Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Social Sciences

My revised version of the paper " Domestic Structures, Misalignment, and Defining the Climate displacement problem " has been revised according to manuscript number socsci-1297171.

In this research, the study's primary goal is to link extreme events, climate change, adaptation, and after the authors synthesize scholarship on who leaves an area after disasters. The subject of the Manuscript is interesting for the scope of the Social Science MDPI Journal. However, the findings are exciting but do not advance the field. The Introduction does not describe the paper's research problem; the authors combine many ideas with methodological aspects, and the objective is not clear enough. The authors need to rewrite the whole Manuscript to provide deep syntax revision to define the Introduction (including the goals), Data and Methods, Results and analysis, and Conclusion

I know that the authors said, “Therefore, the paper will not separate materials and methods from findings and discussion.” Still, I disagree with that structure because this makes the Manuscript hard to read and be understood.

I emphasize that the author needs to create straightforward, short, and consistent methods and not mix with the results. Therefore, please provide I) The current state of the research problems (around the world: Please check the https://www.ipcc.ch/). II) The novelty of the research compare to recent climate change studies. III) please provide some review regarding extreme climate impacts (e.g., social-economic impacts for the study area). IV) The best way to provide an easy form to follow the methodology is with a framework because the current methods are a bit dense.

I have some Major Revisions. 

• The introduction and abstract sections are very confusing (it is very technical).
• Please provide some references for several affirmations that authors have done.
• Also, the authors need more figures, tables, and graphs (with numbers = statistics) that show the novelty and new findings of the authors. However, in the current form, the document looks more like a chapter book than a manuscript.

Cordially,

Reviewer.

Author Response

Please check the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors can think to improve the presentation of the paper. Overall, it is a good paper, and we need this kind of discussion since climate change-related displacement is increasing.

Author Response

Please check the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Your main premise is unclear- I think I know what you are trying to say, but it is not coming out well. This is the most important thing going on in the paper- clarity. Your personal take is refreshing, thoughtful, and practical but needs a bit of clarity in places. Please with the Editors on this as they guide the project forward.

 

"In the global governance scholarship, it’s unclear whether institutions ad-
vocates ask for would be to respond to demand, as people flee places increasingly subject to floods,heat waves and fires, or whether institutions need to assist in helping people to leave areas before
fleeing a disaster."

Author Response

Please check the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 The author has addressed all my concerns. Good job!