Multi-Hazard Livelihood Security and Resilience of Lower Mekong Basin Communities

SN

Comment

Action

1

You must indicate the objective of the study in the introduction.

 Revised introduction section to highlight study objectives

2

Line 6-12. You need to add more details in the affiliation, such as zip code and city.

 Some revisions made.

3

Line 13: You must improve the abstract

No action undertaken

4

Line 30-61: You must improve the introduction.

Sections of the paper have been re-arranged and revised to reflect the reviewer's comments on the structure of the paper.

5

Line 62: You should not write a paragraph of literature review.

Corrected

6

Line 99: You should not write a paragraph on Challenges in LMB for climate variability

Corrected

7

Line 133: You must put km2 instead of km2.

Corrected

8

Line 134: You must put km3 instead of km3

Corrected

9

Line 135-136. The sentence is not necessary for that paragraph. It is not part of the study area.

Corrected

10

Line 149-151. Please check that the title of the figure is correct. I need help understanding what figure 2 is.

Corrected

11

Line 157: You must use SPI instead of Standardized Precipitation Index.

Corrected

12

Line 176-176: You should decrease the number of words in the table title

Corrected

13

Line 293: ¿What is TDD?

Added full forms of the abbreviations

14

Line 347: You should put m3/s instead m3/s

Corrected as suggested

15

Line 360. Do you think it is necessary to write a paragraph of the Concept of Livelihood Resilience Framework Development?

Corrected

16

Line 570: You should not use references in the conclusion.

Corrected

SN

Section

Comment

Action

1

Title

Acceptable. But the authors can also include some appropriate words in the title related to the objective of the study.

No action needed

2

Abstract

Need to mention the research method and the framework involved in this study.

Added in the abstract (L23)

3

Suggest the impact or contribution of the study can be included in the abstract.

Suggested use included in abstract (L26)

4

The abstract better only in one paragraph.

 No action

5

Introduction

Acceptable.

 No action

6

Methodology

Acceptable.

 No action

7

Results

Acceptable.

 No action

8

Discussion

The authors also can improve the way of writing in this section by combining the results of the study done with the results of previous studies using appropriate words such as "This study is in line with previous study by..."

Sections of the paper have been re-arranged and revised to reflect the reviewer's comments on the structure of the paper.

9

Conclusion

Please propose and suggest more possible future studies related to the current study.

1

The first three repeat the title, perhaps it would be possible to change them so that they give a better chance of searching for this article in databases?

revised the keywords

2

I propose to merge the Introduction with the Literature review and in this way present the exact background of the research in some logical order - e.g. first the importance of the river for people, then the existing and projected threats, and then the need to develop some way of dealing with the problems/those threats (i.e. the purpose of the work). Currently some information is repeated between these chapters.

The chapters of the paper have been re-arranged based on the comments received throughout the review report.

3

L37 - I suggest giving the full name of the LMB first for people who have not read the Abstract

Corrected (L36)

4

L43 - citation should be corrected to comply with journal requirements

Corrected

5

L69-70 – „In addition, anthropogenic actions are further pushing the LMB towards the risk zone” – which actions?

Added description of anthropogenic activities (L85-86)

6

Making one subsection in the middle of a chapter seems a baffling idea, rather unnecessary - I suggest removing L99

Removed

7

L102 - "and its member countries" - it would be appropriate to list in brackets which countries these are

Corrected (L119)

8

L102-103 - "significant scientific advances in sustainable water resources". - there seems to be some last word missing from the sentence - e.g. management?

Corrected (L120)

9

L120-121 – influencing positively or negatively?

The influences are varying across different aspects and communities.

10

L132 or 135 - please add here (Figure 1(a)) as it is not referred to anywhere in the text

Corrected (L33)

11

L135-136 - "70 million people reside inside the LMB's boundaries, and among them, 12 million people live in the basin area". - what is the difference between the first basin (LMB) and the second, at the end of the sentence? theoretically they should be one and the same. If these are different concepts/places, please mark the boundaries of this second basin in Fig. 1b, where the mentioned 12 million people live. Please also make it clear whether the study area is this first Basin or the second ( basin in Basin?). By the way – in Abstract we see 10 million…

Revised to "Seventy million people reside within the LMB's boundaries, among which more than 12 million people are directly dependent on the river basin for socio-economic and livelihood activities." L 38-41

12

L144-147 - why was Lao PDR omitted?

incorporated in the text

13

Fig. 1 - please enlarge to page width, it is currently not very readable

Corrected (L51)

14

L163-165 - reference to Table 1 is missing in this sentence

Added (L184)

15

L166 - "Table 1: SPI values and their interpretation" - this is wrong here, it should be above the table which is on the next page

Corrected (L186)

16

L169 - please explain for what purpose the authors "calculate the SPI values for time scales of 3, 6, 9 and 12, monthly time series" - what do the authors want to achieve by this?

Corrected (L 228-232)

17

L176, 179, 181-184 - these sources should be given as consecutive citation numbers

Added (L176-188)

18

L185-190 - I would move this earlier, to the previous page, where SPI is mentioned (I would weave it into the second paragraph of subsection 3.2, as some of the information is repeated anyway)

Adjusted (L184-188)

19

The description of the methodology should be completed with future climate change scenarios (which ones and from where) and the way the framework for action was developed (according to my further comments), and there is a lack of reference to the following mentioned in the Abstract: participatory approach, expert workshops and literature review.

References updated in the respective sections.

20

As the name of this chapter indicates, you should first present your original results (i.e. those whose method of obtaining them was presented in the previous Materials and Methods chapter), and only then provide a commentary on those original results. Meanwhile, this chapter begins with text that is more of a commentary, an element of discussion. It should, for the most part, only be found further on, after those sections that analyse the past 41 years. That is: first, what has happened over the 41 years in terms of the parameters studied (with commentary), then what is projected in relation to climate change and negative human actions (with commentary), and finally, how these problems can be addressed/increased resilience, how to prepare for the future (with commentary)

The Results and Discussion chapter has been rearranged into two chapters. Chapter 4 'Results' includes the original results derived from the methodologies (multi-hazard assessment & expert workshop) described in the Materials and Methods chapter. The discussion of the results has been moved to Chapter 5 'Discussion' with four sub-chapters (multi-hazard scenario in LMB, concept of livelihood and resilience in LMB, concept of resilience framework and finally the Livelihood Security and Resilience Assessment (LiSeRA) framework as the product of this paper.

21

L194 - what is the strategy in question?

Removed

22

L194-195 - "Climate change is expected to stress the LMB region's ecosystems." - projected effects of climate change should be described in more detail, according to different projections (what are the projected changes in temperatures, amount of precipitation, distribution of precipitation over the year, presence of wind storms, etc.? - what is likely to affect the LMB)

Corrected as suggested with additional references. (L434 - 436)

23

L195 – which „hydrological changes”?

Corrected (L354)

24

L202 - "the social dimension of vulnerability" - meaning what specifically?

Corrected (L362)

25

L215 - "are among them" - among what? additionally at the end is (IPCC), and there should be a specific citation

Corrected (L372-375)

26

L216-218 - this information is more to describe the location of the study. What about the months of April and October?

The section described the two major climate zone for LMB, dry wet summer and dry winter. The month of April and October is considered as intermediate months with moderate or average precipitation.

27

L219 - "varies from 0 mm to 950 mm". - In Fig. 2 the scale does not reach 950, at most 920. Please also add "average" before precipitation both in L219 and in the caption of Fig. 2

Corrected (L209)

28

Fig. 2 - it would be interesting to add two more maps - how this precipitation developed in 1981 and how in 2021.

Fig 2 included the precipitation data of 1981 and 2021

29

Below Fig. 2 - a brief analysis of the information in Fig. 2 is missing

Added (L199-208)

30

L228 - MRC - surely this is about commissions and not simply countries located in the LMB? probably would sound better

Revised to LMB (L380)

31

L232-234 - please explain in more detail the relationship between this conclusion and the change in yearly rice yields, as it is not very understandable

More explanation provided in the conclusion section

32

Fig. 3 - there is no reference to it in the text or any analysis or commentary. Did the data needed to prepare this graph come from the catalogue mentioned in the Materials and Methods chapter (https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/collection/floods/)? If so, please add this in that chapter (as it does not appear from the current description that there is data for 1981-2022 in the catalogue). If not, please provide the source of this information in Fig. 3.

Added reference and description in the text (L289-292)

33

L245 - "rural households frequently migrate" - this is too much of a mental shortcut, it is people who migrate, not farms

Corrected (L395)

34

L250 - 'hydropower dams' - does this refer to the Mekong River? and is it referring to existing dams or some that are being designed?

The statement refer to Mekong River and talks about existing and under construction dams. Citation provided.

35

L253-254 - "the LMB has long used irrigation..." - a mental shortcut - it is not the river valley that has used irrigation... The whole sentence should be corrected (as well as the next one). Next point - this sentence talks about flood protection, and earlier it was said that at least some flooding is beneficial (fertilisation etc.) - please clarify this in the text. There is also the wording "As can be seen... its ability to measure and interpret climate change trends is still developing." - I have so far not noticed something like this in the text, it would need to be supplemented

Corrected (L403-408)

36

L260-261 - "It allows for Spatio-temporal comparisons" - Figure 4 only allows for temporal comparison, so where is the spatial comparison?

Corrected to temporal (L214)

37

Fig. 4 - in the caption the letters a-d are mentioned, and they are not visible in the figure

Corrected (L221)

38

L274-277 - it may be worth adding further that drought periods have outnumbered wet periods since the beginning of the 21st century. This subsection lacks discussion, commentary - there is only a description of the results

Thanks for the remarks, we have added more descriptions as suggested.

39

L279-288 - this is a description of methodology, should be in chapter 3. In what unit is duration - days? months?

Shifted to methodology section (L187)

40

L290 - this section should look like this: "total (TDD), average (ADD) and maximum (MDD) dry duration".

Corrected (L 242)

41

L290-293 - please explain in more detail. Do you mean that there was a total (TTD) of maximum 112 dry months in 41 years? this comes out to about 23% of 41 years (492 months), and Fig. 4d shows a much larger red range than 23%. Why are the top ADD values in Table 2 so detailed? I understand that ADD and MDD are also counted in months?

Yes, for SPI-12 TDD value varies between 1-112. Fig 4d the represent TDD value with yellow colour. However Fig 5d represent TDI value which in red colour and different than TDD value. All ADD and MDD values are in months.

42

L293-294 - "The TDD is low in the upper part and high in middle to lower part of the LMB". - is this about height above sea level or latitude?

Latitude and higher density of the vegetation could be some of the factors for high TDD in the lower part of the LMB.

43

Fig. 5 - please enlarge the captions above and below the individual images as they are completely illegible

Corrected (Increased picture size for all drought characteristics maps)

44

There is a lack of discussion/commentary on the result shown in Fig. 5.

Explained in detail for Figure 5 as suggested.

45

L303 - 'The spatial distribution of total, average and maximum dry severity' - please complete with abbreviations analogous to the note for L290

Corrected (L256)

46

L306-309 - no sources of information for this section, more detail on this should be added as this is the Discussion that is needed. Also, for this paragraph/topic, won't the authors produce an analogous Table, like Tab. 2? a, ok, it's on, it's a bit too far, moreover there is no reference to this Table in paragraph L303-309

Text revised and Table 2 incorporated in the paragraph

47

Fig. 6 - please enlarge the captions above and below the individual images, as they are completely illegible

Corrected (increased picture size for all drought characteristics maps)

48

L315-318 - there is unnecessary repetition of data from Table 4 in this paragraph, and there is no reference to Table 4 and no explanation in this text for the abbreviations used in this Table

49

Fig. 7 - please enlarge the captions above and below the individual images as they are completely illegible

Corrected (increased picture size for all drought characteristics maps)

50

Discussion/commentary on the result shown in Fig. 7 is missing.

Figure 7 described in the text as suggested.

51

L337-342 - sources of information missing

52

Fig. 8 - please move the enlarged legend below the maps and enlarge the maps themselves. Add abbreviation (RP) in the caption after "return periods" to make it clear what the abbreviations on the maps mean

Corrected (increased picture size to make text readable)

53

L353-354 - unnecessary repetition of what can be seen in Fig. 8 (legend and description of maps)

Corrected (L315-321)

54

L356 - is the 30m really a realistic value? does this happen?

The deepest point of the map is in the river channel, therefore 30 m is realistic.

55

L357-359 - abbreviating slightly this sentence comes out: "Therefore, the flood event ... is highly affected by the flood event." - are you sure this is what was meant?

Corrected (L320-321)

56

There is a missing discussion/comment on the result shown in Fig. 8.

Figure 8 described in the text as suggested.

57

Chapters 5 and 6 - please very much select the theory itself from here and move it to the Materials and Methods section (as subsection 3.3), or even to the introduction, and in Materials and Methods present then only the specific assumptions made by the authors for the LMB. On the other hand, the effect of the authors' application of the theory to the LMB - together with a commentary/discussion - should be another subsection of the Results and Discussion section (as 4.5)

The Results and Discussion chapter has been rearranged into two chapters. Chapter 4 'Results' includes the original results derived from the methodologies (multi-hazard assessment & expert workshop) described in the Materials and Methods chapter. The discussion of the results has been moved to Chapter 5 'Discussion' with four sub-chapters (multi-hazard scenario in LMB, concept of livelihood and resilience in LMB, concept of resilience framework and finally the Livelihood Security and Resilience Assessment (LiSeRA) framework as the product of this paper.

58

L362-264 - repeated "in recent years"

Corrected (L409-412)

59

L380-391 - I would move this further to the end of the subsection. Information relating directly to Fig. 9 should be focused first. I also don't understand why the description to part of Fig. 9 (livelihood resilience) is in the next section instead of here?

Corrected. Added reference to the figure 9 and introduced the discussion in the paragraph (L419)

60

Fig. 9 - it is worth enlarging it. Please be aware of the citation method required by the journal. In addition, a reference to this Figure should be included in the text

Corrected: Increased picture size and added reference (L441)

61

L409 - the focus should be on the LMB (as per the title of the article), the reader does not know how much of the whole MRB is different from the LMB and how much is similar

Corrected (L457-458)

62

L417-419 - this should rather be in Conclusions (and an indication of this gap - at the end of the Introduction)

Moved to conclusion (L614)

63

L424 - little attention has previously been given to winds as a threat, it is worth adding to this

Corrected (L471)

64

L434-436 - did the authors of the article also realise something like this? if so, a detailed description of the methodology used should be included in the new subsection Materials and Methods (3.4)

Climate change factors are beyond the scope of the study and authors cited the Climate scenario from previous research.

65

Fig. 10 - please be aware of the citation method required by the journal. Could you please interpret those arrows on the right? In addition, a reference to this Figure should be included in the text

Corrected (L486)

66

L467 - no explanation for the abbreviation DFID

Corrected

67

L474-479 - this sentence needs to be reworked as it loops around (currently in a nutshell it is like this: "To fill the research gap on how to conceptually link resilience with the various livelihood dimensions by developing an indicator framework... it is necessary to investigate how to conceptually link resilience with the various livelihood dimensions by developing an indicator framework."

Corrected

68

L479 - once again there is the Mekong Delta, this is a narrower concept than the LMB study area, it is worth adding to this

Corrected

69

L488-491 - I'm already lost - are the authors already describing the process of developing their Framework here (some interviews/conversations with LMB stakeholders)? Or any general assumptions for creating such frameworks? This needs to be separated - theory and practice, as I have pointed out before

Moved to conclusion section

70

L500-501 - unexplained HLRA acronym. Did this happen in the LMB too?

HLRA full form included

71

L508-512 - this should be detailed in Materials and Methods (as subsection 3.4) - when did it happen, who specifically was invited to it, how did it proceed

Added in the methodology section (L201-205)

72

Table 5 - 3rd item for Vietnam - no numbers 3 and 4. And is there an element of analysis of what reduces resilience and therefore what needs to be done to mitigate this?

Corrected. The exercise provides the baseline idea to develop the indicators for LiSeRA tool.

73

L508/513 - "Prior to conceptualizing the framework for livelihood resilience", "Table 5: Information collected from Expert Workshop for finalizing the framework." - and where is the framework developed then, if this table is just the data to prepare such a framework? unless these wordings are not precise and this table is the framework. Please clarify this precisely. Furthermore, you don't see much of a connection between all these earlier maps and the creation of the concept/table - this should follow from each other, otherwise one might ask the question, what were the maps for?

Rearranged for clarity as discussed in earlier comments

74

L532-547 - please somehow link this more to the LMB and to Table 5, as it seems quite disconnected from the earlier results

This is a synthesis of the livelihood dimensions previously mentioned in the methodology section that the paper is primarily based on. The paragraph has been re-arranged to Chapter 5 'Discussions' to appropriately reflect this.

75

Fig. 11 - there is no reference to it in the text. There is also no commentary to it

Added reference. The subsequent text is the commentary for the figure (L 570-582)

76

L551-552 - "The proposed framework was built through rigorous stakeholder workshops, field data, and models". - this is poorly described in the methodology. Furthermore, I still don't know what the authors' final product is - what the framework ultimately looks like, what it consists of. There is a very mixed theory and practice (or there is a theory to which you cannot see the practice)

Final output has been described in Figure 12 with the LiSeRA framework, which talks about the integration of two dimension of livelihood security.

77

L559-560 - no citations for these documents

Corrected

78

L561-566 - this should be in the description of the methodology. L562-564 - which three dimensions?

Moved to methodology section

79

Fig. 12 - there is no reference to it in the text. Also, the font is too small and you can't see these smallest inscriptions on the glasses. The right part is not referenced much in the earlier text

(Source: Authors). Figure revised as suggested.

80

Here should be your own summaries of what has been achieved rather than another literature review

Conclusion section is revised to reflect author's summary (L 589 - 631)

1

Firstly, the framework lacks a clear theoretical foundation. The authors attempt to present several conceptual links from previous frameworks, but I missed a clear description on how their framework was developed and what theoretical perspectives have been adopted to guide its construction. A clearer theoretical foundation is necessary to ensure the robustness of the framework and its applicability in different contexts. Furthermore, what is the role of the experts’ workshop in the developed framework? These ought to be clarified in earlier sections before the result section.

More descriptions on the framework have been added for more clarity. Some of the sections are moved to literature review for better flow in the conceptual discussion.

2

Secondly, the presentation of the paper needs to be improved. Most of the content in the result section should be captured as a literature review providing a basis for this study. The authors should totally overhaul the presentation of the manuscript to improve its readability.

The paper structure has been revised and content relevant to literature review have been shifted from the discussion to literature review section

3

The authors may need to reframe their title “Multi-hazard livelihood security and resilience of Lower Mekong Basin communities”

After careful consideration of the content and revision of the structure of the paper, authors are keeping the title unchanged.

4

Firstly, the word “Multi” implies many, while the study assesses only droughts and floods.

Only droughts and floods have been assessed as they are identified as primary hazards in the area.

5

Secondly, my understanding of the concept of “multi-hazard” depicts a situation where multiple hazards co-occur. Since floods and droughts are accessed in this study, do they occur simultaneously?

Multi-hazards in the context of this paper is the exposure of the communities to multiple hazards, however, which may not necessarily co-occur.

6

Thirdly, the title and the declared aim of the study does not align with the bulk of the efforts of the study, which proposes a resilience framework.

The objective of the study was to consolidate the perspectives of livelihood security and resilience in the LMB region discussed in previous literature and develop them into a holistic framework.

7

For a clearer context, kindly clarify the features of the LMB that are changing according to your Lines 49 -51 “The Mekong as a river is getting less attention in the changing phenomena of modern politics as changes in the features of this enormous river can be noticed dramatically in recent years.”

This comment reviews the older version of the manuscript which has already been adjusted from the first round of review

8

There is a repeated mention of “hydrometeorological and climatological hazards”. However, the specific hazards in reference by the authors are unclear, aside from an attempt in Line 54.

Revised as suggested

9

 The authors would require a revised introduction and literature review to clarify a straight argument in line with their main topic. For example, the authors describe the LMB, its positive and negative impacts on surrounding communities, and their study objectives in the introduction. In the literature review, they continue to expound on the benefits of the LMB and current challenges. Later in the results, they provide an expansive conceptualisation of resilience frameworks after briefly characterising droughts and floods. It is unclear to me the storyline they want readers to follow.

Paper has been restructured to provide a clearer linkage between the different sections

10

I will advise that the authors strengthen the introduction to highlight the motivation for this work, previous studies about LMB related to the topic and what gaps and significance the present study addresses.

A paragraph has been added to the introduction section highlighting the motivation for the paper

11

The Literature review should also focus more on the existing frameworks, their considerations, compositions, and their specific lapses, which necessitates the current study.

Restructured

12

Section 3.2 is missing the description of data and methods used for the livelihood security and resilience assessment

Restructured

13

Section 4.1 contains more like state of the art in the LMB region on the topic than a report of the authors’ original data analyses

Restructured to distinguish the literature review and results parts

14

Some portions of the manuscript are ambiguous and can benefit from revision:

A thorough revision has been made

15

Lines 357-358 “Therefore, the flood event with low to average water depth in the lower part of the basin is highly affected by the flood event”

This comment reviews the older version of the manuscript which has already been adjusted from the first round of review

16

Lines 361-362 “The concept of resilience is used to manage resources sustainably for both ecosystem function and human development and well-being”

This line refers to the overarching application of the concept of resilience across the different sectors and dimensions of sustainable development.

17

The authors may need to include more details about the Expert Workshop in reference (Lines 508 to 514). Necessary methodological information can be presented in section 3.2

Unclear about the details of workshop expected. A methodological framework describing the discussions have been included in the methodology section.

18

Line 548-549 “The study has identified the gap that a multi-hazard assessment framework is required for the effective assessment of multi-hazard livelihood security in LMB.” It is not clear to me how this study achieved this.

This comment reviews the older version of the manuscript which has already been adjusted from the first round of review

1

This study is incorrect in writing format. Please check the format at “sustainability”.

The document format from sustainability was used in drafting the manuscript

2

The format of brackets, en dash, hyphen, comma (、), and tilde (~) did not follow the common usage of journal.

The document has been reviewed to remove errors

3

The styling of Tables and writing using track change is messy.

The track change format has been used as requested by the journal to demonstrate the changes made to the paper based on comments from the reviewers

4

The resolution of most Figures are too low to print for publisher.

Resolution and font size of figures have been enhanced as much as possible to increase legibility

5

Some Figures should include the reference.

Figures adopted from other sources have been referenced

6

To make Tables more understandable, I advise the authors to rebuild them.

 Tables are standard formats

7

On section 3.1, the description of methods and study area is relatively lacking. It is recommended to add such as features or other references.

Added methodological framework that shaped the expert workshop discussion in this section

8

It is recommended to confirm the results of the simulation to ensure the accuracy of the results.

 The results of hazard assessment have been reviewed to remove unwarranted errors

9

A few grammatical and typo mistakes are still there in your manuscript. Please thoroughly check and revise the manuscript carefully.

The document has been reviewed to remove errors

10

All units should be adopted according to consistent units.

Corrected where necessary

11

Literature writing format of this article is confused.

Restructured the literature review for better comprehension

12

The content is plentiful, but some part of the reference literatures is kind of obsolete (in 5 years). Key publications should be cited as completed as possible. Please also clarify the novelty and application implication of your work in this section. I suggest authors refer to the latest literatures from “sustainability”, “MDPI”, and other disaster risk journals. But please do not exceed 30% of all citations from sustainability. Authors may see the following reference while revising. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.09.016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104373; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-021-10703-8

These papers are not associated with the theme of the manuscript.

1

The manuscript is clearly written, however at some point in the revision version was generated confusion through moving text blocks. Particularly this becomes obvious, when first time LiSeRA framework is mentioned, without explanation of the abbreviation.

The manuscript has been reviewed to remove errors in language

2

In the literature review, it is important that the scientific novelty of the work is established through a critical analysis of related literature. With this, followng questions must be clarified: How does the present work contribute towards the gaps identified? How does it improve upon previous work? Thus, the main questions of the reviewer are: What is the scientific motivation for the study? What is your scientific hypothesis that you wish to answer with the investigation? Putting the scientific motivation will also help you to identify the novelties that characterises a scientific publication.

 Added a paragraph in the introduction section to clarify the motivation of the paper

3

For the methodology section, I recommend to include a flow chart illustrating the steps of the methodology in the beginning of the methodology section. After this, all applied scientific methods need to be explained in detail.

A methodological framework describing the guiding questions used to generate information for studying livelihood security and resilience dimensions have been included in the methodology section

4

In the conclusions, in addition to summarising the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work.

 Some additions in the conclusion section to further emphasize on the significance of the study.

Here, TDD refers to the Total Dry Duration

1

The article still has a significant problem with the layout of the content - there is a mix of theory (description of methods) and results, and there is a weak link between the results and the discussion. The authors' proposal is somehow not specifically justified from the point of view of the region in question based on the results presented earlier. Furthermore, I believe that it is extremely important to refer to the projected climate changes for the region - I believe that without addressing this aspect, the article cannot be published, as the authors' concept may be incomplete or misguided.

As suggested, the layout of the paper has been revised. Sections in the discussion pertaining to review of existing literature have been moved to the literature review section whereas discussions and results section have been modified to provide better linkages. Authors agreed that Climate change for the region is important and the context also discussed in the manuscript. The projected climate change for the region and its numerical analysis are beyond the scope of the current manuscript and project. 

2

Fig. 1b - illegible legend

Figure revised with larger fonts

3

Include what is currently in place as subchapter 2.1 (with a title to match the content), and add another subchapter/subchapters that will contain the theoretical information currently in place in Discussion)

Section 5.2 of discussion with major literature review has been restructured as 2.2 in literature review section

4

L235- 237 - why was Lao PDR left out? this should be clarified. Also, the name of Vietnam is spelt differently here than in L170 - this should be standardised throughout the text. It would be useful to add a reference in this paragraph to (Figure 1)

Study area description has been revised to include Lao PDR as well (since the entire LMB is taken as study area for multi-hazard part). However, the expert workshop and discussion on livelihood and resilience perspectives were only conducted with three countries as study area due to the limitations of the project (included in methodology section)

Revised spelling

5

L350 - in what unit is duration - days? months?

In months (added)

6

L358-360 - reference is missing

 Reference has been added

7

L361-365 - when did this take place, how many people were involved?

Added

8

The description of the methodology needs to be supplemented with future climate change scenarios (which ones and from where), and the reference to the participatory approach mentioned in the Abstract is missing.

Participatory approach removed from abstract

9

L367-397 - please make this subsection 4.1 Spatial distribution of annual precipitation. In principle, there should be no such text not assigned to any subsection. In fact, this passage fits more into the description of the study site (as it does not directly relate to either the studied drought or flood episodes), but currently in the earlier part of the article I don't really know where to insert it either, so it can stay here. Unless the authors find a better solution.

title renamed

10

Fig. 2 - maps a-f are completely illegible, especially their descriptions. Fig. 2g - in the caption I think it should be CHIRPS AVERAGE precipitation? Also not very successful is the precipitation scale for the driest years, as the smallest value is just under 1000 mm, while map g shows that there are also places with less than 100 mm of precipitation. It is also strange that the southern part of the LMB (the estuary) is so "bright" on maps a-f, while on map g it is "darkest". - what is this due to?

Fig 2 maps have been placed in a landscape mode to increase the legibility of the maps.

11

L399 - new subsection number should be: 4.2

revised

12

L413-420 - it would be useful to refer to the meaning/definition of these individual indicators in this description (SPI-3 etc).

revised

13

L430-432 - there is no 'higher latitude' in the SE direction, but rather lower latitude considering the whole LMB. If there is a mistake here and you meant rather altitude, then usually mountains and denser vegetation are associated with higher rainfall, not as in this sentence with lower. Well, unless the authors are referring to their greater transpiration, which is disadvantageous during dry periods, Please check the correctness of this sentence and add arguments in favour of the authors' theses

 Sentence removed

14

Table 2 - the unit in which the data in the table are given should be indicated at the end of the title [months].

SPI values are proportions and therefore do not have a unit.

15

L443 - citing Table 3 here is unjustified as the sentence is about something completely different. Please add a sentence here that refers to specific data from this table, where you could add the source (Table 3)

revised

16

Table 3 should either be below Figure 5 or above it (depending on the final formatting of the text), but certainly not as far as it is at the moment!

revised

17

Fig. 6 - please enlarge to the size of Fig. 4 and 5, as only then is it a little more readable

Enlarged to maximum available size

18

Table 3 and Table 4 - what units are these in?

SPI values are proportions and therefore do not have a unit.

19

L468 - new subsection number should be: 4.3

revised

20

L486-491 - no sources of information

added references

21

Fig. 8 - in the caption please add an abbreviation (RP) after "return periods" to make it clear what the abbreviations on the maps mean

revised

22

L511 - redundant one "conducted"

revised

23

L532 - unexplained abbreviations NGO and CBO

revised with full forms written

24

And what are the climate change projections for the LMB region (what are the projected changes in temperatures, precipitation amounts, distribution of precipitation over the year, presence of wind storms etc.? - what might affect the LMB)?

 The climate change projections and its associated impacts are important for the LBM region. However, as mentioned in the previous review response section, climate change projections and related numerical analysis are beyond the scope of the current paper.

25

In its current form, this discussion is not acceptable (only subsection 5.1 is partly correct, although it lacks references to the results from the previous section, if only in the form of figure numbers). There are two basic and critical shortcomings - 1) there are no direct references to previously presented results (why were they presented then? why isn't there a wider discussion for them?), 2) there is a lot of general theory here that should be presented in the Literature Review section, and here should be ONLY those elements and descriptions that have direct relevance to the LMB in conjunction with the obtained results of calculations/statements from databases and interviews

Added discussion of the results

26

L538 - which strategy is in question?

 Sentence revised for clarity

27

L539-543 - Mekong Delta is only a small part of the whole LMB. Why are the results of these cited studies not presented?

 Revised

28

L543 and 545 - unnecessary non-numerical citations

removed

29

L574-577 - please explain further the relationship between this proposal and the change in yearly rice yields, as it is not very understandable

as a indicator for the impact of drought and other hazards (as it is closely related to livelihood of the communities)

30

L636 - after the word dums please add: (existing and under construction)

revised

31

L651-653 - repeated "in recent years"

removed

32

Subchapter 5.2 - this is the theory itself, to be moved to Literature Review (with title: Concept of livelihood resilience)

 Sections pertaining to review of literature have been moved to the Literature Review

33

L1115 - Fig 10 should be placed as close as possible to its first citation, and therefore still in the same subchapter

revised

34

Subchapter 5.3 - the pure, universal theory (method description) on frameworks should be moved to Literature Review as a continuation of the previously mentioned text from subchapter 5.2. Here, however, there should be a broader commentary/discussion on the results from the current chapter 4.4, where this theory (method) has been applied, taking into account the research results from chapters 4.1-4.3 and climate change projections

 Restructured the discussions to include results from the chapter 4

35

Fig. 10 - if this diagram has been tailored to the specifics of the article, it should be placed in the Materials and Methods section, and it would be useful to present its general, universal principles in the Literature Review section. Could you please explain in the text of the article the meaning of those arrows on the right?

 Yes, the figure was tailored for the article and has been moved to the methodology section

36

Subchapter 5.4 - title: add "for LMB" at the end. Then move pure universal theory to Literature Review, and here leave ONLY that which relates directly to the LMB - please start by presenting your own concept (I understand these are Figs. 11 and 12) and then justifying it with the research findings presented in chs. 4.1-4.4 and climate change projections, and then commenting/discussing using the wider literature

 Revised as suggested.

37

L1219 - still no explanation for the acronym DFID

Revised with full acronym of DFID

38

L1226-1231 - this sentence still needs to be reworked (despite the authors' declaration that they have corrected it) because it loops (currently in a nutshell it is like this: „To fill the research gap on how to conceptually link resilience with the various livelihood dimensions by developing an indicator framework… it is necessary to investigate how to conceptually link resilience with the various livelihood dimensions by developing an indicator framework”

rewritten with further explanation

39

L1231 - the authors have uncritically swapped the Mekong Delta for the LMB, meanwhile the problems and perspectives specific to the Mekong Delta are not necessarily the same as for the LMB as a whole. Please note the "salinity control" mentioned - what relevance does this have to the central or northern part of the LMB?

 Revised to specify that salinity control is specific case for Mekong Delta

40

L1248 - still unexplained HLRA abbreviation

full form added

41

L1313 - does this 'given' mean LMB? as it should be in this section

removed

42

L1319-1321 - this sentence is repeated with the first sentence of this paragraph

adjusted

43

L1333 - what is the 'livelihood security index'?

 The entire paragraph has been revised.

44

Figs. 11 and 12 - if Fig. 11 already contains the selected elements important for the LMB, note that it repeats the information contained in the left part of Fig. 12 (these are exactly the same indicators, so Fig. 11 is redundant). Fig. 12 - the smallest inscriptions are illegible under normal enlargement. The left circle - analogous to Fig. 11, should be called Livelihood Resilience Dimensions. What then are the Resilience Dimensions in the right circle? There is still no explanation, no commentary on them in terms of LMB - the presentation of the list of dimensions (L1327-1332) is not their commentary, justification, discussion.

 Removed fig 11

Added further discussions on the figure for both left and right circles.

45

L1425 – which stakeholders?

 Added

46

L1444 – which field data?

 Removed sentence

47

The current presentation of results does not fully justify the conclusions reached

 Added additional statements in the conclusion to link with the relevance of the paper as well as linkages with development strategies in the LMB.

Material and Methods

L389-391 - there seems to be a problem with sentence construction, please check

Corrected, as suggested

Because of the Figure title the sentence is in the form of statement.

Fig. 3 - perhaps repetition of the word framework could be avoided?

Corrected 

L468 - the word resilience is missing in points iii and iv

Corrected

L469-477 - reference to general resilience is missing, analogous to specified resilience (as it was referred to)

Reference to general resilience has not been done in the methodological framework as the paper focuses on defining specific resilience of LMB communities (revised figure 3 as well)

Results

L500 - "as shown in the Fig. 5" or 4? because the description to fig. 5 does not start until the next paragraph

corrected

L502 - unexplained abbreviation DEM

DEM expanded

L503 - not everywhere there is higher elevation is at the same time higher precipitation (see northern part of the region)

Revised statement

L514 - no source of information

The statement has been developed by analysing the EMDAT disaster database. Reference has been added.

L585 - should be 4.3, not 4.2

corrected

L586-587, 588 - wrong figure numbers!

Corrected to Figure 7,8 and 9

L606 - wrong figure number

Corrected to Figure 8

L607-608 - the sentence "The TDS, ADS and MDS ranges for SPI-3, 6, 9 and 12 are given in table 3." should be set as the second one in this paragraph, as it does not fit at all in the current place

Revised as suggested

L631 - wrong figure number

Corrected to Figure 9

L659 - wrong figure number

Corrected to Figure 10

L654 - should be 4.4, not 4.3

Corrected to 4.4

L662 – from 1981 to 2021 2022

Corrected to 1981 - 2022

L692 - wrong figure number

Corrected to Figure 11

L706 - should be 4.5

Corrected to 4.5

Discussion

The titles of subsections 4.5 and 5.1 are very similar, perhaps they could be differentiated more somehow?

Revised

L744 - floods were already in the previous sentence

Corrected

835 - wrong subsection number

Revised

L843-849 - this paragraph seems quite chaotic, the sentences are poorly linked, please correct this

Revised

Subchapter 5.4 - there are still whole passages purely theoretical, with no references to LMB. Either the LMB references should be supplemented here, or the theory should be moved to Literature Review. In particular, reference should be made to the results presented in the Results chapter (4.1-4.4)

The theoretical sections have been moved as a new sub-section “2.3 Livelihood and resilience assessment” in the Literature Review.

L1370, L1404 and Figure 11 - this should probably be Fig. 12

Corrected

Fig. 11 (12?) - still the inscriptions in the outer part are completely illegible - it is probably worth radically changing the graphical representation of this subject, as this is the third time I have pointed out that this is illegible and still the authors have not corrected it.

The Figure text has been revised with larger font.

L1404-1419 - direct references to the LMB are missing. There are also typos present

Revised with reference to LMB from the results section

Conclusions

At the beginning of this chapter, it would still be appropriate to refer to the results presented in Chapters 4.1-4.4, as they are virtually absent in both Discussion and Conclusions. And yet the authors analysed this for something

Revised with references to the results.