Assessment of Physical Vulnerability and Uncertainties for Debris Flow Hazard: A Review concerning Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer

Manuscript ID: Land-2002938

Title: Estimating the Physical Vulnerability and Uncertainties of the Built Environment subjected to Debris Flow Hazard: A Review Concerning Climate Change

General comments

1.       In title subjected should be replaced by “Subjected” to maintain the consistency.

2.       It is suggested to check the grammatical error and punctuation and spacing in manuscript.

3.        Figure text should be increased or highlighted for better visualization.

Specific comments

1.       Authors have claimed “After floods and earthquakes, debris flows are the most devastating 15 natural hazard in the world.” You are advised to justify it with statistical data.

2.       Rewrite the sentence “furthermore, ‘climate change …………... vulnerability assessments in line 18 and 19 of abstract to state clear meaning.

3.       It is suggested to include on what basis vulnerability approaches are reviewed in manuscript.

4.       It is advice to include most recent debris flows event and their consequences in first paragraph of manuscript.

5.       Last paragraph must be rewritten to highlights the benefit of this review and What is the change that must be made after the recent experienced Climate Change.

6.       Figure 2 is showing important features debris flow research in the world. However, discussion of figure 2 is very less. It is recommended to add few sentences to describe the figure 2.

7.       Table 1 is the main component of this review. It is suggested to describe more about table 1 and its features before it places in manuscript.

8.       It is suggested that table 1 should be checked for units, spacing, and referencing in the manuscript.

9.       It is suggested that vulnerability curve should be more discussed by focusing recent trends in vulnerability assessment procedures.

10.   Uncertainties quantification section has discussed vulnerability curve quantification techniques only. It is suggested to discuss uncertainties and their quantification techniques for other approach as well discussed in manuscript.

11.   Sentence “A reliable risk assessment system ……………each level” is ambiguous and hard to understand. It is suggested to rewrite in simplest form.

12.   More text is required to discuss figure 10 as this is figure showing critical step in risk assessment system.

13.   Future scope and limitation of the study should also added at end of the manuscript.

Overall, manuscript submitted is well written and addressing the vulnerability analysis techniques and uncertainties associated with them by considering the global climate change. These factors played crucial role while designing risk management guidelines. However, manuscript can be improved before accepting for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the paper presented is very interesting, following the scope of LAND, and useful in the study of spatial planning and disaster risk reduction. This article has been well structured. Some minor improvements are still needed with the following details:

·      The term debris flow in the paper should remain consistent according to the title. Do not use the term or refer to the information from slow-moving slides, debris floods, floods, landslides, or mountainous hazards.

·      A figure or table should be placed after the sentence or paragraph that mentions the figure or table for the first time. For example, Figure 1 should be placed after sentence line 101 or after paragraph line 110—also, Figures 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and Table 2, 3.

·      Section 3.5 should also be mentioned that the method for selecting the main indicator or variable (e.g. using the Principle Component Analysis) will also determine the accuracy and practicality of the semi-quantitative method.

·      Conclusions should be made more concise. Lines 476-482 can be ignored. Make sure the conclusion has answered the research objectives.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The title should be rephrased for brevity.

2. There is no consistency in the presentation of the names of the authors.

3. Language editor should be used to correct many grammatical errors in the

   article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx