Reacción a "The global population exposed to fires has increased by 40% in twenty years"

The article has several serious shortcomings. From a conceptual standpoint, it equates exposure with wildland-urban interfaces (WUIs), which is reductionist and inaccurate. Human exposure to fires is much broader and is not limited to these risk areas. Second, it treats WUIs in a generic manner, which is incorrect given the wide variety of cases that exist. Furthermore, it does not even define the general term as used in the article. Thirdly, it treats these areas in the same way and gives them the same meaning across all continents, which is also inaccurate since they are the result of different territorial dynamics, at different times and at different rates.  

The article also lacks methodological rigor in its handling of spatial-temporal scales. Nor does it specify the sources of information it uses. The comparative analysis and results it presents are inconsistent. The conclusions lack scientific basis and do not make any serious contributions.