Sequential Disaster Forensics: A Case Study on Direct and Socio-Economic Impacts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study presents a disaster analysis of flood impacts at two events in Grimma, a city in Germany. Based on the relatively new approach of sequential disaster forensics, the authors present several causes, impacts and changes as consequence of two major flood events in 2002 and 2013.
The applied methodology, the results and conclusions present a novel concept and compelling new insights on the two flood events. With some necessary minor improvements (see specific comments) I believe this manuscript is eligible for publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
Specific comments:
Section (1.) The second objective (data) should be the first objective. Based on the identified data the contribution of the sequential application can be measured.
(3.1.) The initial soil moisture should be explained in more detail i.e. Grimma's antecedent precipitation (how many days in advance?). What does 39mm of soil moisture mean for Grimma? Which distribution function has been used to come up with these return periods? The differences of the physical parameters should be explained in more detail as these belong to the root causes of loss and damage. A visualization of the affected area would be of great help, e.g. a map of the city with an outline of the submerged area at both events.
(3.2.) Has the previous Headquarter been damaged in the 2002 flood? Has any damage happened in the 2013 flood?
(3.3.1.) Did groundwater flooding have any part in the 2002 flooding?
(3.4.) The insignificant protection of the flood wall under construction could have been already mentioned in section 3.3.1.
(3.6.) Did any insured losses occur? Did any shops / offices / factories had to close for good i.e. got bankrupt or moved away?
(3.8.) last paragraph) The paragraph starting with "Concerning..." should be moved to the "material and method section"
(4.) This is a mere conclusion, no findings are discussed, and no comparisons to other "forensic analyses" are drawn. I also miss a clear representation and discussion of the improvements, the deficiencies, and suggestions for future improvements (as basic features of a forensic analysis) in disaster prevention/reduction in Grimma.
Author Response
Reply to Expert reviewer #1
We thank all reviewers for the thorough revision and the helpful suggestions!
The manuscript has been comprehensively revised in terms of content and language.
We have considered the specific comments and suggestions of Expert Reviewer #1 as listed below:
Section (1.) The second objective (data) should be the first objective. Based on the identified data the contribution of the sequential application can be measured.
L90-93: We followed this suggestion and reordered the objectives in this sentence.
(3.1.) The initial soil moisture should be explained in more detail i.e. Grimma's antecedent precipitation (how many days in advance?). What does 39mm of soil moisture mean for Grimma? Which distribution function has been used to come up with these return periods? The differences of the physical parameters should be explained in more detail as these belong to the root causes of loss and damage. A visualization of the affected area would be of great help, e.g. a map of the city with an outline of the submerged area at both events.
L200-206: We have explained the methods for comparing soil moisture conditions for both events and related them to the history of the observations.
L 90-91: The observation methods and distribution functions used to define the indicators in Table 1 (e.g. return periods) were the same in both cases (e.g. Pearson Type III and Gumble).
Fig. 2: We also added a visualization of the flood area of the events.
(3.2.) Has the previous Headquarter been damaged in the 2002 flood? Has any damage happened in the 2013 flood?
We investigated these questions, but were unable to verify damage during the 2002 floods (when the old centre was not yet in the flood area) or during the 2013 floods (when the centre was moved to its new location within the flood area).
(3.3.1.) Did groundwater flooding have any part in the 2002 flooding?
L-259-272: Groundwater floods played a major role in all flood events in Grimma, including the two study events in 2002 and 2013. It was only after 2013 that it was systematically integrated into the newly constructed protection infrastructure, as we explain in this additional section.
(3.4.) The insignificant protection of the flood wall under construction could have been already mentioned in section 3.3.1.
L259-288: The insufficiency of the flood wall is now being explained in section 3.3.1
(3.6.) Did any insured losses occur? Did any shops / offices / factories had to close for good i.e. got bankrupt or moved away?
L456-477: We have examined these issues in detail and found that the general lack of insurance for buildings and businesses in the flood-prone areas of Grimma has had a painful impact on residents and private businesses in both flood events analysed. The different availability of state aid in 2013 compared to 2002 thus had its full effect, i.e. it was not dampened by private insurance.
(3.8.) last paragraph) The paragraph starting with "Concerning..." should be moved to the "material and method section"
L100-109: We have moved the mentioned paragraph to section 2.
(4.) This is a mere conclusion, no findings are discussed, and no comparisons to other "forensic analyses" are drawn. I also miss a clear representation and discussion of the improvements, the deficiencies, and suggestions for future improvements (as basic features of a forensic analysis) in disaster prevention/reduction in Grimma.
L35-45: We added lessons learnt-recommendations from our disaster forensics.
L76-81: We added a paragraph of the merits of the sequential approach of disaster forensics.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The article Sequential Disaster Forensics: A case study on direct and socio-economic impacts (article ID 578172) presents the results of a disaster forensics by analysing the subsequent floods in 2002 and 2013 in an area in Germany. The article is well argumented and brings new insights into disaster risk reduction area, which is very much needed especially over the last years.
At this stage, I would recommend an extensive revision. The overall English of the manuscript is good, maybe with some minor spelling errors and some sloppy expressions, which I have detailed below. Also, to, the article needs more references, as the authors do not tackle the terms hazard, exposure and vulnerability; they are just mentioned at the end of the Materials and Methods section.
The full address of the authors should be filled in.
L12: replace “societies” with “society”
The issue is tackled in the Introduction section is a very succinct manner; you should develop better this section, as it is the backbone for which you approached this study. In order to do that, try and consult but not limited to the following references:
Stefanidis, D. Stathis, Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Nat. Hazards 68 (2) (2013) 569–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0639-5. Canuti, N. Casagli, F. Catani, R. Fanti, Hydrogeological hazard risk in archaeological sites: some case studies in Italy, J. Cult. Herit. 1 (2) (2000) 117–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2074(00)00158-8. C. Nicu, Cultural heritage assessment and vulnerability using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems (Valea Oii catchment, North-eastern Romania). An approach to historical maps, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 20 (2016) 103-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.015. Godfrey, R.L. Ciurean, C.J. van Westen, N.C. Kingma, T. Glade, Assessing vulnerability of buildings to hydro-meteorological hazards using an expert based approach – an application in Nehoiu Valley, Romania, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 13 (2015) 229–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.001.
In the Materials and Methods section, you should include a flow chart of your methodology employed; as just reading it, you get a bit confused. It will strongly benefit if a flow chart will be included. Same goes for the Introduction section: a figure showing all the “organisations” you mentioned and how they overlap and/or complete each other, and what does it differentiate them.
Since your study is about flooding, and your method includes the analysis of archival images, photos, etc., there is no photo showing the intensity of the flood (e.g. houses or roads destroyed, etc.); this will also have a higher impact of your paper, even though it is a theoretical one. Please, correct.
L146: a hydrograph showing the flood peak for both 2002 and 2013 will improve your paper quality; also, try to include in the graph the average values, so that these two events are properly highlighted.
Section 3.2.: there is no need to make a full stop after each sentence; a paragraph has usually from 2 up to 4 sentences; please, correct
L181: the mayor give the interview to you or to a television/radio station? And if you had interviews with people, what were the questions asked?
L199: here you mention the cultural heritage being affected by flooding; you should also tackle this issue in the Introduction Section, as cultural heritage is one of the most important assets that is affected by flooding. Please, have a look at:
Usmanov, I.C. Nicu, I. Gainullin, P. Khomyakov, Monitoring and assessing the destruction of archaeological sites from Kuibyshev reservoir coastline, Tatarstan Republic, Russian Federation. A case study, J. Coast. Conserv. 22 (2018) 417-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-017-0590-9. J. Howard, Managing global heritage in the face of future climate change: the importance of understanding geological and geomorphological processes and hazards. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 19(7) (2013) 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.681680.
L203: some photos with the wall designed to protect the medieval wall.
Could you compare the “Lessons Learned” with another case of flooding from another part of the world? In this way, we could have a better image of how the local authorities managed to actually “learn” something from the two flood events.
Good luck with the revision!
Author Response
Reply to Expert reviewer #2
We thank all reviewers for the thorough revision and the helpful suggestions!
The manuscript has been comprehensively revised in terms of content and language.
Specifically in response to the comments of Expert reviewer #2, we have:
L5-8: Inserted our complete addresses in the header
L40-51: Added a special section in the introduction to clarify the terms hazard, exposure and vulnerability from the outset.
We consulted the suggested literature and added some pertinent references.
Introduction+Materials and Methods: We extended these “backbone sections” of our paper, expanded the theoretical foundations and the methodology of disaster forensics (methods, workflows, data) in detail.
Since your study is about flooding, and your method includes the analysis of archival images, photos, etc., there is no photo showing the intensity of the flood (e.g. houses or roads destroyed, etc.); this will also have a higher impact of your paper, even though it is a theoretical one. Please, correct.
We have added several pictures and photos (on request, Fig. 2-3).
In the Materials and Methods section, you should include a flow chart of your methodology employed; as just reading it, you get a bit confused. It will strongly benefit if a flow chart will be included. Same goes for the Introduction section: a figure showing all the “organisations” you mentioned and how they overlap and/or complete each other, and what does it differentiate them.
We included a flow chart of our methodology employed (Fig. 1). We added a table (table 1) with a comparison of the different forensic methods from the cited “organisations”.
L146: a hydrograph showing the flood peak for both 2002 and 2013 will improve your paper quality; also, try to include in the graph the average values, so that these two events are properly highlighted.
We have explored the possibility, but do not have enough values available, to create both diagrams in an elegant way, and would ask the reviewer to agree that, given the overall need for revision requirements, we would focus more on vulnerability and impacts.
Section 3.2.: there is no need to make a full stop after each sentence; a paragraph has usually from 2 up to 4 sentences; please, correct
Corrected throughout
L181: the mayor give the interview to you or to a television/radio station? And if you had interviews with people, what were the questions asked?
The in-depth interviews evaluated in the context of this study (including the questions asked) are now listed in Annex 1 (L88 ff).
L199: here you mention the cultural heritage being affected by flooding; you should also tackle this issue in the Introduction Section, as cultural heritage is one of the most important assets that is affected by flooding. Please, have a look at:
We included cultural heritage aspects in this version at various sections (L 41: definition; L75-76: methods) and referenced Howard (2013), Romão et al. ( 2016) and Usmanov et al. (2018).
L203: some photos with the wall designed to protect the medieval wall.
We included some wall photos in this version (Fig. 4; Fig. 5).
Could you compare the “Lessons Learned” with another case of flooding from another part of the world? In this way, we could have a better image of how the local authorities managed to actually “learn” something from the two flood events.
L35-45: We added lessons learnt-recommendations from our disaster forensics.
L76-81: We added a paragraph of the merits of the sequential approach of disaster forensics.
Minor correction:
L12: We replaced “societies” with “society”
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript compares two flood case studies and attempts to determine direct and socio-economic impacts of these disasters. Authors have used significant amount of data collected through field work and secondary sources, however, there are several limitations that situate this manuscript as unpublishable at this stage.
- A more thorough introduction is required with theoretically grounded positioning of its arguments. Although the title mentions about socio-economic impacts, it does not provide any details on that. The manuscript discusses about the dynamics of hazard over the time but it fails to acknowledge that social vulnerability also changes over the period of time.
- As it frequently refers to many places of study area, a study area map with those descriptions is required to readers understand the context of this research.
- The manuscript does not provide details on sources of data, numbers of interviews, who were interviewed and their descriptive statistics as different population experience different impacts of a disastrous event. And it is particularly very important when a community experiences high magnitude of a disaster within relatively short period of time.
-Authors have put immense efforts on to elaborate and compare both events but failed to connect those comparisons to rich literature of disaster outcomes, impacts of hazards on societies, post-disaster reconstruction, and resiliency and recovery of a society.
-It is surprising to see that a manuscript is completed without conclusion of the study.
The manuscript’s main scholarly potential is to compare two disastrous flood events on the community scale in order to contribute to the larger discourse of disaster recovery, resiliency and risk reduction, and support local officers and policy makers in the study area in particular. However, the manuscript falls short in this domain. The manuscript demands major revisions which may or may not elevate it to a publishable standard.
Author Response
Reply to Expert reviewer #3
We thank all reviewers for the thorough revision and the helpful suggestions!
The manuscript has been comprehensively revised in terms of content and language.
Responding to the comments of Expert Reviewer #3, we have expanded our introduction and the theoretical foundations of the concept of disaster forensics (methods, workflows, data) in detail.
Other more specific comments and suggestions of Expert Reviewer #3 were considered as listed below:
- Although the title mentions about socio-economic impacts, it does not provide any details on that. The manuscript discusses about the dynamics of hazard over the time but it fails to acknowledge that social vulnerability also changes over the period of time.
L42-46: We have defined, detailed and reference our concept of socio-economic impacts.
We have broadened our view on social vulnerability in the time sequence studied in various dimensions:
L252-256: Age structure
L425-432: Health and psychological impacts
L456-477: Economic impacts
- As it frequently refers to many places of study area, a study area map with those descriptions is required to readers understand the context of this research.
Fig. 2: We also added a visualization of the flood area of the events.
- The manuscript does not provide details on sources of data, numbers of interviews, who were interviewed and their descriptive statistics as different population experience different impacts of a disastrous event. And it is particularly very important when a community experiences high magnitude of a disaster within relatively short period of time.
This disaster forensics is based on different primary data sets of different types: quantitative and qualitative, hazards, vulnerability and socio-economic impacts. The in-depth interviews evaluated in the context of this study (including the questions asked) are now listed in Annex 1 (L88 ff)
- Authors have put immense efforts on to elaborate and compare both events but failed to connect those comparisons to rich literature of disaster outcomes, impacts of hazards on societies, post-disaster reconstruction, and resiliency and recovery of a society.
We have enlarged our theoretical basis and reference to other studies substantially to address this request [37 instead of 17 sources referenced]
- It is surprising to see that a manuscript is completed without conclusion of the study.
L35-45: We added lessons learnt-recommendations from our disaster forensics.
Reviewer 4 Report
Abstract:
"Disaster risk and losses have been steadily rising in the past decades"
The latter needs to be substantiated with a reference / data. In any case, this may be a reflection of economic valuation of assets, typically rated higher in cities and developed countries than in rural areas and developing countries.
Otherwise good.
1. Introduction
Very clearly written, and sets up the motivation and agenda well.
2. Materials and Methods
Very good & clear.
Could make clear the different in the severity of flooding here as one factor to start with, referring to Hazard indicators (Table 1) pesented below.
"On 13 August 2002, Grimma was hit by a severe flooding that affected over 2000 people. About 1000 inhabitants were evacuated and 150 had to be rescued. The economic losses for Grimma (including the city centre and two smaller villages) amounted to over 230 million euros.
On 1 and 2 June 2013, Grimma was again hit by flooding. In this case, all residents were evacuated from the historical centre and some of them had to be rescued again. The monetary damage caused by the floods totalled around 150 million euros."
3. Results
Very good presentation and analysis of a large range of data, fully triangulated.
4. Discussion
Succinct and meaningful.
Author Response
Reply to Expert reviewer #4
The manuscript has been comprehensively revised in terms of content and language.
In response to the comments of Expert reviewer #4, we have specifically substantiated the claim that "catastrophe risks and losses have steadily increased in recent decades" with additional references [1-6] and data [L29-35].
L 174-180*): We have highlighted the difference in the severity of the floods, referring to hazard indicators in Table 2 (in the new numbering) as follows.
*) “On 13 August 2002, Grimma was hit by a severe flooding, with water depths of around 4 m and where about 1000 inhabitants were evacuated and 150 had to be rescued. The economic losses for Grimma (including the city center and two smaller villages) amounted to over 230 million euros.
On 1 and 2 June 2013, Grimma was again hit by flooding with water depths close to 2 m. In this case, all residents were evacuated from the historical center and some of them had to be rescued again. The monetary damage caused by the floods totaled around 150 million euros.”
Thank you for your helpful suggestions!
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The revised version of the manuscript looks and sounds much better. Congrats!
Author Response
Thank you for your very helpful review!
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you so much for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments from the reviewers. Addition of paragraphs in the Introduction section and few other paragraphs have improved the manuscript greatly. However, there are few issues that need to be addressed.
My major comment on this revised manuscript is: it still does not clearly state about what methods are used for the analysis. You cannot simply make a framework and mention that you have used ‘statistical analysis of quantitative and qualitative data’, ‘study of orthophotos/satellite images’, and ‘graphical representation of data’. You need to elaborate on all the methods that you have used. If you have used other’s result, such sources of the data analysis and results should be properly acknowledged. Towards the end of the manuscript, authors argue that both flood events of 2002 and 2013 are sequential disaster but the preceding sections of the manuscript does not deal into it.
Additionally, one of the objectives of the manuscript is ‘what data is needed to conduct a disaster forensic analysis’. It does not provide a clear answer to it. A map of the flooded area is provided but it does not provide a clear sense of a study area. The manuscript deals about the flood in Grimma but the name of the river, which is flooded twice, is not mentioned. Likewise, where the city center is, police station and few other names that are mentioned in the manuscript.
I feel that the manuscript can highlight more about the efficiency of local early warning system. A solid discussion about its performance during 2013 flood event particularly can show a lesson to all disaster risk reduction and preparedness communities. Also, the manuscript points out that some households were not fully recovered from the impact of previous flood (2002 event) when they were hit by 2013 event. This is another strong point that the manuscript can explore on how differential vulnerability can lead to differential disaster impact and recovery in the long run.
Other comments:
L44: Please do not use term ‘natural disaster’. Only hazards are natural and when these hazards strike a social system it turns into a disaster.
L46: Elaborate ‘particularly in underdeveloped regions or regions in development’. Did you mean that vulnerability is higher in underdeveloped regions?
L68-71: You can shorten the paragraph by removing this.
L 128-152: Table 1 and the following paragraph is NOT a method. It can be removed or moved to Intro section. Instead, you can create a table (or expand table 2) with all the data that you have used/consulted for this work.
L 156: You cannot SIMPLY mention that ‘different data analysis and representation techniques’ were used. All the methods should be explained. If secondary sources are used for the analysis, it should be mentioned with proper citation.
L 167-170: It is not a result. You may like to create a subsection ‘Study Area description’ and keep these details on that section.
L 174-179: It is also not a result. Please provide sources for both paragraphs.
L 186-189: It is not a result too.
L 190: Which statistical methods?
L 193: The reference is not in English. Pls mention that in the Reference.
L 197: It’s interesting to know that both events were characterized by pre-humidity. Please elaborate on that so that readers can understand more.
L 200-204: It’s not clear what you are weighting and why.
L 208: ‘both floods being almost coincident due to Grimma’s topography’, explain it.
L 216-220: Provide source(s).
L 222: ‘based on data’, what type of data? How that polygon was drawn? Does it represent flood inundation area after both events?
L 223: Provide scale of the map. Make other markers of the map legible.
Line 227: Which media reports and how many reports? The source is linked to Master Thesis which is not in English too.
L 232: SOURCE of resident’s survey?
L 235: Which figure does represent a and b. Please mark them clearly.
L 241: What are these satellite images? And which method was used to study them?
L 260-261: Provide source(s).
L 261: Who is Mr. Guhlemann?
L 289: Why do you have similar figures (Figure 4 and 5)?
L 297-305: A description about impact and efficiency of early warning system esp. in 2013 flood would be more interesting than how actually it works.
L 317: Please elaborate on ‘interviews’.
L 335-337: Repeating sentences.
L 354: Source of the data on the table 4.
L 370: Saxony? The work is focused on Grimma, right?
L 379: Please make this pie chart bigger so that it can be easily read. Also, this about distinct color so that readers can easily compare between two events.
L 441: Explain ‘Bundestag’.
L 506: Elaborate on how local early system was effective given that very few social contexts are discussed on the manuscript.
L 519-520: Elaborate and substantiate your claim ‘a negative attitude of the population and the mayor as well as a negative image in the media’.
L 521: ‘previous experience’ of whom?
L 522-525: Please provide source(s).
L 606: Please provide specific date.
L 619: Please check author details.
Author Response
Thank you for another thorough review of our paper. We have focused on your main concern in explaining and documenting the data sources and methods by
(1) including additional evidence in the text (e.g. IKSE 2004, cost-effectiveness of the EWS) and
(2) creating a separate appendix 2 of all data and sources used for this forensic study (in addition to the interviews listed in appendix 1).
Following your review, our paper clearly advances the disaster forensics approach in terms of understanding the data requirements to work towards local policy proposals based on the concept of sequential event analysis.
Specific comments:
L44: Please do not use term ‘natural disaster’. Only hazards are natural and when these hazards strike a social system it turns into a disaster.
We erased the attribute ‘natural’ in L44.
L46: Elaborate ‘particularly in underdeveloped regions or regions in development’. Did you mean that vulnerability is higher in underdeveloped regions?
We erased this term and the ancillary sentence in L46.
L68-71: You can shorten the paragraph by removing this.
We removed the sentence in L68-72.
L 128-152: Table 1 and the following paragraph is NOT a method. It can be removed or moved to Intro section. Instead, you can create a table (or expand table 2) with all the data that you have used/consulted for this work.
The classification of our frameworks in the field of different disaster forensics methods was asked for by another reviewer.
L 156: You cannot SIMPLY mention that ‘different data analysis and representation techniques’ were used. All the methods should be explained. If secondary sources are used for the analysis, it should be mentioned with proper citation.
We created a separate table on data, methods and sources in the appendix 2.
L 167-170: It is not a result. You may like to create a subsection ‘Study Area description’ and keep these details on that section.
We renamed the section accordingly as ‘case study design’ (encompassing location and time) and ‘results’, so: ’Case study design and results’ (section title).
L 174-179: It is also not a result. Please provide sources for both paragraphs.
The purpose of this paragraph is to provide details of the timing and the key data on economic losses of the events examined.
L 186-189: It is not a result too.
This sentence explains the hazard indicators selected by us and classifies them in the commonly used disaster forensics indicator catalogue.
L 190: Which statistical methods?
Since the methods and assumptions of all 13 indicators would be lengthy to explain, we have taken one example (calculation of return periods) to illustrate that we applied a harmonized approach in Table 1, i.e. that the indicators were consistently applied in both cases.
L 193: The reference is not in English. Pls mention that in the Reference.
We mentioned it in all references used in table 1 [i.e. 25, 27, etc.] and in the reference list.
L 197: It’s interesting to know that both events were characterized by pre-humidity. Please elaborate on that so that readers can understand more.
We explained the weighting procedure of antecedent precipitation in L 201-204 (following source 27, which is in German).
L 200-204: It’s not clear what you are weighting and why.
We weigh the antecedent precipitation at the (analogue) rain gauge measuring station Wechselburg 1, again following [27].
L 208: ‘both floods being almost coincident due to Grimma’s topography’, explain it.
We added an explanation to L 208-211.
L 216-220: Provide source(s).
We added appendix 2, a table specifying the data sources.
L 222: ‘based on data’, what type of data? How that polygon was drawn? Does it represent flood inundation area after both events?
We used inundation area graphs based on aerial photos from the Saxony State Office for Environment, Agriculture and Geology and added the source to the list of references.
L 223: Provide scale of the map. Make other markers of the map legible.
Unfortunately we cannot modify the picture.
L 227: Which media reports and how many reports? The source is linked to Master Thesis which is not in English too.
We exchanged the source at L 227 and instead used an IKSE (i.e. International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River) report on 2002 which is, however, also in German.
L 232: SOURCE of resident’s survey?
We added and sourced the data set used to the appendix 2.
L 235: Which figure does represent a and b. Please mark them clearly.
We marked it more clearly in Fig. 3.
L 241: What are these satellite images? And which method was used to study them?
We have used satellite images in an ancillary study but not in this study; thus, we erased mentioning of satellite images in L 241.
L 260-261: Provide source(s).
The exact wording of the corresponding interview with Mr Guhlemann is contained in Appendix 2.
L 261: Who is Mr. Guhlemann?
Mr. Guhlemann is the Director of Grimma's Civil Engineering. We added his affiliation in L 261.
L 289: Why do you have similar figures (Figure 4 and 5)?
We removed Figure 5.
L 297-305: A description about impact and efficiency of early warning system esp. in 2013 flood would be more interesting than how actually it works.
We describe the impacts and efficiency of the EWS more in depth, adding its potential to mobilize efforts on emergency measures and cost in section 3.5.1.
L 317: Please elaborate on ‘interviews’.
We added and sourced the data set used to the Appendix 1.
L 335-337: Repeating sentences.
This sentence supplements earlier mentions of the flood wall with the economic figures.
L 354: Source of the data on the table 4.
We added and sourced the data set used to the Appendix 1.
L 370: Saxony? The work is focused on Grimma, right?
We do not have a sectoral breakdown of flood damages in Grimma, thus used the one of Saxony for as an approximation.
L 379: Please make this pie chart bigger so that it can be easily read. Also, this about distinct color so that readers can easily compare between two events.
We enlarged the pies in figure 7.
L 441: Explain ‘Bundestag’.
Done.
L 506: Elaborate on how local early system was effective given that very few social contexts are discussed on the manuscript.
We added evidence on effectiveness and (low) cost to the paper in section 3.5.1.
L 519-520: Elaborate and substantiate your claim ‘a negative attitude of the population and the mayor as well as a negative image in the media’.
As mentioned at Appendix 2 by Mayor Berger (2013).
L 521: ‘previous experience’ of whom?
Based on the experiences of the case study.
L 522-525: Please provide source(s).
This concluding sentence is based on our own judgement in the light of this case study.
L 606: Please provide specific date.
We accessed the UNISDR Terminology report along reliefweb on 29 September 2019
L 619: Please check author details.
Corrected (thx).
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Great! The manuscript looks much better now.
