Challenges in Developing Wildfire Understanding from Wildfire Information through Spatial Planning Processes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the manuscript and found that the subject is interesting and the aim of the contribution is clear. The paper has merits for the scientific community interested in problems of spatial planning processes and wildfire disaster risk management. The use of inductive qualitative research based on (a) identification; (b) ‘co-generation’; (c) reframing; and (d) implementation of wildfire understandings proved to be effective in the analysis of spatial planning processes of two case studies. The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. I recommend minor revisions.
Below are a few comments and suggestions:
The title of the manuscript is the same as the first sentence of the abstract, and it should be changed; I suggest: Challenges in Enhancing Wildfire Understanding through Spatial Planning Processes and Wildfire Information
Since the situation has certainly changed since 1990, the author should consider replacing the reference Beck, 1992 a newer one (and rewrite the sentence 384-387 accordingly).
Check the Instructions for authors; For example, the sentence in line 418 cannot start with the (Hamilton et al., 2019).
Add a Table containing the major findings within each of the four general categories for both case studies for easier comparison.
Avoid using one word or phrase several times in one sentence (for example, implies in lines 520-523; or theoretical generalizations; lines 580-583).
Author Response
PLease see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are several issues that need to be addressed.
1. Is it inappropriate to use knowledge as a keyword, and secondly, the article revolves around DRM throughout but only mentions DRR in the keyword.
2. In Materials and Methods, it is recommended to briefly elaborate on the case study.
3. At the end of the summary of materials and methods, it is recommended to add a flow chart.
4. In addition to using government and interview materials, can we consider using some technical means, such as GIS, for analysis in the analysis process?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The concluding part of the abstract refers to key elements that constrain the processes of knowledge development. What does it refer to specifically? Does it specifically mean (a)-(d)? The key elements are not well expressed.
2. In the introduction, only one study on 2023 is mentioned in the current state of research, and consideration could be given to adding a modest number of references for the latest year.
3. The introduction part mentions that the two cases will be summarized and qualitatively studied, but does not provide specific information on the research methods and objectives, which is recommended to be added.
4. The lack of clear connection and transition between different paragraphs in the introduction makes the logical process of the whole introduction not clear enough.
5. Materials and methods, referred to the use of qualitative content analysis techniques, but did not specify the steps and methods of the analysis process, it is recommended to add information on data analysis.
6. Materials and methods of the manuscript provides an inductive study of the two cases, with the process divided into four parts (a)-(d). Is the content of lines 161-268 based on these four parts of the description? Suggest categorising and describing them to clarify the organisation.
7. There are case studies in each chapter of the third part of the paper, but they do not provide sufficient detailed information, such as descriptions of key events, actions and outcomes.
8. Chapter 3.1 of the paper mentions how the understanding of technical information is applied to change the spatial planning system, but this part does not seem to discuss information transmission and practical applications in detail.
9. The sorted content of (1)-(4) in the conclusion could be considered to be segmented for clarity.
10. The conclusion is a bit lengthy. We can consider further simplifying and reducing some sentences to make the conclusion more compact and easy to understand.
11. The concluding section recommends adding how it can be applied to practical policy and planning decisions to improve wildfire risk management and spatial planning systems.
12. Reference format is not uniform.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted article for review is assessed as extremely important for the readers of the Sustainability Journal. The observed climate changes (a fact, not a subject for discussion) lead to areas that were rarely affected by drought and consequently wildfires having to face this crisis (and some are already experiencing it). Spatial planning must, therefore, not only keep up with climate changes but also anticipate them.
The examples presented in the article highlight the significance of the research problem. The author's work in reviewing documentation and reports is impressive, and I consider the methodology to be correct.
It is alarming to me that, although barriers related to the development of understanding catastrophic risk management associated with wildfires, including cultural values, communication, and lack of trust, have been identified in the literature, I do not observe any mass awareness campaigns on this topic (and I come from Europe).
In the article, I suggest clearly indicating how to change society's approach to spatial planning. Could an information campaign organized by international institutions such as the European Union be a solution? I request the author's response to this.
I recommend paying attention to the phenomenon of suburbanization and the prestige of living in so-called dispersed settlement. Does the snobbery of affluent citizens contribute to errors in spatial planning? How can this be counteracted?
A map with the location of the studied areas should be addend.
Perhaps the following articles could be helpful for the author (maybe for further research):
Dendrochronological reconstruction reveals a mixed-intensity fire regime in Pinus sylvestris-dominated stands of Białowieża Forest, Belarus and Poland
- April 2015
- Journal of Vegetation Science 26(5):934–945 DOI:10.1111/jvs.12290
A 350-year tree-ring fire record from Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland: Implications for Central European lowland fire history
- August 2010
- Journal of Ecology 98(6):1319 – 1329 DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01710.x
I recommend publication after incorporating the suggested revisions into the text.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFrom the prior comments, it appears that the authors improved and corrected the paper as well as included some justifiable arguments and supplements.
Acceptance for publishing could be taken into account.
