Review Reports
by
- Mackendy Ceragene 1,†,
- Rosanna Bonasia 2,*,† and
- Maria de la O Cuevas-Cancino 4
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Cristian Anghel Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
For responses to reviewer comments, please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
For responses to reviewer comments, please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been addressed the design flow calculation to examine the potential hazard due to the inundation in Villahermosa.
You used the social vulnerability indexes (SVI) from
the methodology proposed by the Mexican Institute of Water Technology. Why did use this approach not the- Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, USA? It is important to have a clarification.
However, you have not mentioned the equation for the calculated SVI, It is important to indicate it.
Please check the paper Nguyen, C.V., Horne, R., Fien, J. et al. Assessment of social vulnerability to climate change at the local scale: development and application of a Social Vulnerability Index. Climatic Change 143, 355–370 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2012-2
Flanagan, B. E., Gregory, E. W., Hallisey, E. J., Heitgerd, J. L., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of homeland security and emergency management, 8(1), 0000102202154773551792.
Main issue is that socio-economic and demographic variables as authors mentioned in 374. What is the reason for this access issue? Please elaborate the reason within the paper.
In the result section, you build up the section only based flood, vulnerabiltiy and risk map. It is importnat to have a sub-section for SVI.
Discussion
As this paper is arguing the different level and the location in the flood impact, it is important to get an idea about the politics of scale and politics of places. You can explain also the different engagement of stakeholders and win and lose in the flood management and hazard identification and mitigation process. This would bring a positive outcome to the readers in policy making. Recommended to read
Withanachchi, S. S., Houdret, A., Nergui, S., Gonzalez, E. E., Tsogtbayar, A., & Ploeger, A. (2014). (Re) configuration of Water Resources Management in Mongolia: A Critical Geopolitical Analysis (No. 13). University of Kassel, Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften (Social Sciences), Internatioanl Center for Development and Decent Work (ICDD). https://kobra.uni-kassel.de/handle/123456789/11865 Conclusion Your conclusion is too long and have few citation-based arguments. It is not advisable to have new argument from the litreture at the conclusion, it is better to have them in the discussion. Recommended to shorten this section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Grammer and syntax checking are needed.
Author Response
For responses to reviewer comments, please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are very grateful to the reviewer for the comments he provided on the statistical study. They allowed us to reflect on and significantly improve the content of our work.
Best regards,
Rosanna Bonasia
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your revisions. However, you have overlooked some of reviwe comments and did not answer.
Here is
Recommend reading these papers to get idea for politcs of scale
Withanachchi, S. S., Houdret, A., Nergui, S., Gonzalez, E. E., Tsogtbayar, A., & Ploeger, A. (2014). (Re) configuration of Water Resources Management in Mongolia: A Critical Geopolitical Analysis (No. 13). University of Kassel, Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften (Social Sciences), Internatioanl Center for Development and Decent Work (ICDD). https://kobra.uni-kassel.de/handle/123456789/11865
Conclusion Your conclusion is too long and has few citation-based arguments. It is not advisable to have new argument from the literature at the conclusion, it is better to have them in the discussion. Recommended shortening this section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some syntax issues are detected in conclusion section.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the bibliographical suggestion, which we will read carefully.
Regarding the conclusions, they have been summarized as much as possible, considering that some concepts expressed in it are based on the suggestions of the reviewers.
Finally, as regards the bibliographical references of the conclusions, we would like to point out that there are no references to new topics. The references cited in the conclusions, which do not appear elsewhere in the text, are 2, of which, one is the historical source of the image shown and the structure of the city in ancient times, and one is the reference to a web portal developed in Europe for the visualization of flood risk maps.
Best regards,
Rosanna Bonasia