A Focused Review on Wildfire Evacuation and Infrastructure Resilience in Canada: Trends and Insights (2013–2023)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper A Focused Review on Wildfire Evacuation and Infrastructure 2 Resilience in Canada; Trends and Insights (2013-2023).

The paper could be a relevant contribution to our understanding of infrastructures and evacuations resulting from large wildfires. I have some comments for improvements:

·       Is it so that this review paper aims to explore the most current research directions and identify areas where knowledge is lacking in the field of wildfire research in relation to the presence of communities from 2013 to 2023 in Canada?

·       Reading the abstract and introductions I have the impression that the focus is narrowed down to evacuation efficiency and infrastructure protection.

·       That said, over 40.4% of the studies, as is shown in Tables 1 and 2, are in the “community support/resilience” group. That is also reflected in the conclusions. Can you explain in more detail what the aim of the study really is?

·       Table 1 (Research themes in different research areas across Canada) and Table 2 (Temporal trends of different research themes from 2013 to 2023) are very interesting. However, I fail to understand where these data come from, and I miss a much more thorough elaboration/discussion on these data.

·       For the discussion, I also miss a short chapter explaining the conceptual framework of the study, including key terms mentioned in Keywords: In particular I would like to see relevant definitions and characteristics of resilience and evacuation. Keywords such as Emergency Planning and Disaster Recovery are neither explained nor used in the paper.

All in all I enjoyed reading the paper, but would like a major revision before recommending to publish the paper.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I have carefully addressed all the comments and have revised the paper accordingly to enhance its quality and ensure its readiness for publication in Fire. A detailed response to each comment has been provided in the attached Word file, outlining the changes made and the rationale behind them.

Thank you for your valuable feedback which has significantly contributed to the improvement of this manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nima Karimi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review paper provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of wildfire-related studies, particularly focusing on infrastructure and evacuations across Canadian provinces. I recommend the publication of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I have carefully addressed all the comments and have revised the paper accordingly to enhance its quality and ensure its readiness for publication in Fire. A detailed response to each comment has been provided in the attached Word file, outlining the changes made and the rationale behind them.

Thank you for your valuable feedback which has significantly contributed to the improvement of this manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nima Karimi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The recent spate of wildfires in Canada underscores the critical need for comprehensive study and analysis to bolster the resilience of local communities. By examining factors such as fire behaviour, terrain characteristics, and population density, researchers can enhance evacuation plans and response strategies. Investing in such studies not only aids in mitigating the immediate risks posed by wildfires but also fosters long-term preparedness for future incidents, ultimately safeguarding lives and property.

I have prepared the following comments for this manuscript:

The most important thing is that the document does not have a discussion part, so I cannot recommend accepting this article.

Title: too long.

Introduction

My experience is in fire hazards in Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean. As a researcher in this field, I would have liked to know a little more about fires, fire risk and trends in Canada, but I didn't find that information in the introduction. In addition, introducing this information will help the authors better justify their study.

Additionally, nothing is known about the communities that this study plans to research. What is their number? What are their demographic and geographic characteristics? What are these communities? Do local communities know anything about wildfire and its risk? What is the state of this cultural knowledge about fire? etc.

51-52 - Indicate that in this case these are medium or long-term effects

56-66 - The transition of the text from fire, its prevention and improvement of the system of protection of the local population, especially in the evacuation part, should be more logical. Please make this part longer and make the transition smoother based on logically connected sentences.

68-70 - Please rewrite this description of the main purpose of the study. From the description, it seems that local communities are to blame for choosing where to live.

Write sub-objectives and organize information into methodology, results, and discussion to answer these sub-objectives of the study.

71-73 - Recognized by whom/where?

77-78 - Is this a hypothesis of the authors of the article, or the results of previous studies?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Collected studies

Indicate the dates of information collection.

The reason for the period in years chosen for the study is not explained.

Why was English one of the criteria for selecting articles? It is common knowledge that Quedec, where the vast Canadian forest is located, speaks French, and I can imagine that numerous articles are also written in French. This criterion appears to exclude a significant proportion of important articles.

What do you mean by the concept of "screened"? What happened to the rest of the articles?

Figure 1. Expand the description of the figure. Please indicate the source of the information and the date the articles were retrieved.

 2.2 Screened articles

It is unclear why the study by 17, 18 and 20 has been excluded from this review if it includes wildfires or the situation with evacuation readiness. Please improve or deepen this justification.

2.3 Investigated articles

113-114 Repetitive information.

Can you please present the analyzed articles in a table divided by topics (“community support/resilience”, “evacuation efficiency”, and “infrastructure protection/raising awareness”) and author name?

3. Results

The presentation of the results is chaotic, and there is no Discussion section at all. Authors are encouraged to take a closer look at the journal instructions for these two important parts of a scientific paper.

In addition, authors are recommended to pay attention to the rules for placing images and tables in the text of the article.

3.1 Wildfire studies in provincial and national scales (distribution of studies over Canada)

152-153 – “This research underscored…” - The importance of this phrase is unclear

202-203 - How does this sentence relate to the previous one?

The legend of Figure 2 should include the names of the regions represented in the figure. Figure 2b creates confusion. The information should be presented all together on 2a. The authors can indicate this division of Figure 2b in column AB of Figure 2a and remove

3.2 Wildfire research themes; 3.3 Trends

If the values in the table are presented in %, then enter this information

4 Conclusion

303-308 - Conclusions are based on data/information that was not presented in the article. For example: fire trends in each region; demographic characteristics of the population, etc.

322-323 – “…as Canada navigates the evolving threats posed by wildfires” - If everything is fine and everything is under control, then what is the point of this study?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I have carefully addressed all the comments and have revised the paper accordingly to enhance its quality and ensure its readiness for publication in Fire. A detailed response to each comment has been provided in the attached Word file, outlining the changes made and the rationale behind them.

Thank you for your valuable feedback which has significantly contributed to the improvement of this manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nima Karimi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the paper A Focused Review on Wildfire Evacuation and Infrastructure 2 Resilience in Canada; Trends and Insights (2013-2023).

The author has addressed most of my comments.

I suggest the author to update abstract and introductions to clearly address community support/resilience in addition to evacuation efficiency and infrastructure protection.

I also suggest the author to reference existing definitions of community resilience, evacuation efficiency and infrastructure protection.

Thank you for giving me the possibility to read the paper and I would encourage the author to publish more papers within this area.  

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments

I have now attached the response letter to the comments with the adjustments that directly integrated in the paper

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This review delves into the landscape of wildfire-related research across Canadian provinces, shedding light on the urgent need for heightened awareness and preparedness, particularly in vulnerable Northern communities. With a thematic analysis, it highlights the societal shift towards proactive community engagement, balanced with efforts to enhance evacuation efficiency and infrastructure protection. This study is interesting, and I believe important,  because it provides an analysis of the landscape of wildfire-related research in Canada, highlighting research gaps, temporal trends, and thematic insights that are essential for informing policies, community resilience strategies, and future research priorities.

However, I wanted to leave 3 big criticisms here:

1.      Results: It is unclear why the author employed NVivo software for qualitative analysis as described in the methodology section. Furthermore, no visual representations such as images or tables were provided in the text to illustrate the findings derived from the analysis conducted using NVivo.

2.      Discussion: In constructing the discussion section of a scientific article, the author should integrate the presented results with existing literature by contextualizing findings within the broader scientific framework. This involves comparing and contrasting the current study's outcomes with those of previous research, elucidating similarities, differences, and potential implications. Additionally, authors should critically evaluate the significance of their findings, identifying novel contributions to the field and suggesting avenues for future investigation, while acknowledging any limitations or areas for further refinement.

In this section, there is a notable absence of discussion or referencing of related literature to contextualize the study's findings or to address any disparities observed. Integrating comparisons with prior research and highlighting discrepancies could enhance the depth of analysis and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the study's implications.

3.      The conclusion section introduces data that were not previously addressed in the results section nor elaborated upon in the preceding discussion. Moreover, it remains ambiguous whether the study effectively achieved the objectives outlined at the outset. Clarifying the alignment between the study's outcomes and its initial goals would strengthen the conclusion and enhance the overall coherence of the article.

I trust that the revision process for the paper will go smoothly, and I express interest in reviewing a subsequent version of the paper if my schedule allows.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. I have addressed each point and included detailed responses in the attached document.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Nima Karimi

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

This article remains significant for the study area of wildfire risk control and mitigation, offering valuable insights into the landscape of wildfire-related research across Canadian provinces. With its comprehensive analysis, including research gaps, temporal trends, and thematic insights, it serves as a crucial resource for informing policies, shaping community resilience strategies, and prioritizing future research endeavours.

I believe this article is ready for publication as it stands, and I wish the author continued inspiration and success in their future studies.