Social Influences on Flood Preparedness and Mitigation Measures Adopted by People Living with Flood Risk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the manuscript is clear, concise, and well-written. Sufficient information about previous study findings is provided. The methods that are used to analyze the data are appropriate. The presentation of the results, discussion, and conclusions are satisfactory. The study and objective of the study are very relevant and important in current situations. Owing to the important topic, this paper would deserve to get published. However, I have a couple of minor suggestions that I believe should be addressed before the paper is published.
- There are few typos (eg. Line 118, 150*, 245, 247, etc.).
*should be et al. – “.” missing in several places.
- I would recommend adding future directions and limitations of the current study, if any, in the conclusion section.
Author Response
See attachment - please note responses to all 4 Reviewers are in a single document, as there is overlap and cross-reference.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I've read the manuscript and think it's an important topic to consider, the text is in most parts well-written and has a clear message; however, I have the following concerns and suggestions:
1. Please indicate the geographical focus of the study also somewhere in the Abstract and Introduction. Currently the reader can read only starting from section 3 "Methods and Data" that the study was conducted in Scotland.
2. p. 2 lines 43-44 - It is currently not clear from the manuscript, how do the results reported in this paper differ from the two papers published earlier, i.e. Werritty et al., (2007) and Houston et al., (2020)? Could you please clarify it -- e.g. under methods, which additional analyses etc. you undertook, and why this paper needs to be a separate publication from the two earlier ones?
3. p. 13-14 Discussion -- Could you please include under discussion also some relevant references to similar earlier studies. Currently the text contains an interpretation of the results, but a discussion section in a scientific paper usually also includes a debate with similar other studies, incl. proper refs. For instance, what do the earlier studies say about the relationship between the level of education and flood risk preparedness/mitigation strategies applied?
Author Response
See attachment - please note responses to all 4 Reviewers are in a single document, as there is overlap and cross-reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper provides an interesting insight into the topic, which is, however, less suitable to the audience of this journal. The list of references clearly indicates that the topic is more connected to previous results in geography, regional science and similar. Therefore the messages and conclusions may miss the real target audience (both local and international). The authors may consider to resubmit the paper into the one of the journals which better fits the sphere of the papers cited in the references. If they decide to continue the submission they should consider the following recommendations:
- the data, results and conclusions are, strictly speaking, only representative to Scotland. Please indicate this clearly starting with the title, and continue so through the whole paper and stress it especially in the conclusions. Comparison with similar studies could be a welcome addition.
- the way how the data was gathered is described in detail, however the adequacy of the methodology would need explanation especially in this journal. This hold for the statistical testing, too.
- the representativity of the sample needs to be discussed more in detail.
- the severity of flood regime in the period covered by the collected data should be commented and its potential influence on the results discussed.
- There are missing references in the text and the contribution of the authors was not specified.
Author Response
See attachment - please note responses to all 4 Reviewers are in a single document, as there is overlap and cross-reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
My major concern with this study is about the inaction of writing the manuscript. The relevant data was collected during the period Feb-Sept 2006 and now the authors have submitted the manuscript. No explanation is provided by the authors in the manuscript. Also selected flood events occurred between 1993-2005. Recollection problems are associated with the earlier flood events. Again, the authors did not mention how to tackle the recollection of the sampled households. Different types flood events are cosidered. I am not sure whether flash flood events are considered.
A map showing the study area is desirable. Definitions of vulnerabibility, prepraedness, and mitigation are not absolutely neccessary. Since the sample size is very large, why the independent variables are dissagregatted into resilience by demographic and social characteristics, housing and residential characteristics and flood biography. The reasons for these dissagregation are not discussed. What do the authors mean by "flood biography?" I think before the running logistic regression models, the number of independent variables should be reduced by bi-variate statisticall techniques, such as chi-square tests.
Author Response
See attachment - please note responses to all 4 Reviewers are in a single document, as there is overlap and cross-reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The data, results and conclusions are, strictly speaking, representative to Scotland. Please indicate this clearly in the Title.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
This is a verbatim restatement of your previous comment, which we responded to. Please refute our argument and/or elaborate on why you think the findings are only "representative" of Scotland.
There are a number of reasons to think our findings are generalisable beyond Scotland, and indeed the UK. First, our key findings are in relation to generic social categories (e.g. age, income) and flood history (whether previously flooded, whether lived in the area at the time of the previous flood) and the affect they have on flood preparedness and mitigation behaviours and experiences. It would be surprising if findings in relation to such generic categories would not be generalisable beyond Scotland. Second, Scotland is broadly representative of the UK, and indeed many developed nations, in terms of age structure, income level and distribution, household composition and housing stock. Third, in terms of flood risk management policy, Scotland is similar to the rest of the UK.
If you are able to refute these arguments then we will certainly consider putting Scotland in the title. But at present we are firmly of the view it would falsely imply the findings only apply to Scotland and would merely serve to reduce readership.
With best wishes,
The Authors
