Multi-Hazards and Existing Data: A Transboundary Assessment for Climate Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Scientific Commentary and Suggestions for Improvement

Abstract

• Clarity and Conciseness: The abstract effectively outlines the objectives and methodology but could benefit from a clearer articulation of key findings. Including specific results from hazard mapping and spatial interactions would enhance its impact.
• Novelty and Contributions: While the methodology’s replicability is mentioned, a stronger statement on how it advances existing research in multi-hazard assessment would strengthen the abstract.

Introduction

• Theoretical Framework: The introduction provides a solid foundation but lacks integration of a conceptual model. A brief discussion of key theoretical underpinnings, such as the multi-hazard risk framework or resilience theory, could improve coherence.
• Literature Gaps: Although challenges in multi-hazard assessment are well-stated, it would be beneficial to explicitly highlight unresolved research questions. What specific gaps does this study address that previous studies have not?

Case Study

• Justification of Study Area: The rationale for selecting the Triveneto macro-region is sound, given its climate vulnerabilities. However, further elaboration on why this region is a suitable model for transboundary hazard mapping would add value.
• Comparability: The case study would be stronger with references to other similar transboundary contexts globally. Comparing with another European or international case could enhance the generalizability of findings.

Materials and Methods

• Identifying Relevant Climate-Related Hazards and Indices:
• The selection process for hazards is robust, but an explanation of the weighting or prioritization criteria (e.g., frequency, impact) would be helpful.
• The exclusion of wind-related hazards is justified by data limitations, but acknowledging potential implications of this omission (e.g., underestimation of cascading effects) would improve transparency.
• Selecting Indicators and Collecting Existing Geolocalized Data for Hazard Mapping:
• The methodology effectively integrates data from multiple sources. However, a discussion on data uncertainty and consistency (e.g., resolution disparities) would strengthen credibility.
• If possible, a validation step (such as comparing selected indicators with observed impacts) could enhance methodological rigor.
• Harmonizing and Comparing Diverse Existing Data:
• The harmonization process is well-detailed but could benefit from a clearer workflow diagram illustrating the steps taken.
• Addressing how missing data were handled (e.g., interpolation techniques) would improve reproducibility.
• Assessing Spatial Hazard Interactions in Homogeneous Territorial Areas:
• The approach of defining homogeneous territorial areas is innovative. However, explaining why these specific six areas were chosen and whether alternative classifications were considered would be valuable.
• The method of overlaying hazards in GIS is solid, but a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of spatial classifications could enhance validity.

Results

• Identifying Relevant Climate-Related Hazards and Indices:
• The selection of eight hazards is well-supported, but further discussion on potential interactions (e.g., how extreme precipitation and landslides co-occur) would be insightful.
• Figures and tables could better illustrate the reasoning behind hazard selection.
• Selecting Indicators and Collecting Existing Geolocalized Data for Hazard Mapping:
• Table 1 is a valuable reference but would be more useful if accompanied by a brief discussion comparing data sources in terms of strengths and limitations.
• Harmonizing and Comparing Diverse Existing Data:
• The hazard classification scheme is appropriate, but a justification for why a five-tier classification was chosen would be helpful.
• Figure 3 is informative, but a more direct comparison (such as a correlation matrix) between hazards would strengthen the analysis.
• Assessing Spatial Hazard Interactions in Homogeneous Territorial Areas:
• Figure 5 effectively visualizes the territorial areas, but more quantitative metrics summarizing multi-hazard interactions would improve the discussion.
• The emphasis on ‘multi-hazard bundles’ is novel but could be expanded to discuss implications for risk governance and emergency planning.

Table 1: Data and Indicators to Assess Single Hazards

• Standardization of Metrics: Some indicators use thresholds (e.g., >30°C for extreme heat), while others are continuous. Consistency in measurement scales would improve comparability.
• Data Reliability: A column on data uncertainty or confidence levels could be added to acknowledge potential limitations in datasets.

Discussion and Conclusions

• Practical Applications: While the study discusses integration into spatial planning, specific policy recommendations (e.g., how urban planning regulations could incorporate findings) would enhance impact.
• Comparison with Existing Methods: A more explicit comparison with other multi-hazard assessment methodologies would help contextualize the novelty of this work.
• Limitations and Future Research: The discussion acknowledges some limitations, but expanding on how these could be addressed in future studies (e.g., through machine learning or improved cross-border governance) would be beneficial.

 

Overall Recommendations

1. Clarify the Contribution: Strengthen the articulation of how this methodology advances multi-hazard assessment in transboundary planning.
2. Enhance Data Transparency: Discuss limitations in data resolution, consistency, and uncertainty more explicitly.
3. Improve Visualization: Use more comparative visualizations (e.g., hazard correlation matrices, GIS overlays) to strengthen spatial analysis.
4. Policy Relevance: Provide concrete examples of how findings can be applied in regional planning frameworks.
5. Future Research Directions: Expand on potential methodological improvements and broader applications beyond the case study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time and suggestions. Please find responses to your comments in the attached file.

Sincerely,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report for Manuscript:

Title: Multi-hazard assessment: capitalising on existing data to support regional planning in transboundary contexts
Authors: Alessandra Longo, Chiara Semenzin, Linda Zardo
Journal: Land

1. Abstract and Introduction (pp. 1–3)

• The abstract is clear and informative. It would benefit from briefly mentioning the type of climate-related hazards analyzed (e.g., extreme heat, river flood) to set expectations for the reader.
• In the introduction (p. 2), the context regarding the Mediterranean region’s vulnerability to climate change is well-presented. However, referencing specific recent studies on hazard mapping in transboundary regions could strengthen the scientific foundation.

2. Methodology (pp. 6–10)

• Step 1 (p. 6): The process for selecting climate-related hazards is detailed and thorough. Consider specifying how the final list of hazards was prioritized, particularly in terms of data availability and relevance to the Triveneto context.
• Step 3 (p. 9): The harmonization process is central to the study’s novelty. While the explanation is clear, it would be helpful to include an example showing how a specific hazard (e.g., river flood) was harmonized across different datasets to illustrate this process.
• Step 4 (p. 10): The introduction of homogeneous territorial areas is innovative. Including a map that visualizes the process of defining these areas would improve reader comprehension.

3. Results (pp. 11–16)

• The results section provides a comprehensive overview of the hazard distributions across the Triveneto area.
• Figures 3 and 5 (pp. 13, 15): These figures are informative but could be improved by adding legends that explain the color gradients and hazard intensity levels more explicitly.
• The statistical representation in Figure 6 (p. 16) is valuable. Consider adding a brief explanation of how these statistics can inform specific planning decisions. For instance, what practical steps might planners take in areas with high overlap of extreme heat and air pollution hazards?

4. Discussion and Conclusion (pp. 17–19)

• The discussion on the integration of multi-hazard assessment into planning instruments is insightful. On p. 18, the authors could expand on how this approach could be scaled to other regions in Europe facing similar transboundary challenges.
• The conclusion should emphasize the replicability of the methodology more strongly, suggesting next steps for researchers and practitioners interested in applying this approach.

5. Limitations and Future Research (pp. 18–19)

• The manuscript acknowledges the challenge of harmonizing datasets with varying definitions and resolutions. It would be useful to include a brief section outlining specific recommendations for improving data collection and sharing across administrative boundaries.

6. Figures and Tables

• Table 1 (p. 11): This table is well-organized. Consider adding a column to specify the temporal coverage of each dataset to provide a clearer picture of the data's relevance and recency.
• Appendix A1 (pp. 20–21): The data harmonization table is a helpful resource. Ensure that all abbreviations used are defined either in the table or in the main text for clarity.

 

Language and Readability

• The manuscript is generally well-written. However, certain sections, particularly in the methodology, could benefit from simplified language for better accessibility to non-specialist readers.
• Avoid long, complex sentences in sections such as 3.3 (p. 9) to maintain clarity.

 

Recommendation

Based on the above comments, I recommend the manuscript for Minor Revision, provided that the authors address the suggestions to improve the clarity and applicability of the methodology and results.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time and suggestions. Please find responses to your comments in the attached file.

Sincerely,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly find the paper review 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time and suggestions. Please find responses to your comments in the attached file.

Sincerely,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very interesting paper exploring a more holistic approach to hazard identification and by extension management across jurisdictions. The presentation was of high quality. I think the impact of the paper could be enhanced by providing additional clarity in the following areas, which I have outlined below.

• Clarity in text due to expression. For example in Line 103 there is unnecessary capitalization mid sentence and Line 118 refers to "red threat" which is not clear. A final proof of punctuation will resolve these concerns.
• Clarity in geographic presentation - Figure 1 would have been more instructive if it had a partner (eg1b) that indicated the administrative boundaries of the autonomous regions. This would have provided the reader with a clear understanding of the challenges faced. Similarly, additions of the jurisdictional boundaries would also have been useful in enhancing the challenges associate with the land use/land management areas identified in Figure 5.  Additionally, a partner figure for Figure 1 could also have identified the key areas of interest outlined in the case study (see Lines 138-147), providing a geographic anchor for international readers. 
• Clarity in data selection - Line 214 speaks to the "selection of one suitable indicator" but there is little information as to what defines suitability. Expanding on this would also support the readers understanding. 
• Clarity in data presentation - Section 4,1 (Lines 309-339) and Figure 2 would be more effectively placed following Line 210 rather than as part of the findings where it is currently placed.  Doing so would enable the reader to quickly ascertain the approach taken.
• Clarity in implications - the paper has very clearly articulated a method for improving the way natural hazards can be identified and prioritized for management when considered in a landscape context.  It would be useful for the reader to understand how that data can be taken on board and leveraged by the jurisdictions that are responsible for implementing hazard reduction, mitigation and response activities, potentially across different landscapes.  Are the authors suggesting a new layer of bureaucracy to oversee a regional response? 
• Clarity with respect to limitations - it would also be of interest to the reader to understand the relative practicality of collating and manipulating the data to provide the output demonstrated.  Do the authors have a view as to what institutions should be responsible for capturing the data to be used at a local level?  

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time and suggestions. Please find responses to your comments in the attached file.

Sincerely,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Approved

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments