi-Criteria Open-Source GIS Approach for Wildfire Risk Mapping: Methodology and Application in the Apulia Region (Southern Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall

The topic of the paper is very important and the overall approach is commendable.  Although this paper is already relatively long it still lacks important details.  Specifically, the actual source or underlying source of data for each model, sub-model, index.  Simply stating they are publicly available is not adequate.  What was the actual source of data used by the authors for this study?
A climate sub-model is used.  However, it may be redundant with the vegetation sub-model because the vegetation is the result of climate, weather, topography, soils, etc. As a specific static model, I am not convinced climate should be included.  Having said that, I wonder if the authors considered development of a dynamic model which could (and should) include recent weather events and resulting vegetation changes (senescence of plants, etc.).
All figures require a more detailed caption. Each figure and table needs to be able to stand on its own and NOT require the reader to scour the text to understand the figure or table.
All map figures should include a north arrow and an orientation map of Italy (like Figure 1)

Abstract

This is very well written and clear

Introduction

This is also well written as is.  

Methods

Line 117 For an international reader, seeing "Apulia region extends into the Mediterranean along a north-west/south-east axis, 117 representing the easternmost part of Italy (Fig.1)." suggests the study took place in an entirely different area (NW Italy).  I recommend re-wording this to something like: "The Apulia region lies along the western edge of the Adriatic Sea and represents the easternmost part of Italy (Fig.1)."
Line 125: AIB has not been defined.  Spell it out in its first use.
Line 132: should be strong not strongly or omit this word entirely from the sentence
As is, the methods is far too short.  The reader does not know how any of the models were created.  It looks like some of this information is given in the results but this does not follow the correct format.  
Methods need to be expanded to clearly describe how each index model was created.  What was the source data, how were these processed, was an error assessment performed on each individual index?

Results

Much of this needs to be moved to methods.
Paragraph starting at Line 194.  What is the actual source of the VHi? It is a fuel map, but where did this come from?  Satellite imagery?  UAS? a hand-drawn sketch?
Line 218: the parenthetical insertion should be removed as it is not necessary.
Line 235: Did the authors use station corrected relative humidity? Are you sure it was not station-corrected?
Line 236: Why wasn't empirical Bayesian Kriging used?
Figure 4 should be improved.  Only one scale bar is needed and a north arrow should be inserted.  The units (for the legend) need to be given/explained in the caption. Understand each figure and table needs to be able to stand on its own and NOT require the reader to scour the text to understand the figure or table
Line 369: Regarding the FAi.  Was point data used for past fire occurrence? Polygon data would be preferred as it would show the spatial extent inherently and not require adjustment for extent.  This needs to be explained.
Table 3: The caption needs to be improved.  What do the values 2-5 represent?  Does a score of 5 mean it has more economic importance or is the value of 1 (or 2) mean it is 1st place, 2nd place etc.
Figure 15  It looks like most of the study area is blank or NoData.  I recommend using a different color ramp.
Line 477:This is where Results should begin as Results and DiscussionMost of the above was methods.
Figure 17: don't use a screenshot, It will not have enough resolution in print.
Line 565: Use Table 6 and not Tab 6 (make this edit throughout the paper)

Conclusions

This is fairly well written overall.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, 

Thank you for your numerous and detailed comments, which have allowed us to revise the article to make it more readable and clear for future readers.  

Point by point, we have highlighted our response or justification for our method in red.  

We have directly incorporated the corrections into the new file without using track changes, as they were not very extensive.  

If you feel that certain issues have not been resolved, we can make further changes. 

In the attached file, you'll find the answers point by point. 

The Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract section of the article states that an innovative method for assessing wildfire risk has been proposed, and global fire risk index (FRGi), long-term danger index (LTDi), and fire vulnerability index (FVi) have been constructed. However, it does not explain the relationship between the latter two indices and FRGi. It is not until Section 3.3 that the relationship between the two indices and FRGi is described.

2. The synthesis formula for the final risk index (FRGi) is missing. The paper proposed the danger index and vulnerability index, and synthesized the global fire risk index. However, no clear mathematical relationship was given throughout the entire paper. In Section 3.3, the author only described the calculation of WfRi and IFRi and the "spatial combination" of FRGi, lacking rigorous mathematical expressions.

3. The innovation in methodology is insufficiently elaborated. The paper claims to have proposed an innovative static wildfire risk assessment method, but it does not explain how the assessment methods of danger and vulnerability differ fundamentally from existing literature. Combining danger and vulnerability in risk assessment is a common standard framework of the United Nations and the European Union, and cannot be regarded as a unique methodology of this paper. Moreover, in Section 2.2, the author admits that the weighted cumulative model of this study is a "reinterpretation" of existing methods, which contradicts the "innovative methodology" claimed in the abstract and introduction.

4. There are obvious errors in the chapter numbering. The chapter numbering of the paper is discontinuous, jumping directly from Section 3 to Section 5, with the missing Chapter 4. This will affect the structure and professionalism of the paper. It is recommended that the author correct the chapter numbering to ensure consistency and accuracy of the chapter numbering.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,  

Thank you for your review and comments, which have made the article more readable and scientifically sound for future readers. 

We have responded to your comments point by point in red, making the changes directly in the file without using the review mode, since the changes are minor. 

In the attached file, you'll find the answers point by point. 

The Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

Dear Academic Editor,
Thank you for your comments.
We have revised the text based on your suggestions.
We have reorganized the Materials and Methods section by incorporating part of the Results section. Consequently, the Results section has also been revised. 
The Discussion section has been expanded to include a section on the international context, which complements what has already been mentioned in various parts of the text.
Finally, we have standardized the font size.
Thank you for your valuable work.
The Authors