Trend Analysis of Mainstreaming Flood Risk Reduction into Spatial Planning in Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the paper was shown transitions and challenges of flood reduction in Thailand. Main problems with flood managements was identified in this area. The paper is interesting for readers and is appropriate to Sustainability journal, because is forcused on multifactors analyses of flood problems and tools for flood protection. I think tha the paper can be accepted in Sustainability journal but I have few minor comments with ask to Author to discussion with them 
1. L35-36: What is link between COVID and flood damages? I am not sure if this should be mentioned.
2. L45-53: What is role climate variability and projected different scenarios on flood occur occured by climate change in Thailand? Deas this topic is include in plans to prevent of flood damage?
3. In few places chapters are started from figures. Authors should avoid these

Author Response

Thank you for the recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting. And some suggestions are as follows:

Major

1. Figure 3 shows the frequency of different codes for before and after 2011. How do authors get the frequency from the documents. For example, it uses some kinds of schemes to analyze the keywords of the same code.
2. Some frequencies of codes are zeros. Do the authors randomly select some codes by human eyes to check if the ATLAS.ti correctly reports the results? And how accurate is this software? Do the authors check if the software done what the authors want? How many documents are used in each case?
3. Do the authors perform a content analysis of the national policy of Thailand FRR and compare the results to those plans after 2011. Some consistency may be found between the two because the authors are likely to follow the national guide.
4. What is the sample size of the interview? And how do they represent the two cases and time? Discussion mentions some supports for the findings, but more is welcome. For example, why are some codes zero frequency? Does the interviewee report that the plan has this code, but the software doesn’t detect it or reports it doesn’t include it?
5. The background of the 2011 flood in the two cases is recommended, and does it relate to the new SP?

Minor

1. What is CLUP? Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
2. The authors stated, “At the time of writing this paper, Provinces of Thailand were flooding.” It seems true at this time, and the actual time is recommended to list for reference.
3. Some sentences are almost the same meaning and leave it only once. For example, lines 57-61 and 105-111.
4. Check the consistency of words. For example, “Since the 2011 floods” in line 113 and “She examines the 2011 flood in Thailand” in line 134. Or many floods occurred in 2011, but N. Singkran refers to one of them?
5. Some sentences lack subjects. A proofing reading is suggested.

Author Response

Thank you for the recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, my corrections in the attached PDF.

All the best.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. All comments are addressed. Some contents are already added in the manual script, and others are also recommended to add in the script. I think it's good for publication now.

Author Response

Thank you for your advice. After receiving the academic editor notes, I added some content and edited some language errors in the attached revised edition of my manuscript.