Using Participatory Mapping to Foster Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction in Forest Fire-Prone Areas: The Case of Monchique in Portugal
, Guilherme Saad 2,*, Margarida B. Monteiro 3, Joana Dias 1, Rute Martins 1, Isabel Loupa Ramos 1, Henrique Ribeiro 4, Miguel Teixeira 4, Maria de Belém Costa Freitas 5 and Carla Antunes 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper titled “Using participatory mapping to foster community-based disaster risk reduction in forest fire-prone areas: the case of Monchique in Portugal” was well written and it was great initiative work towards sustainability. I personally appreciate the authors and team behind this great work in bringing back the ecosystem in the study area.
- Abstract is very clear and well written
-The introduction and other sections were well described.
-Check the paper thoroughly for typographical and grammatical corrections; for example,
Line 169: correct ‘69,7%’ as “69.7%”
Line 175: correct ‘9,6%’ as “9.6%”
Line 179: correct ‘13,0%’ as “13.0%”
Line 180: correct ‘8,6%’ as “8.6%”
Line 285: correct ‘23,3%’ as “23.3%”
Author Response
Dear reviewer we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and for spending your time reviewing our paper.
Please see the answers in the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is not a scientific paper based on previous literature. It only presents preliminary data for the first stage of a longer project. The text resembles that of a technical project report instead of a scientific paper. There are no quantitative data to support conclusions. There is no way to judge the validity of conclusions. The paper should be presented once all the stages of the project are executed. The authors make no effort to apply conclusions beyond their study the area.
Author Response
Dear reviewer we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and for spending your time reviewing our paper.
Please see the answers in the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the article is well written and interesting, presenting findings from a participatory methodology that is of value to the fire social science community.
While the article and research methods build on published knowledge, which is adequately referenced, the key weakness of the article is that it does not situate and compare the study findings with established / published knowledge. This is important for two reasons: 1) to contribute to and extend existing international fire scholarship, and 2) to add weight to the value and accuracy of study participants' local knowledge.
Please see the detailed comments and edits in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and for spending your time reviewing our paper.
Please see the answers in the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have not provided point-by-point answers to my review.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment with the answers.
Best regards.
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
