A Multi-Risk Methodology for the Assessment of Climate Change Impacts in Coastal Zones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article concerns an important question related to adaptation to climate change, in coastal areas which are especially at risk

I consider the paper to be important from a practical point of view, both locally (for case study areas) and generally as a good example.

Some comments that I think should be considered below:

(line 183): Please explain who the expert is (what qualifications he should have, how his work will look like - this is relevant for the practical use of the proposed method). (line 581-585) Please add relevant publications that scientifically support the content presented. 6 The classes do not allow a clear assignment. Shouldn't it be, for example, 0-0.20; 0.21-0.30; 0.31-0.4? Please check it. The characteristics of the research area and description of data I propose to include in a separate chapter (then 2.5 - it will be 3.1, and 2.6 - 3.2). It is worthwhile to complement the scientific discussion with regard to comparing the methods used in the article with others used in modelling threats and to show its advantages.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study outlines multi-criteria assessment framework for coastal environment risks to multi-hazards. Though climate change and multiple hazards are mentioned as the reasoning for improving the framework, the case study only applies to storm surge and coastal erosion for vulnerability indicators, disregards sea level rises, extreme storm events, extreme temperature, etc. that could interact or counter the impacts from various hazard types. This study fails to address those and did not provide much innovations in studying risk assessment.

In addition, this study may be more suitable for journals such as Natural Hazards rather than sustainability. It is not clearly connected with sustainability science.

specific comments:

LINE 92-93 & LINE470 & LINE549: where are the “Chapters”? If this manuscript has been published in a book chapter, please reveal such information in compliance with academic integrity and ethics.

LINE588, 632: How would the five equal sized classes differ from quintile method? If the same, why not simply use quintile? Compress scale from 0 to 1 may result in the loss of resolution of variations in representing results.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper aims to present a methodology for assessing the climate change impacts in the coastal zone and in particular in the northern Adriatic coast. The authors consider three factors: the sea level rise, the storm surge and the coastal erosion. However, the authors didn’t explain how they consider the relationship between these three factors. Furthermore, the authors consider erosion observed during the season that do not correspond to the coastal trend but to the seasonal variations. The authors also do not consider the subsidence (as they explain in the text) but subsidence is a major factor in the Po Delta region and Veneto, where subsidence reaches 30 mm/yr (consequently greater than sea level rise due to climate changes), while the region of Trieste does not present subsidence phenomenon. The authors may use bibliographic data and consider the relative sea level rise.

The paper presents different weaknesses that need to be fixed.

the methodology should be better explain. In its present form, the methodology is confused and need to be simplified for instance by cancelling all the “elements” that are not related to the description of the methodology (for instance cancelling the lines 238 -258). The authors should focus on explaining the method and better explain the data they used. Another important aspect regards the experts for assessing the weight of the different variables. Generally, the experts are not the authors of the paper and details on the experts should be provided (what are the expertise of the authors). Why the authors didn’t contact other scientists or stakeholders (as generally done) to confirm their weight? The study area is also poorly described. It seems that only Venice is protected by hard defences (MOSE). However, almost all the Veneto coast is protected by hard defences; Trieste is a rocky coast. A better description of the study area should be provided It is not clear how the authors identify the limits of the study areas. The results are poorly described and not all the tables the authors cited are in the text. Furthermore, the results they described are not clearly observed in the figures. For instance, how can the authors identify the importance of erosion or storm surge on map showing mutli hazard (fig 3). The authors report the presence of artificial protections that attenuates the effect of coastal erosion on figure 3a, but this is not evident. Finally, the discussion is almost absent, there is no discussion section and the conclusion should be improved when the discussion will be presented. The authors should better describe the importance of their findings by comparing for instance with other studies or introduce new concept while the conclusion should demonstrate the importance of the study.

Therefore, I suggest to the authors to reorganized their paper following a more traditional plan:

Introduction method and study area results discussion conclusion

English should be reviewed by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the quality of the paper by adding important information and data. However, the paper needs further improvements before being published. The aim of the paper should be better  presented in the introduction. Authors should also better explain why they didn't use available subsidence data since this factor is "essential" for the evolution of the North Adriatic Coast (the authors also state in the conclusion that the method could be improved by integrating information related to subsidence for instance). The fact that "the extrapolation of subsidence values for the future based on past trends could lead to big errors" is not sufficient, since storm surge maps and coastal erosion maps due to climate change also present "errors".

Authors should add (at least in supplement data) information on the experts opinion (characteristics of the experts, number, what information have been asked to the experts...)

Discussion is still limited (short) and should be improved for instance by discussing the results obtained with the application of the method (what did the results highlight in term of understanding multi-hazards interactions, what are the weakness of this method compare to other methods).

Bibliography needs to be check

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx