Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The necessary corrections have been made

Author Response

Please see the attached file "Reply to Reviewer 1"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Dear authors, you addressed my previous comments. Still some minor edition is required.

Remove bulletin line 233-237, line 251 to 258, line 278 to 284, line 293 to 314.

Author Response

Please see the attached file "Reply to Reviewer 2"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Materials and methods

1) In 2.1.1 section, I know that you want to describe the “Historical Floods and Droughts in Baja California Sur” clearly, but remember that you are writing a research paper, not a report. Too much extensive background description will confuse the reader and make the content of the article seem lengthy and illogical. I suggest that some less crucial introductions and explanations can be included in an appendix.

2) In Line 157, “temperature is expected to increase globally” should not be given in the materials and methods.

Conclusion:

The conclusion section is too long and does not properly summarize your work. The conclusion must reflect your goals, summarize your ideas, and point to opportunities for future implementation.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see attached file "Reply to Reviewer 3"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

*Please added  one paragraph about the direct aim this study at the end of the introduction section.

*Please state the importance of this survey in the study area and also the importance of the study area.

*The method section is too long, it is better to summarize it.

*What is the impact of climate change scenarios in this research? In addition, the mentioned scenarios are somewhat outdated

*In discussion section compared the findings of this study with other studies.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘’PARTICIPATIVE POLICY DESIGN TO MANAGE DROUGHTS AND FLOODS IN AN ARID REGION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE UNCERTAINITY: THE CASE OF BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR, MEXICO’’ can be suitable for publication if the authors able to address the following comments:

 

Abstract

·         All abbreviation should be defined (e.g. PESTEL), I think PESTEL is political, economic, social and technological analysis. Even the author not able to define this abbreviation in the main text.

·         The sample size is missed: the authors only indicate the number of municipalities (N==5). How many people are participated in the workshop? Add the sample size.

·         Line 15 …not only public policies but the participation of communities and other sectors are crucial to increase resilient to climate extremes like drought and floods (THE TOPIC OF THIS RESEARCH IS PARTICIPATIVE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE DIFFERENT ACTORS).

·         Line 22/23 should be supported with quantitative figure….the information about flood and drought risk to livelihoods.

·         Line 27: It is preferable if the authors used climate extremes in steady of changing climate.

·         Keywords: resilience, participative policy, drought, floods, Mexico: are these keywords are part of the title. To increase the visibility of this work it is recommended to use keywords which are not part of the title.

 

Introduction

·         The authors can use number referencing format per the journal guideline (please check and act).

·         Line 45 : the full stop after 33% should be removed.

·         The authors should clearly elaborate the research gaps.

·         Less emphasis was given on policy related issue on climate extreme mitigation strategies.

·         The main influencing factors: political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors factors should be introduced for the readers in short and precise without repeatio9n in other section of the manuscript.

·         Heading 2: Historical Floods and Droughts in Baja California Sur can be presented under Materials and Methods. Thus, I suggest the authors to follow

1.      Introduction

2.      Materials and methods

2.1.Study area descriptions

2.2.Study design

2.3.Sampling techniques

3.      Results

4.      Discussions

5.      Conclusions

 

·         Line 139 and 143: Check the citation format.

·         Line 167: Wat is Sur temperature? Is it surface temperature?

·         Line 168-169: something is wrong. The projected temperature under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 should be in range (E.g 1.0 to 2°C under RCP 4.5 and 1.4 to 3°C under RCP 8.5)….

·         LINE 240-245: Can be moved to introduction section.

·         The authors can shortly introduce the procedural steps in the method section and can annex the list of questionnaires used in this study (Line 300-326) to be annexed.

Results: OK

Discussion

·         Discussion is weak and need substantial improvements. The authors should discuss their findings with existing literature in the field.

·         Conclusions should be to the point.

Moderate English changes required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript 'PARTICIPATIVE POLICY DESIGN TO MANAGE DROUGHTS AND FLOODS IN AN ARID REGION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE UNCERTAINTY: THE CASE OF BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR, MEXICO'. This study designed and applied a methodology based on virtual consultation fora in conjunction with digital survey tools to understand the population's perception of these phenomena.

 

The topic is interesting, but it does not reflect its innovativeness. The article only collected opinions and comments from each municipality inhabitants, and lacked different perspectives from various stakeholders such as local communities, government agencies, non-profit organizations, academic institutes, and private sectors. Therefore, I suggest rejecting the MS.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf