Managing Wildfire Risk in Mosaic Landscapes: A Case Study of the Upper Gata River Catchment in Sierra de Gata, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This enjoyed reading this manuscript and find the research to be quite timely. I think this manuscript is well on its way to publication, but requires minor revisions as well as some extensive expansion in the discussion and conclusion sections to warrant publication.

• The introduction could use some refining. Ideas are a bit chaotic, and it’s challenging to tell whether the authors are being too broad. Many items discussed in the literature review are not tapped into in the discussion section later. If they’re not truly relevant or important for your study design, interpretation, or for making connections to the larger literature, some areas may potentially be cut.
• Portions of the methods are not super accessible across disciplines. Additional explanation is needed in some areas. These edits may be as minor as integrating examples or synonyms others might understand.
• I find that some areas of the literature review and A LOT of the discussion could utilize more references. The discussion section in particular does not tie in well with the existing literature. Some suggestions for expansion are included in my comments below, but they should represent starting points.
• Check for (1) consistent formatting in lists; (2) appropriate punctuation in lists, especially lists with multiple X and Y, Z and Q, and A & B; and (3) how many introduction clauses are used and a general lack of punctuation separating those clauses from the main sentence clause. Some sentences can be rewritten to active voice to clarify thoughts. I find thinking of sentence structure as a subject-verb-object pattern helps.

Line 23: Moreover, fire-prone forests may have become less resilient to fire as suppression shifts forest composition towards less fire-tolerant species

Additional references needed

Line 35: “Forests no longer are human-dominated [6], but fire-ruled systems.”

While a compelling and engaging sentence, this sentence may need a bit more to clarify the authors’ thoughts. My read is that the idea being conveyed is that all-or even most- forests are not unmanaged, pristinely preserved wildernesses, but this is where my mind goes from an American context. The sentence, to me, also implies that being a fire-dominated landscape is not ideal. However, many ecosystems in several countries host fire-adapted or –dependent ecosystems and forests and are actively striving to return to fire-dominated/ “fire-ruled” systems. Getting away from “hands off” or “human-dominated” forests and returning to “fire-ruled” forests is actually the ideal land management objective.

Consider adding an additional line or two to clarify your thought here. What majority of lands of interest are actively managed landscapes, vs lands preserved or not actively managed? Is the goal for these lands in your area to return to human-dominated (which some people would consider a less than ideal land management outcome from a preservation or conservation standpoint). This may even just be ending with a statement similar to your abstract that fire-resilient, working-lands are a more ideal management scenario.

Line 50: XIXth century [16].

Consider putting this in Arabic-Hindu numerals to enhance accessibility—19^th C

Line 50: marginal agricultural areas forests

This noun seems a little off… particularly in the “areas forests” part. Either needs a possessive apostrophe on areas’ or to delete “areas” or “forests”, as they seem potentially redundant.

Line 74: increase in litter and fine fuels and large dead woody fuels and fuel ladders due

Consider turning into a list rather than using “and” multiple times in the sentence to link thoughts

Line 79: Expansion of the road network and growing urbanization, and tourism and recreational activities

Similar stylistic comment as above. “Expansion of the road network, growing urbanization, and tourism and recreational activities…”

Line 81: …fire prevention and extinction

I haven’t heard “fire extinction” used commonly to refer to fire management activities. If appropriate, consider more commonly used terms like containment, suppression, or extinguishment.

Upon later reading, you utilize this term throughout later sections of this paper. I suggest putting an (i.e., ) with 1-2 synonyms to ease the reading across management contexts.

Line 82-83: Forest roads may be key to control forest fires as they act as fire breaks and facilitate access to fire-fighting crews for fire suppression activities.

Additional references needed; some examples may include:

• Thompson, M. P., Gannon, B. M., & Caggiano, M. D. (2021). Forest roads and operational wildfire response planning. Forests, 12(2), 110.
• Ager, A. A., Preisler, H. K., Arca, B., Spano, D., & Salis, M. (2014). Wildfire risk estimation in the Mediterranean area. Environmetrics, 25(6), 384-396.
• Narayanaraj, G., & Wimberly, M. C. (2011). Influences of forest roads on the spatial pattern of wildfire boundaries. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20(6), 792-803.

Line 83-84: However, forest roads may also be a conduit to accidental ignitions

Additional references needed

Line 84: Population pressure due to urbanization also increases wildfire risk

Explain how/clarify what you mean by population pressure. More people in the area neededing to be serviced? More ignition points. How is this different from the urbanization you bring up in the next sentence?

Additional references also needed

Line 85-88: Growing urbanization in forested landscapes that were formerly managed for agrosilvopastoral activities is transforming the forest-agriculture interface (FAI) into an unmanaged wildland-urban interface (WUI) more exposed to wildfires

Explain how urbanization makes these areas more predisposed to fires. May just mean adding “due to increased potential for human-ignitions.”

Line 88-89: In the United States between 1990 and 2010 the land area of the WUI grew by 33% resulting in a significant increase in wildfire risk.

• Edit to add necessary punctuation (particularly commas)
• Is there evidence from your study region that could be useful here? You begin getting there in lines 89-91. Is there a study for Spain or similar European countries you can lean on as far as WUI trends? If the WUI is not growing at a similar rate in your study area/region, the WUI trend from the US may not be applicable here.

Line 97: in the EU

This is the first time you use the EU acronym. Spell it out the first time

Line 131: Forests are also supposed to be free of risks and therefore, disturbances…

Punctuation seems off here. Consider revising

Forests are also supposed to be free of risks and, therefore, disturbances…

Forests are also supposed to be free of risks; therefore, disturbances…

Lines 144-146: A study on the effectiveness of fuel breaks in the control of large fires in California showed that fires stopped at fuel breaks only 46% of the time, almost invariably owing to fire suppression activities.

• Reference?
• The second half of this sentence is confusing. Only 46% of the time because suppression activities augmented their effectiveness, or because suppression activities worked against or adversely influenced their potentially higher success rate?

Punctuation comment (e.g., lines 152-155; lines 181-182)

The authors have a tendency to write sentences with a leading fragment in the front, but without utilizing a comma to punctuate.  Check sentences started with “In year, place, etc.” and see if it warrants separating the leading clause and main clause with a comma. Some sentences can be re-worked to be presented in a more active voice and streamline clarity of the thoughts being presented.

e.g. (152-155), In the megafire of 1998 in Yellowstone[,] burning embers were carried 1 to 2 miles ahead of the main fire front, initiating new spot fires, and large natural firebreaks, such as the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone, did not impede the spread of late-season fires [58].

e.g. 2 (181-182): Where fuel recovery is rapid frequent[,] burning at 2-year intervals may be necessary, which may make prescribed burning unfeasible for forestry agencies with limited budget and staffing

Line 159: USA Forest Service

US Forest Service (do you don’t switch between country acronyms throughout the paper)

Line 183-185 (and elsewhere, punctuation comment)—the authors have a tendency to miss the late commas in longer lists of ideas, that makes the sentences run-on and sometimes changes the sentence meaning. In the next read through, make sure you are utilizing commas where appropriate.

Negative public opinion, especially in the proximity of residential developments or urban areas, environmental laws regulating air quality and smoke[,] and risk-averse forestry agencies and policies are also major impediments for the widespread use of prescribed burning

Line 186-189: Nevertheless, IFM is probably the most cost-efficient option for forest restoration and fuel management in extensive, unpopulated forest areas such as those of western US and other countries.

Great point! But reference(s) needed. There are several white and gray literature examples that demonstrate the cost effectiveness and ecological effectiveness of various forest/land management options for mitigating fire risk that would strengthen your point here.

Lines 190-199: This section focuses on SES, which is a huge area of wildfire and forest literature that also includes coupled human-natural systems and adaptation/resilience literature. To strengthen this section, additional references needed to acknowledge the broad SES literature focused on wildfire and forest systems is needed. Some examples might include:

• Steelman, T. (2016). US wildfire governance as social-ecological problem. Ecology and Society, 21(4).
• Prior, T., & Eriksen, C. (2013). Wildfire preparedness, community cohesion and social–ecological systems. Global environmental change, 23(6), 1575-1586.
• Otero, I., & Nielsen, J. Ø. (2017). Coexisting with wildfire? Achievements and challenges for a radical social-ecological transformation in Catalonia (Spain). Geoforum, 85, 234-246.
• Fischer, A. P., Spies, T. A., Steelman, T. A., Moseley, C., Johnson, B. R., Bailey, J. D., ... & Bowman, D. M. (2016). Wildfire risk as a socioecological pathology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(5), 276-284.
• Fischer, A. P. (2018). Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 138-147.
• Spies, T., Scheller, R., & Bolte, J. (2018). Adaptation in fire-prone landscapes: interactions of policies, management, wildfire, and social networks in Oregon, USA. Ecology and Society, 23(2).

Lines 200-208—overall, enjoyed this section. Good summary. Well-written. Could use more references to substantiate the last sentence

Lines 211-215: Some additional local knowledge focused papers to consider:

• Grant, A., and E. R. (L.) Langer. 2021. Wildfire volunteering and community disaster resilience in New Zealand: institutional change in a dynamic rural social-ecological setting. Ecology and Society26(3):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12474-260318
• Sherry, J., Neale, T., McGee, T. K., & Sharpe, M. (2019). Rethinking the maps: a case study of knowledge incorporation in Canadian wildfire risk management and planning. Journal of environmental management, 234, 494-502.
• Ray, L. A., Kolden, C. A., & Chapin III, F. S. (2012). A case for developing place-based fire management strategies from traditional ecological knowledge. Ecology and Society, 17(3).
• Stasiewicz, A. M., & Paveglio, T. B. (2018). Wildfire management across rangeland ownerships: Factors influencing Rangeland Fire Protection Association establishment and functioning. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 71(6), 727-736.
• Carroll, M. S., Edgeley, C. M., & Nugent, C. (2021). Traditional use of field burning in Ireland: history, culture and contemporary practice in the uplands. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 30(6), 399-409.

 Line 221: The project rest…

The project rests or the projects rest?

Figure 1:

1. Can the roads be made more defined and/or can the graphic be made color-blind friendly? (e.g., no overlapping red and green)
2. Can the campground location and roads (described in-text) be labeled to help orient on the map?
3. Please revise the figure caption so that the image can stand alone. Add an A, B, and C label and provide brief descriptions of each study region pictured.

Lines 272-274: In the last 20 years important fires in the study site occurred in 2003 (Acebo, 2,360 ha), 2005 (Gata, 732 ha), 2012 (Gata, 677 ha) and the latest and largest in 2015 (Acebo, 7,832 ha)

Important fires in the study site in the last 20 years occurred in 2003 (Acebo, 2,360 ha), 2005 (Gata, 732 ha), 2012 (Gata, 677 ha) and the latest and largest in 2015 (Acebo, 7,832 ha)

OR

In the last 20 years, important fires in the study site occurred in 2003 (Acebo, 2,360 ha), 2005 (Gata, 732 ha), 2012 (Gata, 677 ha) and the latest and largest in 2015 (Acebo, 7,832 ha)

Lines 288-293: Project staff is composed of forestry, agriculture and livestock technicians who have the following main responsibilities: 1) To provide advice and technical assistance to local stakeholders (farmers, shepherds, landowners, entrepreneurs and NGOs) on the development of agricultural, livestock or forestry projects (hereafter interventions), such as commercial tree crop plantations, forest grazing, and resin tapping ; 2) to facilitate dialog and collaboration between promoters of interventions and the regional Forest Service, and; 3) To organize training and information dissemination activities

 Check lists throughout methods section for consistent formatting after numbers. Should all be lower case “to.”

Lines 321-327—Same comment as above

Line 364: Each of these components was in turn disaggregated into new elements (level 3 and successive), for which values were generated at the sub-catchment level, always categorized into five classes that were used to compose the upper level through weight matrices

• Push the reader towards Table 6 so we know what this means à (level 3 and successive, see Table 6)
• Successive whats? Levels?
• What are levels?
• What are the 5 classes? 5 classes of what? Risk?

Line 368: The first four are shown in Table 6

Why are only the first four shown?

Line 378-379: A continuous spatial distribution was generated through the Kernel density algorithm…

Include reference to methodology and/or other studies utilizing this mechanism to produce similar products

Line 399-400: Data was obtained from the census statistics for 2010 [87]. and digital maps associated to the 2011 Population and Housing Census INE [107].

Delete extra period after [87]

Line 411: “Potential erosion” was estimated by using the universal soil loss equation (USLE).

Reference?

Line 412-414: For consistency with the method used for calculating component “Economic value of ecosystem services” dataset of “potential erosion”, expressed in t ha-1 yr-1 was obtained from the project VANE [105].

Punctuation is off, making this sentence confusing. Please revise for clarity.

Lines 436-437: Forestry interventions promoted a forest without scrub (fuel model 9. The most frequent starting situation was a model 7.

 Parenthesis needs to be closed…not sure where that’s supposed to end.

Line 460: In scenario VL35 some interventions reduced fire extinction capacity…

In scenario VL35, some interventions…

Line 455-459: Contrary to intuition, agricultural interventions resulted in less effective firebreaks than forestry or livestock ones. This can be explained by the fact that the target fuel model 1 is characterized by a low flame length but a high rate of fire spread. For livestock interventions, which also target fuel model 1, this counterintuitive effect was attenuated as fuel models in 2010 were more hazardous in terms of flame length.

I am not following the interpretation side of this paragraph (i.e., the third/last sentence). Can this be stated more clearly?

Lines 460-463: In scenario VL35 some interventions reduced fire extinction capacity (efficacy level “-1”) due to the fact that with extreme weather conditions, transitions to fuel model 1 notably increased fire spread rate, factor that prevailed over lower flame length. In this study this happened only for changes in rate of spread from extinction class 3 to 4.

This sentence is confusing and may actually be two separate thoughts. Revise for clarity, including punctuation/sentence structure.

Both of these sentences are good examples of introductory clauses not having commas after them and creating a run on sentence that is more difficult to follow.

For the “this happened,” it is unclear what “this” is. Reduced fire extinction capacity? Referencing the fuel model 1 increased fire spread rate?

Lines 558-560: The efficacy as productive firebreaks of the agricultural and forestry interventions promoted by the MosEx project and their relationship with the risk of fire in the study catchment were studied.

This sentence is a bit inside-out and written passively. Try to write sentences so that the subject-verb-and object come in that order, rather than ending the sentence with the verb.

The first two lines are particularly hard to follow. Please revise to clarify.

Lines 563-575: Great interp/discussion in this section! Very practically oriented.

Lines 589-592: However, this result cannot be extrapolated, since the location of the interventions does not respond to prior planning, but to the objectives, interests and capacity of the owners, and the legal possibility of implementing the desired interventions in the chosen location.

I’m confused by the interventions not responding to priori planning. Are the interventions not planned management strategies occurring within the bounds of the current social (desirability, perceptions, interests), political (political feasibility, support from government) and/or legal (e.g. environmental laws) system?

Can any ties be made to other studies, e.g., references to nest this discussion item in the existing literature?

Line 593: In recent years regional Forestry Administrations in Spain are taking important steps…

• Comma needed: In recent years, regional Forestry Administrations in Spain are taking important steps…
• Verb and other elements of sentence don’t agree. Is it passive (i.e. in recent years…have been) or present tense? (delete the first clause and start with …The regional FA in Spain are taking important steps…)
• Important steps…towards what? Need a couple more words here to tell us what they’re taking steps towards (resilience, fire adaptation, health landscapes, protecting working lands)

 Lines 596-598: However, there are still significant legal, economic, and administrative barriers, as well as reluctance from some forest administrators, that hinder the implementation of certain interventions.

Such as? Give us some examples from policy (e.g., introduce and cite problematic laws), other sources (with references) (e.g., other papers looking at working lands/agriculture barriers) so we can understand how some of these issues are playing out in this space.

600-608: This next section goes into good specifics for one of the barriers, but doesn’t end with a direct relationship to how this impacts the ability to impact fire risk interventions. Add a sentence at line 608 that will bring it back to the purpose of your paper.

608-612: In the case of resin tapping, the seasonality of its harvest, which keeps tappers occupied for only eight or nine months a year, means that most of the young rural population does not see in this activity a viable livelihood. [*] To make it more attractive, the involvement of resin tappers in silvicultural activities and other forest management work during the lean period has been proposed [**], although actual attempts to do this remain to be seen.

At [*] noted above, add a line that explains why having resin tappers on the landscape is important for fire resilience, even if it’s a “as previously mentioned, resin tappers are important to wildfire risk reduction because of their land stewardship practices of clearing the land of brush and ladder fuels” or whatever it may be.

At [**] include reference to whatever source you’re using for this idea. Conference proceedings. Press releases? Personal communication? Media posts? Policy briefs? Drafts of legislation?

Lines 614-621: The results of this study support the idea that the involvement of rural people in harvesting forest products and agricultural and livestock interventions in forests and at the forest-agriculture interface can contribute to the success of fire prevention strategies.

This is a great place to rephrase and tie your discussion in better with the existing literature---the synthesis of which is weak in this discussion section as it is currently written. Consider these as potential starting points:

• Hartter, J. N., Stevens, F. R., Hamilton, L. C., Oester, P. T., Congalton, R. G., Ducey, M. J., & Crowley, M. A. (2014). Forest management and wildfire risk in Inland Northwest.
• Charnley, S., Sheridan, T. E., & Nabhan, G. P. (Eds.). (2014). Stitching the west back together: Conservation of working landscapes. University of Chicago Press.
• Abrams, J., Davis, E. J., & Wollstein, K. (2017). Rangeland fire protection associations in Great Basin rangelands: A model for adaptive community relationships with wildfire?. Human ecology, 45(6), 773-785.
• Stasiewicz, A. M., & Paveglio, T. B. (2018). Wildfire management across rangeland ownerships: Factors influencing Rangeland Fire Protection Association establishment and functioning. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 71(6), 727-736.
• Morzillo, A. T., Colocousis, C. R., Munroe, D. K., Bell, K. P., Martinuzzi, S., Van Berkel, D. B., ... & McGill, B. (2015). “Communities in the middle”: Interactions between drivers of change and place-based characteristics in rural forest-based communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 79-90.

Lines 617-619: But to integrate them properly, appropriate incentives, policy support and the elimination of economic, regulatory and administrative barriers that hinder collaborative land use planning and management are needed.

Follow this up with another 1-3 sentences. Who has done this well? What other countries or areas have programs that are doing this successfully? Take a look into the rural sociology and public policy and administration literatures around wildfire risk mitigation. There’s good stuff out there, and certainly no need to completely recreate the wheel when it comes to finding ways to overcome some of these barriers. What might work for your study area?

Lines 623-626: Its potential for mitigating, or even reversing, the abandonment of rural areas by promoting economic activity and restoring strong links between the rural population and its surroundings undoubtedly contributes to a more sustainable land and forest management.

This certainly is an element of focus in many fire-prone countries, many of which are both focusing on rural community resilience, fighting the brain drain, and restoring indigenous/aboriginal voices and practices (e.g., harvesting, indigenous cultural burning) to landscapes. Any parallels there for you to make in this last part of the discussion?

Lines 633-634: public administrations should bet decisively on adopting collaborative strategies for land management.

 Collaboration/collaborative processes seem to be a bit different from what you’ve spoken about in the rest of this paper…although I will not disagree that it is certainly a good pathway forward for dealing with "wicked problems" that require "all hands, all lands" approaches to solving. This claim just needs to be better substantiated with the literature.

Consider some of these as starting points:

• Urgenson, L. S., Ryan, C. M., Halpern, C. B., Bakker, J. D., Belote, R. T., Franklin, J. F., ... & Waltz, A. E. (2017). Visions of restoration in fire-adapted forest landscapes: lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Environmental Management, 59(2), 338-353.
• Monroe, A. S., & Butler, W. H. (2016). Responding to a policy mandate to collaborate: Structuring collaboration in the collaborative forest landscape restoration program. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(6), 1054-1072.
• Ager, A. A., Vogler, K. C., Day, M. A., & Bailey, J. D. (2017). Economic opportunities and trade-offs in collaborative forest landscape restoration. Ecological Economics, 136, 226-239.
• Chiasson, G., Angelstam, P., Axelsson, R., & Doyon, F. (2019). Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?. Land Use Policy, 83, 334-345.
• Bussey, J., Davenport, M. A., Emery, M. R., & Carroll, C. (2016). “A lot of it comes from the heart”: The nature and integration of ecological knowledge in tribal and nontribal forest management. Journal of Forestry, 114(2), 97-107.
• Christian, F. Y. (2019, May). Levelling up the collaborative forest management in Indonesia: a review. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science(Vol. 285, No. 1, p. 012008). IOP Publishing.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

thank you for your comments and suggestions on how to improve the paper. We have addressed all the comments as indicated in the attached Word document.

Thank you very much

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

The research is very interesting.

Two main weaknesses:

1- the introduction is too long and its content is not sufficiently focused in the context of the paper;

2- The risk assessement methodology is very interesting, however it is not completely explored its connections with the interventions to change fire behaviour.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on how to improve the paper. Please find our responses to your general comments. We have also added a response to the more specific comments in the manuscript (pdf)

Response point 1:

The introduction has been shortened and it is now focused on Europe and Spain, and collaborative approaches to risk management.

Response point 2:

The impact of interventions on “fire behavior” has been analyzed in question 1, through a pixel by pixel FLAMMAP simulation. For the second question (stated in the objectives) we have developed a territorial risk index that ranks the sub-catchments of the study site and therefore, it allows to identify the areas in which defense work should be prioritized.

Regarding to the interventions of the Mosaico project, we have only checked their location on the ranked sub-catchments to see whether they were located in priority areas. Our objective is to emphasize that interventions will only be effective if: 1) they are located in high priority risk areas (sub-catchments); 2) the interventions are located in strategic management areas.

In the original manuscript, we were not able to convey this idea correctly. We are grateful that you pinpointed this weakness. To address it, we have re-written and edited some paragraphs in methods (line 381-383), and in the discussion (line 578-582 and line 660-674).

We have also added a response to the more specific comments in the manuscript (attached pdf)

Thank you very much

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I am satisfied with your replies.

I recommend publication.