Comprehensive Modeling of Climate Risk in the Dominican Republic Using a Multivariate Simulator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study makes significant progress in the field of direct climate risk modeling. The proposed multivariate simulator provides a scientific tool for climate adaptation strategies in the Dominican Republic and similar island nations. The research methodology demonstrates innovation, and the manuscript is comprehensive in content. The authors are advised to further enhance the manuscript in the following aspects:

(1) The current introduction appears fragmented and lacks a systematic structure, with some paragraphs being overly brief. It is recommended to reorganize the introduction to improve logical flow and coherence.

(2) Lines 128-138, the headings in this section repeat content from subsequent chapters. Consider replacing redundant section titles with a flowchart to visually represent the procedural steps.

(3) While the consistency of results with EN-ROADS is highlighted, the discussion should delve deeper into the reasons for discrepancies and clarify the specific applicability or limitations of each model.

(4) Although dependencies between fuel networks and water supply are mentioned, the modeling methods. A case study illustrating these mechanisms should be added.

(5) Lines 669-670, "The implementation of this simulator can enhance resilience to extreme climate events". It is recommended to increase the sensitivity of the discussion simulator under extreme climate events to reflect its robustness under high-pressure scenarios.

Author Response

This study makes significant progress in the field of direct climate risk modeling. The proposed multivariate simulator provides a scientific tool for climate adaptation strategies in the Dominican Republic and similar island nations. The research methodology demonstrates innovation, and the manuscript is comprehensive in content. The authors are advised to further enhance the manuscript in the following aspects:

• The current introduction appears fragmented and lacks a systematic structure, with some paragraphs being overly brief. It is recommended to reorganize the introduction to improve logical flow and coherence.

The introduction was modified. New elements and references were included. See lines: 92, 128-130, 133-143

 

• Lines 128-138, the headings in this section repeat content from subsequent chapters. Consider replacing redundant section titles with a flowchart to visually represent the procedural steps.

Following the reviewer's recommendations to eliminate redundant titles in the simulator description, a new figure (Figure 1) was included with the simulator development and operation flowchart.

• While the consistency of results with EN-ROADS is highlighted, the discussion should delve deeper into the reasons for discrepancies and clarify the specific applicability or limitations of each model.

The new version of the manuscript  clarifies that the graphical capabilities displayed at the map level align with those generated by EN-ROADS for flood scenarios. It also notes that the adjustments have been implemented in ASER to emulate the simulations performed by EN-ROADS. However, the proposed simulator system does not possess the capacity to conduct economic studies or make predictions in other areas, as EN-ROADS does.

• Although dependencies between fuel networks and water supply are mentioned, the modeling methods. A case study illustrating these mechanisms should be added.
• Lines 669-670, "The implementation of this simulator can enhance resilience to extreme climate events". It is recommended to increase the sensitivity of the discussion simulator under extreme climate events to reflect its robustness under high-pressure scenarios

In response to questions 4 and 5, a new example has been included in the manuscript as a case study. See Section 3.3.1, Flood Disaster Management in Greater Santo Domingo, lines 539–593. The scope of the model for local prediction is demonstrated in this section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study has developed a comprehensive approach to climate risk modeling in the Dominican Republic using a multivariate simulator based on a GIS platform. This work is meaningful. However, this method is too subjective. The comments as follows:

• How to determine classification from very high to very low, please give more details.
• The reason for weight assignment is somewhat too general
• How to consider exposure in risk assessment in your work？
• Please give a map about possible risks value.

Specific comments:

• The characters in equations are too large. Please follow the journal's requirements.
• Figures are not clear. Please provide high DPI figures.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

This study has developed a comprehensive approach to climate risk modeling in the Dominican Republic using a multivariate simulator based on a GIS platform. This work is meaningful. However, this method is too subjective. The comments as follows:

• How to determine classification from very high to very low, please give more details.

For a better understanding of the scale classification, a new session was included (2.7. Simulator Work Mode Selection). Lines 347-364.

• The reason for weight assignment is somewhat too general

Clarification in the article. The weight has been assigned according to the geographical area limit (global scale) or impact (regional scale).

• How to consider exposure in risk assessment in your work？

This clarification is considered in some of the models analyzed in the discussion. See section 4.1

• Please give a map about possible risks value.

A table showing the equivalence between the box colors on the maps and the contributors’ classifications has been included in the new version of the manuscript. See lines 483–493 and Table 3.

Specific comments:

• The characters in equations are too large. Please follow the journal's requirements.

Done

• Figures are not clear. Please provide high DPI figures.

The resolution of the figures was improved

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive approach to climate risk modeling for the Dominican Republic using a multivariate simulator. Similar datasets have been used to test the simulator in two modalities against established models (EN-ROADS and PRECIS) using pre-selected combinations of contributors. Two cases of inadequate energy management and lack of mitigation strategies for increased climate change risk have been examined. The authors believe the simulator offers an innovative framework for assessing climate risk in real time to simulate potential outcomes and optimize decision-making, policy-making, and disaster risk management in the Dominican Republic.

General evaluation

The manuscript presents a logical flow of ideas and a clear structure, with a good balance between technical details and accessibility, making it easy for readers to follow the argument. The primary approach presented in the manuscript is based on a published work cited in the literature under number 31. It concerns an interactive simulator for teaching or training climate change risk by visualization of complex processes through selected quantitative indicators. Part of the main text in this manuscript is contained in the aforementioned publication, published in Spanish.

The reviewer has some comments, questions, and suggestions for improving the manuscript. They are as follows:

• The manuscript text does not explain how the simulator was implemented or what programming environment was used for its implementation and testing. To what extent can other researchers use the configured simulation system for assessing climate risk and for other regions in the world, how can this be done, and to what extent is it universal? In this regard, additional explanations and clarifications are necessary.
• There is room for manuscript improvement related to deeper analysis and critical engagement with alternative viewpoints or counterarguments. Some parts of the manuscript text include occasional academic tone and phrasing inconsistencies. A more uniform style would enhance readability.
• It is unclear how hazard is linked to risk and the other elements indicated in the general graph in Fig. 1. What is the logic of the arrows between impacts and emissions and land use changes?
• The text includes figures, such as Figures 1 and 10, that do not significantly contribute to the presentation of the main content in graphical form. It is recommended that the graphic quality of the figures be significantly improved so that even the most minor inscriptions can be read.
• Graphic symbols are used for certain natural phenomena depicted in Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Visualized figures showing the territorial distribution of different phenomena in the Dominican Republic and the world significantly hinder readability, for example, in Figs. 7, 8, and 11.
• The coastal flood example for the studied area is insufficient to be compared only visually with two other simulators - a quantitative comparison should also be made using the same input parameters for the three simulators, the author's and the two used for the graphical comparison.
• The conclusion summarizes key points well but could be more impactful by emphasizing broader implications and potential future research directions.

Recommendations

• Some descriptions are overly detailed, while others could benefit from additional clarification. Consider balancing brevity with clarity to ensure essential details are highlighted without redundancy.

• It is necessary to support the authors' thesis through critical analysis and in the presence of opposing views. Expand the discussion on how results compare with existing literature.
• Identifying study limitations (e.g., sample size, potential biases, external validity) would enhance transparency and scientific rigor.

• The terminology and style of the presentation should be standardized in the text to be consistent.
• All statements used in the manuscript, not the author's, should be adequately referenced.
• Suggesting specific follow-up studies based on the results would strengthen the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Grammar and syntax corrections are needed in the main text and some figures. Minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasing in certain sections could be refined for smoother readability.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

The manuscript presents a comprehensive approach to climate risk modeling for the Dominican Republic using a multivariate simulator. Similar datasets have been used to test the simulator in two modalities against established models (EN-ROADS and PRECIS) using pre-selected combinations of contributors. Two cases of inadequate energy management and lack of mitigation strategies for increased climate change risk have been examined. The authors believe the simulator offers an innovative framework for assessing climate risk in real time to simulate potential outcomes and optimize decision-making, policy-making, and disaster risk management in the Dominican Republic.

General evaluation

The manuscript presents a logical flow of ideas and a clear structure, with a good balance between technical details and accessibility, making it easy for readers to follow the argument. The primary approach presented in the manuscript is based on a published work cited in the literature under number 31. It concerns an interactive simulator for teaching or training climate change risk by visualization of complex processes through selected quantitative indicators. Part of the main text in this manuscript is contained in the aforementioned publication, published in Spanish.

Indeed, reference 31 describes the development and use of the simulator, which was used for another purpose. The redundant information from reference 31 was removed, leaving only the aspects related to this work.

The reviewer has some comments, questions, and suggestions for improving the manuscript. They are as follows:

• The manuscript text does not explain how the simulator was implemented or what programming environment was used for its implementation and testing. To what extent can other researchers use the configured simulation system for assessing climate risk and for other regions in the world, how can this be done, and to what extent is it universal? In this regard, additional explanations and clarifications are necessary.

We thank the reviewer for his/her comment. Indeed, the simulator is universally applicable, as explained in reference 31 and in the simulator’s user manual (not shown here). The objective of this work is not the development of the simulator, but rather its application in a specific case study in the Dominican Republic. Therefore, the simulator’s technical details are not extensively discussed. However, based on the reviewer’s suggestion, Section 3.7 (lines 347–364) was added, and Section 5 (lines 767–825) now outlines the advantages and limitations of both the simulator and the models used.

• There is room for manuscript improvement related to deeper analysis and critical engagement with alternative viewpoints or counterarguments. Some parts of the manuscript text include occasional academic tone and phrasing inconsistencies. A more uniform style would enhance readability.

The bibliography has been updated. Numerous comments have been added to the revised manuscript. Fifty percent of the references are from the last five years. Of the remaining 30 references, half are from the last ten years. The writing style and English have been corrected throughout the manuscript.

• It is unclear how hazard is linked to risk and the other elements indicated in the general graph in Fig. 1. What is the logic of the arrows between impacts and emissions and land use changes?

Figure 1 has been removed. The hazard-risk link is now explained in the Introduction..  

• The text includes figures, such as Figures 1 and 10, that do not significantly contribute to the presentation of the main content in graphical form. It is recommended that the graphic quality of the figures be significantly improved so that even the most minor inscriptions can be read.

Figures 1 and 10 have been removed. The quality of the remaining figures has been improved, and illegible text that affected their clarity has been removed.

• Graphic symbols are used for certain natural phenomena depicted in Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Visualized figures showing the territorial distribution of different phenomena in the Dominican Republic and the world significantly hinder readability, for example, in Figs. 7, 8, and 11.

All figures were improved.

• The coastal flood example for the studied area is insufficient to be compared only visually with two other simulators - a quantitative comparison should also be made using the same input parameters for the three simulators, the author's and the two used for the graphical comparison.

The reviewer's recommendation was taken into account. New details and more detailed information are shown in sections 4.4-4.6 (lines 666-739).

• The conclusion summarizes key points well but could be more impactful by emphasizing broader implications and potential future research directions.

The conclusions have been revised. The capabilities of the simulator can be generalized to other regions, provided that its administrators—who are responsible for designing the analytical and graphical databases for each area—receive appropriate training, along with its users. Future research directions are clarified in the final paragraph of the conclusions.

Recommendations

• Some descriptions are overly detailed, while others could benefit from additional clarification. Consider balancing brevity with clarity to ensure essential details are highlighted without redundancy.

Thank you, done.

• It is necessary to support the authors' thesis through critical analysis and in the presence of opposing views. Expand the discussion on how results compare with existing literature.

The discussion of the results was expanded and improved.

• Identifying study limitations (e.g., sample size, potential biases, external validity) would enhance transparency and scientific rigor.

The reviewer's comment was addressed through the inclusion of Section 5: Summary of Capabilities and Limitations of the Simulator (lines 767–825).

• The terminology and style of the presentation should be standardized in the text to be consistent.

Done.

• All statements used in the manuscript, not the author's, should be adequately referenced.

All references have been thoroughly reviewed.

• Suggesting specific follow-up studies based on the results would strengthen the conclusion.

Considered in the final paragraph of the conclusions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Grammar and syntax corrections are needed in the main text and some figures. Minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasing in certain sections could be refined for smoother readability.

As stated before, the writing style and English have been corrected throughout the manuscript 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this review, This article introduces a comprehensive climate risk modeling approach for the Dominican Republic, using a multivariate simulator to assess climate risk under different scenarios. The simulator integrates factors such as global warming, hazards, vulnerabilities and their interdependencies, as well as adaptive capacities. It links pre-established combinations of contributors using Boolean algebra and expresses the results according to the risk level scales established by the IPCC. The study emphasizes that poor energy management and lack of mitigation strategies significantly increase climate risk, especially in regions with fragile infrastructure. However, there are some problems that authors should notice, The following are suggestions for the paper :

1. The potential value of the study is clear from the conclusions in the abstract and the final conclusion section. However, the innovation and uniqueness of this study in the field of regional climate risk assessment could be further emphasized. For example, compared with other similar studies, in which aspects does the simulator have more obvious advantages, and how do these advantages better meet the actual needs of the Dominican Republic, thereby highlighting its potential value.
2. In some sections, such as the model calibration and multivariate study sections, more detailed explanations of the specific methods and technical means adopted, as well as how these methods ensure the accuracy and reliability of the research results, could be provided. In addition, it might be worth considering adding a subsection to the article specifically to discuss the innovations and strengths of the research methods, as well as any potential limitations, to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the research approach.
3. Some of the figures are not clearly drawn. For example, the text description in the second column of Figure 4 is a bit blurry and not very clear. In Section 2.6, there are formatting issues in some paragraphs, such as large character spacing between words in one line.
4. The conclusion highlights the practical significance of the tool in supporting policy-making and disaster management. It would be beneficial to supplement the conclusion with specific application scenarios of the tool in the Dominican Republic (such as pilot results in a particular city) or the expected percentage of economic loss reduction to enhance the description of its practical value.
5. Some of the cited references are relatively old (with a significant number from 2016 and earlier). It is suggested that the authors pay attention to the latest research findings in this field in recent years and appropriately add some new references to ensure the cutting-edge nature and timeliness of the study. In addition, the format of some references is not quite correct, with large spaces between characters.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In this review, This article introduces a comprehensive climate risk modeling approach for the Dominican Republic, using a multivariate simulator to assess climate risk under different scenarios. The simulator integrates factors such as global warming, hazards, vulnerabilities and their interdependencies, as well as adaptive capacities. It links pre-established combinations of contributors using Boolean algebra and expresses the results according to the risk level scales established by the IPCC. The study emphasizes that poor energy management and lack of mitigation strategies significantly increase climate risk, especially in regions with fragile infrastructure. However, there are some problems that authors should notice, The following are suggestions for the paper :

1. The potential value of the study is clear from the conclusions in the abstract and the final conclusion section. However, the innovation and uniqueness of this study in the field of regional climate risk assessment could be further emphasized. For example, compared with other similar studies, in which aspects does the simulator have more obvious advantages, and how do these advantages better meet the actual needs of the Dominican Republic, thereby highlighting its potential value.
2. In some sections, such as the model calibration and multivariate study sections, more detailed explanations of the specific methods and technical means adopted, as well as how these methods ensure the accuracy and reliability of the research results, could be provided. In addition, it might be worth considering adding a subsection to the article specifically to discuss the innovations and strengths of the research methods, as well as any potential limitations, to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the research approach.
3. Some of the figures are not clearly drawn. For example, the text description in the second column of Figure 4 is a bit blurry and not very clear. In Section 2.6, there are formatting issues in some paragraphs, such as large character spacing between words in one line.
4. The conclusion highlights the practical significance of the tool in supporting policy-making and disaster management. It would be beneficial to supplement the conclusion with specific application scenarios of the tool in the Dominican Republic (such as pilot results in a particular city) or the expected percentage of economic loss reduction to enhance the description of its practical value.
5. Some of the cited references are relatively old (with a significant number from 2016 and earlier). It is suggested that the authors pay attention to the latest research findings in this field in recent years and appropriately add some new references to ensure the cutting-edge nature and timeliness of the study. In addition, the format of some references is not quite correct, with large spaces between characters.

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

Principio del formulario

This article introduces a comprehensive climate risk modeling approach for the Dominican Republic, using a multivariate simulator to assess climate risk under different scenarios. The simulator integrates factors such as global warming, hazards, vulnerabilities and their interdependencies, as well as adaptive capacities. It links pre-established combinations of contributors using Boolean algebra and expresses the results according to the risk level scales established by the IPCC. The study emphasizes that poor energy management and lack of mitigation strategies significantly increase climate risk, especially in regions with fragile infrastructure. However, there are some problems that authors should notice, The following are suggestions for the paper :

1. The potential value of the study is clear from the conclusions in the abstract and the final conclusion section. However, the innovation and uniqueness of this study in the field of regional climate risk assessment could be further emphasized. For example, compared with other similar studies, in which aspects does the simulator have more obvious advantages, and how do these advantages better meet the actual needs of the Dominican Republic, thereby highlighting its potential value.

Thanks to the reviewer for their assessment and appreciation of our work. To highlight the novelty of the work and improve the comparison of our results with those of other simulators, new elements are included in the introduction (lines 134-143), the discussion (lines 730-739), and a whole new section, section 5: Summary of Capabilities and Limitations of the Simulator (lines 767–825).

2. In some sections, such as the model calibration and multivariate study sections, more detailed explanations of the specific methods and technical means adopted, as well as how these methods ensure the accuracy and reliability of the research results, could be provided. In addition, it might be worth considering adding a subsection to the article specifically to discuss the innovations and strengths of the research methods, as well as any potential limitations, to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the research approach.

Done. See sections 2.7. Simulator Work Mode Selection and Section 5: Summary of Capabilities and Limitations of the Simulator.

3. Some of the figures are not clearly drawn. For example, the text description in the second column of Figure 4 is a bit blurry and not very clear. In Section 2.6, there are formatting issues in some paragraphs, such as large character spacing between words in one line.

The quality of all figures has been improved, and the formatting issues in Section 2.6 have been resolved..

4. The conclusion highlights the practical significance of the tool in supporting policy-making and disaster management. It would be beneficial to supplement the conclusion with specific application scenarios of the tool in the Dominican Republic (such as pilot results in a particular city) or the expected percentage of economic loss reduction to enhance the description of its practical value.

The wording is modified and enriched and two cases are added on the local scale of the simulator (See Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, lines 539-593)

5. Some of the cited references are relatively old (with a significant number from 2016 and earlier). It is suggested that the authors pay attention to the latest research findings in this field in recent years and appropriately add some new references to ensure the cutting-edge nature and timeliness of the study. In addition, the format of some references is not quite correct, with large spaces between characters.

The bibliographies have been updated. 50% of the total is from the last five years. Of the remainder, 50% are from the last 10 years

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made all the comments.

The manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper can be accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account the recommendations made for editing and supplementing the manuscript.

Please carefully check that the citation of literary sources complies with the journal's requirements.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made revisions based on the review comments. Therefore, we suggest that this manuscript can be accepted.