Climate Change Affecting Forest Fire and Flood Risk—Facts, Predictions, and Perceptions in Central and South Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Climate Change Affecting Forest Fire and Flood Risk—Facts, Predictions, and Perceptions in Central and South Greece
Overall comments of the manuscript: It has so many paragraphs. Introduction has 8 sub-paragraphs, it not worthy to keep, kindly reduce it in 3/4 Para.
However the manuscript has improved and some minor suggestions are given below:
Abstract
Critical queries concerning these regions are: What has the actual recent impact of CC been on these historically exposed regions? What are the predictions for the future? What are the public’s and management authorities’ perceptions regarding the role of CC in flooding and forest fire trends? The authors, based on relevant records, consider central and south Greece as flood and forest fire hotspots and attempt to: (a) present scientific estimations of local climate changes. (b) outline recent trends in the number of respective disasters and the amounts of losses in these regions; (c) address recent changes in local climatic factors that might have influenced flood and forest fire hazard and risk in these regions, and (d) study the perceptions of the lay public and management authorities regarding the accountability of CC for flood and forest fire risk and hazard changes
Comments: Abstract section should not contains the questions, it can be highlighted the results, finding and innovations. Please modify accordingly. This section can be included in introduction.
Average monthly temperature (oC) in central Greece (1955–2010 and 2011–2020) replace as Average monthly temperature (oC) in central Greece (1955–2010) and (2011–2020).
Kindly change throughout the manuscript tittle of the Figure captions in same front.
Tables: The texts are not justified, kindly modify it.
Author Response
Point 1: It has so many paragraphs. Introduction has 8 sub-paragraphs, it not worthy to keep, kindly reduce it in 3/4 Para.
Response 1: The Introduction has been reduced from 8 to 4 paragraphs.
Point 2: Abstract section should not contains the questions, it can be highlighted the results, finding and innovations. Please modify accordingly. This section can be included in introduction.
Response 2: The questions have been removed from the abstract and consequently moved on to the introduction.
Point 3: Average monthly temperature (oC) in central Greece (1955–2010 and 2011–2020) replace as Average monthly temperature (oC) in central Greece (1955–2010) and (2011–2020). Kindly change throughout the manuscript title of the Figure captions in same front.
Response 3: The wrong format in the sentence “average monthly temperature (oC) in central Greece…” has been replaced as “average monthly temperature (oC) in central Greece….” where appropriate. In any case, Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 have changed. Now it is Figure 2 which shows the average maximum monthly temperature and the average monthly precipitation in central and south Greece in the periods 1961-1990 and 1991-2020.
Point 4: Tables: The texts are not justified, kindly modify it.
Response 4: Indeed, in several cases the texts in the tables did not comply with the data illustrated by the diagrams in section 3.5, all the more so as some of these diagrams have been revised to fit a more sound and accurate statistical analysis. Therefore, these tables have been revised appropriately. At this point we would like to remind that Table 1 compares the theoretical assumptions of CC for central and south Greece according to scientific climate scenarios, with the real trends in the meteorological and climatic parameters in these regions and the respective historical trends of forest fire and flood hazard. Table 2 summarizes the views of citizens and management authorities on the trends of flood and forest fire hazard/risk in their area and possible accountability of local CC .
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Title:Climate Change Affecting Forest Fire and Flood Risk—Facts, Predictions, and Perceptions in Central and South Greece
Major Revision
Abstract is lengthy
Introduction is divided into many short paragraphs; instead merge these into 2 or 3. Introduction is not sequential and has not defined the topic thoroughly. Further, you should focus on the objectives of the study and irrelevant information should be deleted; paragraph about droughts seems irrelevant.
Materials and Methods; map of the study area doesn’t seems good. Research methods have not been explained thoroughly; should be modified so that it can be replicable. Information about the study area is meager.
Results: In this section you should write your findings; I found discussion within this section also; Number of figures is 32; too many
Discussion:In this section you should discuss your results and give justification/validation/reasons/comparison of your results with valid references which is completely lacing here.
Conclusion:Before you should add a new heading ‘recommendations and implications’ of the study
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract is lengthy
Response 1: The Abstract has been slightly reduced to 350 words
Point 2: Introduction is divided into many short paragraphs; instead merge these into 2 or 3. Introduction is not sequential and has not defined the topic thoroughly. Further, you should focus on the objectives of the study and irrelevant information should be deleted; paragraph about droughts seems irrelevant.
Response 2: The Introduction has been reduced from 8 to 4 paragraphs. An attempt was made for the Introduction to focus on the scope, context and objectives of the paper: The reasons underlying selection of the geographical focus which is the Mediterranean basin and more in particular, central and south Greece; the basic CC factors and phenomena occurring in these regions and affecting forest fires and floods; the importance of public perceptions for the successful implementation of mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk management measures. Additionally, the introduction attracts the attention of the reader to the lack of studies making comparisons between theoretical models, facts and perceptions on the relationship of CC with forest fire and flood risk. Unnecessary information on droughts was deleted as recommended, changes in droughts however, affect both forest fires (directly) and floods (indirectly). As appropriate the Introduction ends up with the research queries of the article.
Point 3: Materials and Methods; map of the study area doesn’t seems good. Research methods have not been explained thoroughly; should be modified so that it can be replicable. Information about the study area is meager.
Response 3: The map of the study area in the Materials and Methods chapter, section 2.1, has been revised to depict the study regions with clarity. Additionally, more information concerning the human geography of the study regions has been added (at the end of the section) to explain the focus of the article on hazards (and not risks) and the selected parameters to support analysis of the disaster histories.
Point 4: Results: In this section you should write your findings; I found discussion within this
section also; Number of figures is 32; too many
Response 4: In the Results section, the findings of the research are presented in detail. The Figures have been radically reduced from 32 to 25. An attempt was also made to move the discussion to the "Discussion" section.
Point 5: Discussion: In this section you should discuss your results and give justification/validation/reasons/comparison of your results with valid references which is completely lacing here.
Response 5: The Discussion section has been enriched to elevate the most important messages of the article: (1) the divergences between facts and scientific models on the one hand and public and authorities’ perceptions on the other regarding the effect of local CC on forest fire and flood hazard; this was accomplished with the support of the two tables summarizing messages from the results section. (2) The necessity for each region to conduct similar studies comparing public perceptions with facts and scenarios by adopting the methodology followed in the present work. For these major findings comparison with references was not necessary or not possible.
Point 6: Conclusion:Before you should add a new heading ‘recommendations and implications’ of the study
Response 6: As becomes evident from above argumentation “Recommendations and implications” have been included in the “Discussion” section.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
In general, the article needs to be rewritten with greater methodological and statistical rigor.
The analysis seems to be influenced by confirmation biases by the researchers. On important issues, such as climate change, methodological rigor must be doubled to avoid unwelcome criticism by denialists.
Some points to note:
• 1- In item 3, Forest Fire Risk is defined. The definition adopted is in line with UNESCO's definition of risk. That's why it's interesting to cite this general UNESCO definition of flood risk.
Citation: Sayers, P.; LI Y.; Galloway, G.; Penning-Rowsell, E.; Shen, F.; Wen, K., Chen, Y. and Le Quesne, T., 2013. Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach. Paris, UNESCO
• 2- Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 compare a period of 55 years with the last decade. As means are analyzed, it is important to present the standard deviation to understand whether the changes are within the standard deviation or not.
An analysis of the evolution of the averages every decade (or every 5 years) will help to understand the evolution of events over the period evaluated.
· 3- Item 3.3 says “Floods, as hazards, are socio-natural phenomena, in the sense that human intervention, building development and land use and land cover changes (e.g., deforestation and filling up ponds) intensify flood hazard.”
So when the analysis of the evolution of flood events is done (figures 14 and 15) it is necessary to correlate these events with all the variables that condition the floods. To then try to see which variable is predominant in a possible growth of flood events. Without analyzing each variable (drainage system, soil sealing, number of people exposed, etc.) it is not possible to reach any conclusion.
Author Response
Point 1: In item 3, Forest Fire Risk is defined. The definition adopted is in line with UNESCO's definition of risk. That's why it's interesting to cite this general UNESCO definition of flood risk.
Citation: Sayers, P.; LI Y.; Galloway, G.; Penning-Rowsell, E.; Shen, F.; Wen, K., Chen, Y. and Le Quesne, T., 2013. Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach. Paris, UNESCΟ
Response 1: The definition of forest fire risk quoted in the manuscript is the widely accepted definition given by UNISDR. Flood risk is not included in the UNISDR terminology (2009) probably because of lack of consensus between scientists. What matters however, in the context of the manuscript, is our concentration on flood hazard and its close connection with extreme precipitation in the regions of concern, while territorial and infrastructure changes are also recognized as an influential factor (but considered relatively stable at the regional scale in the 30 year period of reference).
Point 2: Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 compare a period of 55 years with the last decade. As means are analyzed, it is important to present the standard deviation to understand whether the changes are within the standard deviation or not.
An analysis of the evolution of the averages every decade (or every 5 years) will help to understand the evolution of events over the period evaluated
Response 2: We have accepted the comment of the reviewer that the empirical trends in the variables of regional climate change should be approached with greater methodological rigor. Therefore, we revised the diagrams addressing the changes in the average maximum monthly temperature and the average monthly precipitation in central and south Greece by using equivalent 30-year periods of reference (1961-1990 and 1991-2020). As it proved impossible to find the respective data for humidity we retained the initial diagram prepared for non-equivalent periods (1955-2010 and 2000-2020) as an approximate indication of the realized changes.
Regarding the Figures comparing a period of 55 years with the last decade, see our response above. It has not been possible to find data for every 5 or 10 years but at least for every thirty years. After revisions, it is Figure 2 which presents altogether the average maximum monthly temperature and the average monthly precipitation in central and south Greece in the periods 1961-1990 and 1991-2020.Indeed, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization to allow certain climatic elements to be representative of the climate of a region, 30 consecutive years are defined as a normal climatic period. It is then reasonable to compare the average values of the latest thirty year period with previous ones starting from the preceding period 1961-1990.
Point 3: Item 3.3 says “Floods, as hazards, are socio-natural phenomena, in the sense that human intervention, building development and land use and land cover changes (e.g., deforestation and filling up ponds) intensify flood hazard.”
So when the analysis of the evolution of flood events is done (figures 14 and 15) it is necessary to correlate these events with all the variables that condition the floods. To then try to see which variable is predominant in a possible growth of flood events. Without analyzing each variable (drainage system, soil sealing, number of people exposed, etc.) it is not possible to reach any conclusion.
Response 3: Indeed, the reviewer’s query about the non-climatic variables which have not been taken into account for the flood hazard, despite their influential role is reasonable. However, the authors considered that at the regional scale the territorial and infrastructure changes (some of them with a decreasing effect on the flood hazard) in the regions of concern within the last thirty year period might be assumed as negligible. Moreover, the history of flood events (especially in Attica, see references 84-85-86-87) indicated that almost all of them are associated with extreme precipitation phenomena. After all, the authors limited their study on the CC impact on flood hazard, not exposure and vulnerability to address changes in flood risk (potential losses), i.e. not issues related to numbers of people and assets exposed (as the reviewer suggests).
The authors admit that the present study is not exhaustive regarding the involved factors and parameters in the relationship between CC, forest fire and flood hazard/risk and the way the public perceives this relationship. The article is a first approach to this research query and the authors encourage (in the last sections) further research to be conducted for the sake of unanswered questions derived from the present work so as to improve and refine the proposed methodology.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have incorporated all the necessary changes; I endorse it for publication
Author Response
Thank you
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
Global CC, can be modify as Global climate change (CC)
Figure 1 looks unclear please modify it
Modify infrastructure [22-23-24] as [22-24]
In this study, I examined modify the sentence. Why to weep I examine?
Figure 11& 12 can be enlarged for transparency? If so please do it.
Figure 14 looks imprecise, the color bar is in left-side; please modify the same if you can.
Overall comments on the manuscript have more paragraphs which are not necessary, please make compressive as per the Journal format.
Conclusion sections are 4 paragraphs; please compress it within 2 paragraphs.
Moreover the English grammar corrections are highly appreciated.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a comprehensive framework to evaluate the impacts of climate change on forest fire and flood risk in central and south Greece, and according to this, the authors demonstrated the facts, predictions and public perceptions relating to the local climate change. The topic is interesting. However there are lots of aspects needed to be improved.
I recommend this work to be reconsidered after revisions.
Several comments are listed below:
- In abstract, authors showed the relevant background and described the main methods. How about the results and conclusions? It is recommended to add main findings and indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.
- It is difficult to distinguish the introduction section and the sections of materials and methods. It is suggested to improve the structure of this manuscript according to the journal article template.
- There are many very short paragraphs which consist of a few sentences. These make the manuscript doesn’t look like an academic article. In addition, more details on interpreting the figures, e.g. from figure 5 to figure 18, are needed.
- It would be improper to use pronoun ‘I’ in the context and it may be better use ‘we’ instead.
- Central and south Greece covers Attica, Sterea Ellada, Dytiki Ellada, and the Peloponnese regions. Where is Central Greece? Where is south Greece?
- What’re the relationships between the climatic factors and forest fire and flood risk? How about the impact of climate change on the forest fire and flood risk in central and south Greece?
Reviewer 3 Report
The draft article reports on research into actual changes of extreme events, in particular fires and floods, in relation to climate change, and on perceptions of citizens and government employees on these changes and opinions on their causes, for two specific regions in Greece.
The topic is of potential interest, but the present material is far from what is needed for a quality paper in an academic journal.
First, while the paper reads well in terms of English language, the introductory sections are too long and contain elementary material well-known to the readers. What follows (the bulk of the paper) consists of presentation of data in the form of a multitude (44!) of sometimes detailed graphs and bar charts that would do well in a technical report to sponsor, but tend to overwhelm the reader, making it difficult to distill the main messages of interest.
Second, results presented are limited to averages, or percentages (in 4 digits !?) of a survey. Despite the claim of statistical analysis, there is no reference whatsoever to the results of an analysis of statistical significance of the differences noted.
Third, discussion and reflection on the results is minor if at all, implications of the findings on perceptions and beliefs of citizens and public officials are not elaborated.
While the research might provide a starting for an interesting journal paper, the authors might consider to produce an underlying report including most if not all the data, figures and graphs, and produce a much shorter paper with a focus on key findings only, with a thorough account of the results of statistical analyses, and deeper reflection and discussion of the relevance and implications of the findings.
