Assessing the Role of Land-Use Planning in Near Future Climate-Driven Scenarios in Chilean Coastal Cities
, Patricio Winckler 2,3,4, Magdalena Vicuña 3,5,*, Simón Guzmán 5 and Cristian Larraguibel 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study investigates "Assessing the role of land-use planning in near future climate-driven scenarios in Chilean coastal cities" The topic is interesting and fits well with the scope of the journal. Overall, the manuscript is well written, and some revisions should be made before considering acceptance.
- English should be checked.
- Explain all abbreviations the first time. Please check the whole manuscript and revise them.
- Try to enhance the research gap.
- What is the originality of the study? An explanation is needed.
- "A historical period (1985-2004)", "a historical period (1985-2004)". How were these periods chosen? A scientific explanation is needed.
- Figure 3. What is the meaning of 'Critical facilities'? An explanation is needed.
- I have a problem with the resolution of the maps. Please explain it more clearly in the manuscript.
- Please check the reference list. I noticed some errors in the reference list.
- Figure 5. Readability could be much higher. There are some outliers in the figure. Did you check the data?
- Further explanation for the variables is required for how the author chose these variables for the study.
Author Response
Response to the reviewers’ comments to the authors
We thank the editor in charge for the opportunity to submit a revision of our manuscript. We also thank the reviewers for providing feedback for improvement. We have responded in detail to each comment in the following pages, and we think these amendments have significantly strengthened our paper.
We believe that the new version of our manuscript has significantly improved and is more readable for broader audiences.
It follows detailed replies to each of them.
R#1. English should be checked.
A. We asked a native English-speaking proofreader to review our manuscript. Her recommendations for change were included throughout the manuscript.
R#1. Explain all abbreviations the first time. Please check the whole manuscript and revise them.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. Throughout the text, we incorporate the suggestion explaining all abbreviations.
R#1. Try to enhance the research gap.
A. In the introduction, we discussed the research gap, from line 119 to 129 in document with simple markup.
R#1. What is the originality of the study? An explanation is needed.
A. From lines 120 to 130 (in document with simple markup), we include the information needed.
R#1. "A historical period (1985-2004)", "a historical period (1985-2004)". How were these periods chosen? A scientific explanation is needed.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestion. In line 196, page 7 (document with simple markup), we explain why we chose both periods.
R#1. Figure 3. What is the meaning of 'Critical facilities'? An explanation is needed.
A. In response to the reviewer's suggestions, in Table 1, line 241, the explanation of "Critical facilities" is included.
R#1. I have a problem with the resolution of the maps. Please explain it more clearly in the manuscript.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. The maps have been corrected, including the high resolution maps, and all manuscript references have been updated.
R#1. Please check the reference list. I noticed some errors in the reference list.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. The manuscript was reviewed and references were corrected throughout.
R#1. Figure 5. Readability could be much higher. There are some outliers in the figure. Did you check the data?
A. In response to the reviewer's suggestions. The figure quality has been improved for better eligibility. For Figure 5, supplementary material (S2) was incorporated to corroborate atypical data.
R#1. Further explanation for the variables is required for how the author chose these variables for the study.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. The variables were explained in the methodology section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is good, the authors evaluate the ‘’ Assessing the role of land-use planning in near future climate driven scenarios in Chilean coastal cities’’. It is an interesting and great contribution to the scientific community; however, the material method, discussion and references of the paper should be improved. Still there are many issues present in the manuscript which should be explained properly. The manuscript needs some minor revisions as given below:
· The text of this paper in general needs a thorough review, as there are multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Many sentences do not mean any sense. Moreover, there are several sloppy errors that should be fixed.
· Introduction is too long and there are some unnecessary contents in the introduction of this article that can be deleted. It is suggested to modify them carefully and refine the main contents of the article again.
· Method section needs more clarification about why the researchers selected the such study area ?
· Results and discussion section are poorly written. Discussion section needs more attention.
· Figure 1 must be moved to methodology section.
· Resolution of all figures should be improved.
· In discussion section; Discussion: As per the instruction given by the journal “The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and the limitations of the work highlighted”.
· Write main results and future recommendation in conclusion.
· Reference does not meet to journal style, set these.
Overall, the study conducted is interesting but a minor revision of the entire manuscript is essentially required for publication in this journal. Hence, I recommend reconsideration after a minor revision of the manuscript.
Author Response
Response to the reviewers’ comments to the authors
We thank the editor in charge for the opportunity to submit a revision of our manuscript. We also thank the reviewers for providing feedback for improvement. We have responded in detail to each comment in the following pages, and we think these amendments have significantly strengthened our paper.
We believe that the new version of our manuscript has significantly improved and is more readable for broader audiences.
It follows detailed replies to each of them.
The manuscript is good, the authors evaluate the ‘’ Assessing the role of land-use planning in near future climate driven scenarios in Chilean coastal cities’’. It is an interesting and great contribution to the scientific community; however, the material method, discussion and references of the paper should be improved. Still there are many issues present in the manuscript which should be explained properly. The manuscript needs some minor revisions as given below:
R#2. The text of this paper in general needs a thorough review, as there are multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Many sentences do not mean any sense. Moreover, there are several sloppy errors that should be fixed.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. We asked a native English-speaking proofreader to review our manuscript. Her recommendations for change were included throughout the manuscript.
R#2. Introduction is too long and there are some unnecessary contents in the introduction of this article that can be deleted. It is suggested to modify them carefully and refine the main contents of the article again.
A. Based on the reviewer's suggestions. We reviewed them carefully, and we modified the introduction section.
R#2. Method section needs more clarification about why the researchers selected the such study area ?
A. According to the reviewer's suggestions, a clarification of the study area selection was included in the methodology section (line 139 in document with simple markup), based on a semi-quantitative method described in a reference 11. (MMA Volumen 2: Exposición, En “Determinación Del Riesgo de Los Impactos Del Cambio Climático En Las Costas de Chile”; 2019)
R#2. Results and discussion section are poorly written. Discussion section needs more attention.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. The recommendations were incorporated into the paper at line 251 (Results) and line 380 (Discussion) in document with simple markup.
R#2. Figure 1 must be moved to methodology section.
A. Figure 1 was moved to the methodology section, line 173 (in document with simple markup).
R#2. Resolution of all figures should be improved.
A. All figures in the manuscript were improved, incorporating better resolution throughout.
R#2. In discussion section; Discussion: As per the instruction given by the journal “The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and the limitations of the work highlighted”.
A. We considered the suggestions and incorporated them in the “Discussion” section, line 380.
R#2. Write main results and future recommendation in conclusion.
A. We considered the suggestions and incorporated them in the "Conclusions" section, line 541 (in document with simple markup).
R#2. Reference does not meet to journal style, set these.
A. We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. Her recommendations for change were included throughout the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript aims to evaluate the city plans over Chilean cities and assess their usefulness under climate change scenario. Especially, sea level rise and flooding under climate change has been evaluated. In general, the study and the manuscript is good.
The study is proposing a hazard-exposure indicator and compares that with a simple multi-exposure index. Both conveys useful information and why can't they be combined into some compound index rather than treating them independent. Other than this, the manuscript seems acceptable to me.
Author Response
Response to the reviewers’ comments to the authors
We thank the editor in charge for the opportunity to submit a revision of our manuscript. We also thank the reviewers for providing feedback for improvement. We have responded in detail to each comment in the following pages, and we think these amendments have significantly strengthened our paper.
We believe that the new version of our manuscript has significantly improved and is more readable for broader audiences.
It follows detailed replies to each of them.
R#3. The study is proposing a hazard-exposure indicator and compares that with a simple multi-exposure index. Both conveys useful information and why can't they be combined into some compound index rather than treating them independent. Other than this, the manuscript seems acceptable to me.
A. In our opinion, due to the fact that the cities/regions/countries have different levels of knowledge about flooding, combining these measurements may not be appropriate. It should be noted that the "presumed exposed analysis" is for places where there are no climate change projections, only census data, while the "exposure-hazards analysis" includes flood elevation projections, which are often unavailable
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have mostly revised the manuscript with valid reasonings. I believe the manuscript is suitable for publication.
