Place-Based Citizen Science for Assessing Risk Perception and Coping Capacity of Households Affected by Multiple Hazards
, Maria José de Sousa Cordão 2, Slobodan Djordjević 1 and Akbar A. Javadi 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an interesting study with empirical data collected from Campina Grande to investigate the risk perception and coping capacity of households facing flooding and water shortage.
My major concern of this paper is, many results or facts presented in this paper have already been discovered in the existing literature. What is the new finding? What is the contribution of this research to the state of art? Does the sample have enough representativeness for the region? These all need to be further distilled from the paper.
What is the rationale for investigating the drought and flooding together, other than they all water-related?
Did the author investigate the water shortage during the flooding? I think that would be an interesting aspect of this research, instead of investigating them individually.
Table 2, since the author also interviewed authorities, what are their opinion on the residents' identified mitigation measures?
The label in figure 2 is confusing. What do you mean by the different labels on different scales?
There are many grammatic errors throughout the paper, I suggest the author thoroughly editing the language of the paper. For example,
- Line 38: intensity -> intensify
- Line 179: to face (and cope with)
- Line 482: are the only responsible
- And so on…
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for all the meaningful comments and suggestions. We have approached each one of the comments in the paper, and the responses can be found in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a very interesting and appropriate work to analyze the similarities and differences in risk perception and coping capacity of residents in the multiple-hazards context. This research is very welcome in order to have a particular vision of the situation on a regional scale and useful for policymaking.
Nevertheless, I suggest some recommendations in the following lines:
Line 110
How do the authors justify the sample size of 199 participants?
Line 195
In order to describe methods adequately, authors should systematize the conceptual structure of the methodological approach used. For instance, by means of a conceptual model which could describe the global approach to the research. The graphical abstract of this paper could help with this task: "Social vulnerability to natural hazards in tourist destinations of developed regions" (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135870).
Line 388
Results are described at a local-regional scale, but, could authors relate these results to a broader context (could authors find similar results or different conclusions at a federal or national scale?); for instance, by describing the role of the triad of societal challenges (only trust and incentives) at a federal or national scale, as well (in Paraíba or in Brazil).
Line 580 and line 600
Authors refer to perception as an isolated concept in these lines ("The findings show that residents have a high perception of flooding and water shortage" or
"improve perception and coping capacity"), but I feel that "perception" should be always together with some "subject" of perception, in this case "risk perception". Moreover, I would encourage authors to relate the "risk perception" to the "Social risk formula", namely: is this risk perception more related to the levels of territorial exposure or to the vulnerability experienced by participants? In order to answer this question, authors may use this work: "The social vulnerability approach for social impact assessment" (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.07.005).
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for all the meaningful comments and suggestions. We have approached each one of the comments in the paper, and the responses can be found in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
