Factors Influencing Climate-Induced Evacuation in Coastal Cities: The Case of Shanghai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions and observations are attached in the document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing needs to be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. I would like to share several comments with you:

The term "disaster evacuation migration" sounds unusual. Typically, scholars and practitioners use clearer or more standard terms, such as disaster-induced migration, climate-induced migration, climate migration, disaster-driven relocation or disaster-induced displacement. 

Please provide more information on how the survey and interviews were conducted. Please also discuss potential limitations of this approach.

Have you also checked for correlation among variables to avoid multicollinearity? Some of the variables may be highly correlated. Clarification on how multicollinearity among variables was managed, along with tests for model robustness, would strengthen methodological rigor.

While the case study of Shanghai provides in-depth insights, the findings might be context-specific. Your study would benefit from a discussion of how these results might translate to other coastal cities facing similar challenges.

You mention using the Backward Stepwise method without explaining why it was preferred over forward selection or a full model approach. Including a justification and discussing potential selection biases that could arise from using stepwise methods would be helpful.

Your logistic regression results are appropriately presented, but several interpretation issues require attention. For instance, the odds ratios (Exp(B)) provided for some variables in the results tables seem inconsistent with their respective coefficient signs or appear misreported (e.g., "Years of Employment" is negatively correlated but has an odds ratio >1). Double-check these discrepancies to avoid misinterpretation errors.

Best regards,

Author

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The observations were raised, and it is recommended that the manuscript be carefully drafted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing needs to be improved

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

thank you for thoroughly addressing all my concerns.