The Economic Value of Fuel Treatments: A Review of the Recent Literature for Fuel Treatment Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached word document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
- This reviewer understands the choice to cover only literature published since 2013, however they feel that the current manuscript should include a summary of the previous literature reviews on this subject to provide context for the reader. This is especially true of seminal work in this area that the reader should be made aware of. What conclusions and challenges were presented in previous review papers, and how does the current paper pick up where earlier work left off?
Response: On lines 49-50 we indicated the findings from previous reviews and highlight the need for additional studies examining the full costs and benefits of fuels treatments
- By combining types of fuel treatments (e.g. thinning, prescribed fire) in this review, a synthesis of the net benefits is oversimplified in this reviewer’s opinion. The reviewer recommends further definition of fuel treatment types and greater discussion of how net benefit studies differ with respect to treatment type.
Response: We added an appendix that provided additional detail on types of treatments considered in each study
- The authors only loosely define “other sectors of society”. The reviewer was left wondering where private forestland owners fit into the benefits derived from fuel treatment. Private forestland owners are the recipients of most of the revenue from forest products, so how are they considered in the literature? There is certainly a disconnect between stakeholders that incur costs and those that receive benefits. More discussion of how this is addressed in the literature is needed. Further, stakeholders that receive the benefit of reduced wildfire smoke constitute yet another distinct group.
Response: On lines 371-372 we indicate how private landowners were considered in the pool of studies and suggest it as an area in need of additional research.
- This reviewer suggests more details and/or discussion of how the google scholar search was conducted. On the surface, using only two keywords for a topic this rich in literature seems insufficient. This reviewer suggests either broadening the search or improving the justification for the search used here.
Response: We followed the guidelines articulated in Jahangirian et al. (2011) to search for relevant literature. Having used this guidance in previous literature reviews (Hunter and Robles 2020; Hunter et al. 2020), we are confident that it is an effective and appropriate method for literature searches.
Minor comments:
Response: We addressed all remaining comments with minor edits.
- Page 2, line 58: clarify definition of “encounter” in “wildfire encounters fuel treatment”
- Page 2, line 66: small typo
- Page 2, line 69: small typo
- Page 2, lines 69-72: This sentence is unclear. Recommend breaking up the sentence or rewriting for clarity.
- Page 3, lines 99-100: The question here (appears later too) is awkwardly worded. Consider rewording.
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- The primary weakness in this paper is in the details offered about the papers and evidence it draws on to reach its conclusions. The papers are cited in three results tables, which indicate whether the papers find fuel treatment benefits do or do no exceed costs. However, not further details about these papers are provided in the tables. While some cases details are provided in the text, it would help readers understand the tables to provide some context in these tables. For example, what were the methods of the studies? What is the study area? What assumptions do they make? Providing this information within the table may be possible if the Yes, no and both columns were combined into one.
Response: We added an appendix that includes additional details about each study, including study location.
- Relatedly, there is likely to be significant interest not just in whether benefits of fuel treatments exceed costs, but what are the magnitudes of the benefits and costs. If possible, summarizing these in the table would dramatically increase the utility of this review.
Response: In the appendix we included net value of fuel treatments for those studies that give some estimate of this.
- I was not able to make sense of the ‘averted losses’ columns within the tables. The table note seems to indicate that ‘averted losses’ studies differ from ‘net benefit’ studies. However, some studies are indicated to be both ‘averted losses’ studies as well as ‘net benefit studies. As well, my understanding of research question 1 is that pertains only to the implementation phases, and no to averted losses due to future fires. Therefore, I am confused as to why there are ‘averted losses’ studies included in table 1. Please clarify all of this.
Response: In lines 128-131 we provided additional explanation for including averted losses for carbon in the analysis for question 1. The description of ‘averted losses was also changed in each table.
- It would be helpful to define the scope of ‘fuel treatments’ considered in the study. My understanding is that you include studies on prescribed fire and mechanical thinning treatments. It would be good to say this explicitly.
Response: Additional details are provided in the added appendix.
Minor notes
Response: All the minor edits suggested below were addressed.
- Line 211 – “expected costs savings”, rather than “cost savings”
- Line 288 – Fuel treatments are designed to reduce fire intensity, not fire size. By reducing fire intensity, they can provide opportunities for firefighters, which can limit their size; however, this is an indirect effect. It seems that the discussion of the concept of leverage should mention this.
- Line 311 – “fixed costs” not “fix costs”
- Line 3611 – “Nonetheless”
Reviewer 3 Report
Review is clear and have relevance to the field. Cited references are relevant. Self citations are reasonable (see Ref. in Review 1,47,48,53). Statements and conclusions drawn coherent and supported by the citations (addition in word). In the chapter results tables properly show the data and they are easy to interpret and understand.
Most economic studies of wildfire management have focused on assessing wildfire economic impacts, understanding the economic questions surrounding wildfire suppression and prepositioning of suppression resources.
As authors mentioned in Introduction (34-36) .......numerous studies have demonstrated that fuel treatments are effective in improving ecosystem conditions...
In my opinion authors in chapter Discussion and conclusions (343-345) should improved with more citations that statement. In relations to non market valuation of benefits from fuel treatment; such as ecosystem values, wildlife habitat, opportunities for recreation and carbon credit.
I found that one of the key messages in that Review.
Author Response
In my opinion authors in chapter Discussion and conclusions (343-345) should improved with more citations that statement. In relations to non market valuation of benefits from fuel treatment; such as ecosystem values, wildlife habitat, opportunities for recreation and carbon credit.
Response: We added additional references to support this statement.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This reviewer is satisfied with the completed revision.
