Rural Fires—Causes of Human Losses in the 2017 Fires in Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an analysis of the characteristics and causes of death of the victims of the June and October 2017 fires in Portugal, recognizing risk factors that led to their death: Growing demand for nature-based tourism, False feelings of inhabitants in rural areas, Demand for rurality and nature-based experience, Strong exposure of vulnerable communities to risk, Understanding the escape process. This study could be the stepping stone for future work on the creation of methodologies for the protection of civilians in the face of forest fires.

1.        Why did authors choose data from both the June and October fires of 2017, is it because it is representative?

2.        There is an error in the serial number of the author's unit.

3.        Author mentioned in 3.2. Analysis of fatalities in the June 2017 occurrence in Portugal “Analysing the age of the victims, most were between 30 and 70 years old”, but Figure 1 shows that the victims aged 70-79 are a significant proportion of the total.

4.        The contrast of the colors in Figures 3 and 7 is not high enough to make it look a little difficult.

5.        The serial number of “Analysis of fatalities in the October 2017 occurrence in Portugal” should be changed to 3.3.

6.        The number of people who died inside the house in October is much more than the June, the distance of the fire source from the rural communities and the size of the fire were also important factors. The authors should describe the location of the fire source and the size of the fire.

7.        The language/typos can be improved/fixed with the help of others.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

 

“This paper presents an analysis of the characteristics and causes of death of the victims of the June and October 2017 fires in Portugal, recognizing risk factors that led to their death: Growing demand for nature-based tourism, False feelings of inhabitants in rural areas, Demand for rurality and nature-based experience, Strong exposure of vulnerable communities to risk, Understanding the escape process. This study could be the stepping stone for future work on the creation of methodologies for the protection of civilians in the face of forest fires.”

1. Why did authors choose data from both the June and October fires of 2017, is it because it is representative?

Authors’ responses: Yes it is the most representative. After 2017 there were no more significant events in Portugal. We have improved the text in order to understand this issue.

2. There is an error in the serial number of the author's unit.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

 

3. Author mentioned in 2. Analysis of fatalities in the June 2017 occurrence in Portugal“Analysing the age of the victims, most were between 30 and 70 years old”, but Figure 1 shows that the victims aged 70-79 are a significant proportion of the total.
4.  

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

 

5. The contrast of the colors in Figures 3 and 7 is not high enough to make it look a little difficult.

 

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

 

6. The serial number of “Analysis of fatalities in the October 2017 occurrence in Portugal” should be changed to 3.3.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

 

7. The number of people who died inside the house in October is much more than the June, the distance of the fire source from the rural communities and the size of the fire were also important factors. The authors should describe the location of the fire source and the size of the fire.

Authors’ responses: We made adaptations to the text in order to create an introductory chapter on the framework of fires

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comment:

This paper presents an analysis of the characteristics and causes of death of the victims of the June and October 2017 fires in Portugal, recognizing risk factors that led to their death. The topic is interesting and the conclusions have some applications in fire protecting in rural zones. However, the following comments should be improved.

 

- The contents in abstract should be rewritten. The research background should be introduced succinctly, conversely, the results and conclusions should be stated in detail.

- In introduction, why choose the data in 2017 to analyze. For me, the data is too old, why the data in recent years are not the object?

- In Fig. 4, the text is not clear.

- There are two sections named Section 3.2.

- It seems that the data from two forest fires in June and October in 2017 are published in previous official reports of Portugal, the work conducted by the authors is very limited, and the conclusions are obtained based on the two limited forest fires. It would be better to obtain more applicable conclusions based on more forest fires.

Author Response

This paper presents an analysis of the characteristics and causes of death of the victims of the June and October 2017 fires in Portugal, recognizing risk factors that led to their death. The topic is interesting and the conclusions have some applications in fire protecting in rural zones. However, the following comments should be improved.”

 

1. The contents in abstract should be rewritten. The research background should be introduced succinctly, conversely, the results and conclusions should be stated in detail.

 

Authors’ responses: New information has been added to improve this aspect. Rewriting of the abstract

 

2. In introduction, why choose the data in 2017 to analyze. For me, the data is too old, why the data in recent years are not the object?

Authors’ responses: After 2017 there were no more significant events in Portugal. We have improved the text in order to understand this issue.

3. - In Fig. 4, the text is not clear.

 

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

 

4. - There are two sections named Section 3.2.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

5. - It seems that the data from two forest fires in June and October in 2017 are published in previous official reports of Portugal, the work conducted by the authors is very limited, and the conclusions are obtained based on the two limited forest fires. It would be better to obtain more applicable conclusions based on more forest fires.

Authors’ responses: This is not possible because no other fatalities have occurred until 2022. In 2022 there is the loss of two lives that die during the escape but there is no conclusive data yet. The previous years, 2003 and 2005, resulted in a high number of victims, but in different occurrences throughout the year.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Rural fires – Causes of human losses in Portugal” is worth seeking initiatives that are aimed at checking the causes of human losses due to rural fires. This study is an interesting one. It is a relevant study that could be published in the Journal, after some major revisions. Authors need to improve the English language of the manuscript prior to the submission of revision.

Title: Authors are advised to revise the title of study.

Abstract is not clear revise it. First line of the abstract is not convincing.

L 13: How they were prepared to fight with fire? Any fire control department?

L 20 and 23: Revise it.

There are grammar mistakes in the MS. Professional English Proof reading is mandatory.

L 29, 33, 55 revise these line.

Objectives and hypothesis of the study are not interesting. Hypothesis is too long. Authors should revise. 

L 172, Methodology should be revised.

Discussion is not impressive.

Conclusion should be improved. What’s is new in your study. Authors should add some suggestions for authorities involved in control of fires.

Captions of the figures should be improved.

Arrange the references according to Journal guidelines.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

 

“The manuscript entitled "Rural fires – Causes of human losses in Portugal” is worth seeking initiatives that are aimed at checking the causes of human losses due to rural fires. This study is an interesting one. It is a relevant study that could be published in the Journal, after some major revisions. Authors need to improve the English language of the manuscript prior to the submission of revision.”

 

1. Title: Authors are advised to revise the title of study.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

2. Abstract is not clear revise it. First line of the abstract is not convincing.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper.

 

3. L 13: How they were prepared to fight with fire? Any fire control department?

Authors’ responses: New information has been added to improve this aspect. Rewriting of the abstract.

 

4. L 20 and 23: Revise it.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper. text was rewritten

 

5. L 29, 33, 55 revise these line.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper. text was rewritten

 

6. Objectives and hypothesis of the study are not interesting. Hypothesis is too long. Authors should revise. 

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper. text was rewritten

 

7. L 172, Methodology should be revised.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper. text was rewritten

 

8. Discussion is not impressive.

Authors’ responses: New information has been added to improve this aspect. Rewriting.

 

9. Conclusion should be improved. What’s is new in your study. Authors should add some suggestions for authorities involved in control of fires.

Authors’ responses: New information has been added to improve this aspect. Rewriting.

 

10. Captions of the figures should be improved.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper. text was rewritten

11. Arrange the references according to Journal guidelines.

Authors’ responses: Corrections have been done accordingly in the revised version of the paper. text was rewritten

 

The authors appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. All remarks have been seriously considered and addressed in the revised paper.

 

Yours sincerely,

Andreia Rodrigues, Aldina Santiago, Luís Laím, Domingos Xavier Viegas e Luis Zezere.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

no

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved and it is suggested to be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

The Ms have been revised as per suggestions of reviewers. Now it can be accpeted.