A Multicriteria Geographic Information System Analysis of Wildfire Susceptibility in the Andean Region: A Case Study in Ibarra, Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a multifactorial GIS analysis for assessing wildfire susceptibility in the Andean region, with a case study focusing on Ibarra, Ecuador. The study uses various factors such as precipitation, temperature, and land cover to map susceptibility levels. While the results are compelling, the following comments should be addressed before acceptance:

1.         The study mentions the use of seven factors in the GIS analysis. It seems that these factors are recommended by experts, which can be subjective. The authors are recommended to provide a more detailed justification for the choice of these factors, emphasizing how they uniquely contribute to the assessment of wildfire susceptibility in the Andean context.

2.         The paper discusses the categorization of susceptibility into four levels. To enhance clarity, please provide a more detailed explanation of the criteria used for these categorizations. Specifically, the authors may elaborate on the thresholds or parameters that define each susceptibility level and how these were determined.

3.         There is a mention of data from various sources being integrated into the GIS analysis. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of how these diverse data sets were harmonized and the challenges, if any, faced in this process. This will help in understanding the data integrity and the robustness of the analysis.

4.         The paper proposes strategies for mitigating high wildfire susceptibility areas. It would be beneficial to include some discussions on the feasibility and potential challenges of implementing these strategies in the Andean region, considering the unique geographical and socio-economic contexts.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript can benefit from thorough proofreading to eliminate typos.

Author Response

The answers to the comments are in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a multi-criteria GIS analysis of wildfire susceptibility in Ibarra (Ecuador).

There is an attempt to produce a wildfire risk map of the Ibarra canton, considering climatic and physical factors.

The authors conducted interviews (the selection follows the “Snowball methodology”!) with eleven experts to propose the factors to take into account!

First remark: the “area of research” of these experts is not presented in order to allow the reader to evaluate the “weight” of their expertise. Are experts from a wide range of sciences (such as fire ecologists)?

Some crucial factors are not taken into account such as:

-          Wind factor: days with strong winds. [The propagation rate of the fire depends on the humidity of the wind. Wet winds reduce the degree of flammability and the rate of spread of a fire, while dry winds increase the degree of flammability. The majority of wildfires are spread and difficult to control under specific conditions].

-          Aspect. [The aspect affects not only the composition of the vegetation, but also the degree of drying of fuel and consequently the flammability.  In the southern and southwestern exposures the vegetation in summer is drier and hotter, and hence more flammable].

-          And more important type of vegetation and fuel accumulation (stratification, size, quality and quantity, fuel moisture content, etc).

There is no justification for the weight of the coefficients used in the wildfire susceptibility equation.

The interest for the reader is limited, geographically but also more important the manuscript has low originality and quality. Too descriptive.

My overall opinion is that the paper can be accepted for publication only after major changes.

 

Specific remarks:

-          Table 1: value 5 > instead of < 45%

-          Table 3: Year instead of ano.

-          Table 5: use more useful values (1500 instead of 1495, 1100 instead of 1078, etc.)

-          Table 6: same remark, non sense to use two decimals, use instead value with +- 0.5 degree.

-          Etc for all tables reconsider ranges keep in mind values with signification, too much precision is not adequate for physical and climatic factors. It is just “noise”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

The answers to the comments are in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made an important effort to improve the manuscript following remarks of both reviewers.

They could analyze more the aspect of type of vegetation and fuel accumulation but as it is a more general approach the manuscript can be in the form presented as well without it.

After the revision, I consider the manuscript can be accepted in the present form.