Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting study where authors meticulously investigated impact of future climate change on coastal flooding in Isola Sacra - Fiumicino and proposed an integrated approach for its sustainable urban development. The manuscript is well written and do justification with the topic. However, there is a critical issue of uncertainty estimation which needs  to be included. For example, authors have made planning under scenarios with different return periods. But what is the uncertainty in the measurements were not discussed. Similarly, in case of future climate change scenarios, they simply used projection data without mentioning SSPs. The range of variation in projected climatic variables are quite large under different emission scenarios. This will lead to large uncertainty in the estimated area. Therefore, I recommend for the major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

COMMENT TO AUTHORS

Review for the climate-proof planning towards the ecological transition. Isola Sacra - Fiumicino (Italy) between flood risk and urban development prospectives, by Mariano et al. (2023).

This manuscript attempts to examine climate-proof planning toward the ecological transition between flood risk and urban development prospects. Extreme climate events particularly flood hazards continue to pause threats and devastating impacts on society, economy, and agriculture across many regions globally. A comprehensive understanding of their development and occurrences, with key mechanisms initiating and amplifying them, remains a relevant approach. From this point of view, examining hydro-meteorological factors associated with the recent occurrence of extreme flood events over vulnerable regions like Italy is of great importance and relevant information to the scientific community. Overall, the study statistical downscaling approaches for defining the evaluation of forecasting of meteorological parameters and flood risks in Italy. However, major flaws exist in the present research approach and the results reported in the current version manuscript. The reviewer therefore would like to recommend this manuscript be returned to the authors for Major Revisions. My comments are given below;

1. Overall, the paper suffers from too many grammatical issues at this time. These issues prevent a productive review process from occurring at this time. The authors are encouraged to overhaul their writing and resubmit a more cogent manuscript with a better-articulated narrative.

Regarding the abstract, the first sentences are out of sense and have no scientific, especially in terms of the present study objectives. On the other hand, the main results are not considered in the abstract, thus, the authors are suggested to concentrate on the main findings rather than explaining the problems. Same as the concluding remarks are unclear.

The introduction section is not impressive with very less arguments. The authors are recommended to pay more attention to the introduction and extend it to the standard level. Besides, the objectives section brings to the introduction the last paragraph. Please extend and discuss this section about the recent global warming in terms of heat extremes, precipitation, and flood; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021EF002240

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148162; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022169421014153

The figure's captions are very confusing, please explain well each figure's caption for the reader's interest and easy understanding.

The conclusion section needs more attention and please more about the results. Besides, the conclusion needs concluding remarks for the development of efficient and effective adaptation and mitigation strategies across Italy.

 

Moderate editing of English language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Following are some comments:

1.       The background description in the abstract repeats the first paragraph in the introduction. I think the background in the abstract needs to be refined.

2.       In the introduction section, the authors do not describe clearly the importance of the research question.

3.       In the fifth paragraph of the introduction part, there is no detailed description of how climate change causes complex interactions between different factors.

4.       In the part of introduction, the innovation of this paper and the contribution of previous studies have not been clearly expressed.

5.       The section of “Result and discussion” focuses more on the description of the results and the discussion does not describe in depth the differences between the conclusions of this paper and those of other scholars. You could refer to this article: Spatiotemporal Change of Ecologic Environment Quality and Human Interaction Factors in Three Gorges Ecologic Economic Corridor, Based on RSEI.

6.       In the conclusion part, it is suggested that the author can increase the shortcomings of this study and provide future research directions. The following literature will help your research: Local and tele-coupling development between carbon emission and ecologic environment quality.

7.       The format of the figure and its title should be consistent in the text, please further check and verify, such as " the Figure 1. and the Figure 4.".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have incorporated most of my suggestions in the revised manuscript, therefore I recommend for publications. 

Best wishes

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments given during the first round of reviews, we believe that these have contributed to making the work better.

Reviewer 2 Report

No more comments.

Minor editing of English are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

We still think the authors should do a concession modify before it could be accept. (1) We think in introduction part, the last one paragraph should contain "research gap and contribution". But authors wrote this paragraph in a wrong way. (2) The discussion part are still not deep enough. (3)The shorting comings of the research were too long. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

It could be accept.