Urban Planning for Climate Change: A Toolkit of Actions for an Integrated Strategy of Adaptation to Heavy Rains, River Floods, and Sea Level Rise
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presented is of a good standard, especially the introduction relating to the methodological premises and the background of knowledge, but it should be greatly improved in the part of the materials and methods.
In particular, the paragraph “2.3. Comparative analysis of best practices ", where best practices are listed in a table, taken as an example such as defence, adaptation and delocalization / de-antropization strategies, in response to the phenomena of Heavy rain, river flooding and sea level rise, could be improved by expanding the range of best practices (those implicitly mentioned in paragraph four of line 276), therefore of the types of technical-design solutions that can be found, with design actions that can be found in several case studies.
For example, through the re-editing of table 1, by migrating the descriptive part of the "Strategies/objectives/actions" section, which could be inserted in the text, the actions could simply be inserted, as well as in tables 2 and 3, to have a clearer and more immediate reading, but above all comparable with what is described in the following paragraphs.
Some small typos in the editing phase should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting as an idea. However, it needs extension and revision as there are many points for authors to address.
The paper lacks the discussion about the aim of the study, the primary objective is not clear, significance and the comparison with the state of the art. The introduction is quite verbose and needs to cover the motivation a bit more, followed by the contribution of the work. It should clearly state the motivation of the authors to conduct the present work and the way that it could be assistive to specific applications and systems.
One of the limitations is the lack of discussion of the state of the art. The related work needs to present in better detail each one of the works addressed describing its aims (research questions specified) and the results collected. Please explain which authors’ work face the gaps in the literature. Furthermore, you should make the research gap clear: Is it that, no one did before and why this would be interesting? Or is it the methodology?
Please provide a more complete and critical discussion - what do we learn from your results? Who can profit from that? How your findings can be compared with findings from other authors. Please make a discussion that should be oriented towards the aims of the study and the gaps in the literature. Please highlight the innovation of the study too.
Finally, extensive editing of the English language and style are required. The grammar needs polishing and kindly give proper attention to the punctuation. Please have the paper proofread again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved as per the suggestions provided. Now the manuscript presents the idea in a good fashion. Best of Luck !
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
