Through Smoke to Policy: Framing the EU Forest FirePolicy Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the interesting manuscript. The paper provides a detailed analysis of relevant EU policy documents on forest fires, analysing both non-legally binding and legally binding policy documents. This broad data set helps to better understand collective frames applied to forest fires in a broader EU context. Withs its topis, it fits well into the scope of the journal.

The introduction clearly outlines the problem and identifies the research gap. The aim of the study is clearly formulated.

Research design is clearly and extensively described, allowing replicability. Qualitative content analysis and frame analysis was used to fulfil the aim. Frame analysis is an established method for policy document analysis. It enables to identify frames or narratives influencing or shaping EU policy, not only on forest fires.

The results are presented in a structured and comprehensive way.

The discussion appropriately discussed the main results, what I miss in the discussion is a chapter on study limitations.

Conclusions are clear and supported by data.

Overall I find the article easy to read, presenting new knowledge that’s contributes to the scientific discourse not only on frame analysis but also on the framing of EU policy on forest fires.

Author Response

Thanks for these positive comments. It is great to hear that the paper is easy to read and understand?

From your comments, your main concern seems to be the absence of a chapter on study limitations in the discussion.

Comment 1:

The discussion appropriately discussed the main results, what I miss in the discussion is a chapter on study limitations.

Response:

First, I would like to note that some limitations are noted in section 3.3, line 295-312. This was originally in small sub-section on limitations but I later integrated it into the text…

Taking your comments on-board, ive added some additional reflections (line 301-308). However, rather than adding a dedicated section on limitations in the discussion, ive done so in the methodological section (line 294). Hope this addresses your concerns. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Overall, the study is extremely interesting and the analysis is carried out with scientific rigour. However, some perplexities emerge with regard to certain aspects that could benefit from further study. Firstly, the normative references appear somewhat decontextualised. The study offers a summary and general list of European policy directives concerning forest fires, but lacks a concrete link with the specifics of the context in which these regulations should be applied. This approach risks making the analysis less relevant to the operational reality. Another aspect to consider concerns the six areas identified, with a focus on the four most recurrent (climate adaptation and resilience; technocratic perspectives on forest fires; risk mitigation and protective governance; agriculture and rural development). The question that arises is whether these frameworks are really sufficient to capture the complexity of forest fire issues. In as much as, these frameworks can be extended to other phenomena, outside of forest fires. In this regard, it would be useful to question whether there is a European legal framework that deals exclusively and in detail with the issue of forest fires. Finally, the study does not go into the merits of national policies specifically. An analysis comparing the strategies adopted by different Member States, highlighting the comparison between the most efficient and the least efficient, would enrich the study. This comparison could highlight best practices and areas where improvements are needed. In summary, although the study is valid, an in-depth study on these points could make it more comprehensive and more applicable to the real challenges of forest fire management.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for his/her constructive comments. This is much appreciated. I will try to answer your concerns in more detail below. 

Comment 1:

The study offers a summary and general list of European policy directives concerning forest fires, but lacks a concrete link with the specifics of the context in which these regulations should be applied. This approach risks making the analysis less relevant to the operational reality.

Response:

Thanks for this comment. While I agree more can be said, Section 2.2 deals explicitly with what the EU does on forest fires, covering the main policy instruments that implement (or finance) fire-relevant policy measures. Some framework conditions, e.g., principle of subsidiarity, is also outlined in the introduction and some of the frame-relevant developments are covered in section 2.1. 

Comment 2:

Another aspect to consider concerns the six areas identified, with a focus on the four most recurrent (climate adaptation and resilience; technocratic perspectives on forest fires; risk mitigation and protective governance; agriculture and rural development). The question that arises is whether these frameworks are really sufficient to capture the complexity of forest fire issues.

Response:

These are frames (or narratives), not frameworks. They are specific to the policy documents reviewed and would not be applicable in other contexts/domains. The main purpose is to contextualise the main narratives (perspective on fires) that have influenced the EU policymaking process. 

Comment 3:

In this regard, it would be useful to question whether there is a European legal framework that deals exclusively and in detail with the issue of forest fires.

Response:

Fires are dealt with a range of instruments, as outlined in section 2.1 and 2.2. Due to the principle of subsidiarity, the policy instruments are quite fragmented. There is unfortunately not much more that can be noted here as the main instruments are covered in the paper. 

Comment 4:

Finally, the study does not go into the merits of national policies specifically. An analysis comparing the strategies adopted by different Member States, highlighting the comparison between the most efficient and the least efficient, would enrich the study. This comparison could highlight best practices and areas where improvements are needed.

Response:

Thanks for this good comment, and I agree that being able to compare national policies would certainly add interesting information/knowledge. However, given that the current paper already considered 354 policy documents, the dataset is already significant. Adding national documents would at this point not be feasible, considering the language barriers and the large number of documents that would need to be reviewed and analysed. This would however be an interesting endeavour for a research project where suitable experts could be involved in a more extensive cross-country comparison. I will certainly keep this in mind for the future. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised work has been integrated and improved. The authors have clarified the doubts of the reviewer especially on the documents and national sources that have not been examined. The integrations make the work more scientifically valid and more appreciable by the scientific community.

The work thus integrated can be published.