Cataloging and Testing Flood Risk Management Measures to Increase the Resilience of Critical Infrastructure Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article I reviewed is highly interesting and addresses a very timely topic, particularly in light of climate change. However, I have several comments and corrections to suggest in order to improve the manuscript's readability and flow.

 

1. Introduction: I find the introduction overly long, confusing, and repetitive. I recommend condensing it, especially by removing redundant parts in the final section. For example, lines 149-154 repeat the exact same concepts presented in lines 155-161. It would be advisable to revise this section to provide the reader with a clear and concise overview of what will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

 

2. Definition of "risk" and "flood risk": It would be helpful to include a section that explains the concept of "risk" in general, and specifically, what is meant by "flood risk" in the context of the study. This section should also define the classification of flood damage, as it is not possible to discuss risk without clarifying the concept of damage.

 

3. Methodology: The article does not clarify how the interviews were conducted or how the literature studies consulted were selected. It would be useful to specify the methodology used for the research of scientific articles, detailing the selection criteria adopted.

 

4. Style and format of citations: This is more a stylistic and formatting correction than a substantive one. Instead of merely citing numerical references, it would be better to specify the author or study being referred to. For example, instead of "as in [9], [10]" on line 74, it would be preferable to write "as in the study conducted by... [9] and... [10]." The same applies to line 93 and subsequent citations.

 

Author Response

The focus of this revision was set on the description and contextualisation of the content of this manuscript with regard to literature, theoretical background and methodology of the empiric methods. But also the points that have been indicated as can be improved were addressed. You can find the detailed description of what was done in the reply to the other comments. RI_C1 stands here for Reviewer I and Comment 1. and so on.

RI_C1: The article I reviewed is highly interesting and addresses a very timely topic, particularly in light of climate change. However, I have several comments and corrections to suggest in order to improve the manuscript's readability and flow.

RI_R1: Thank you for assessing this article as an interesting and relevant one considering climate change. This confirms our ambition to contribute valuable perspectives to the global scientific community.

RI_C2: 1. Introduction: I find the introduction overly long, confusing, and repetitive. I recommend condensing it, especially by removing redundant parts in the final section. For example, lines 149-154 repeat the exact same concepts presented in lines 155-161. It would be advisable to revise this section to provide the reader with a clear and concise overview of what will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

RI_R2: The last part of the introduction chapter summarizes the structure of the manuscript and thus also repeats the objectives again. Before the acceptance of the editors this manuscript has been commented by the editors with the specific request to underline the objectives of this manuscript for reader friendliness.

Nevertheless, we accept that some formulations are too close and must be deleted. Additionally, this section has been shortened in the end of the introduction whilst keeping the recapping of the main ideas of this manuscript for clarity. Simultaneously, these main ideas have been reformulated in the abstract more clearly.

RI_C3: 2. Definition of "risk" and "flood risk": It would be helpful to include a section that explains the concept of "risk" in general, and specifically, what is meant by "flood risk" in the context of the study. This section should also define the classification of flood damage, as it is not possible to discuss risk without clarifying the concept of damage.

RI_R3: A definition of the flood risk management workflow has been elaborated in the introduction. The second sentence in the second paragraphs defines risk: “In this framework, the term risk is defined as the product of probability and consequence of flooding [5].” Comment RI_C3 is addressed by extending the existing -flood- risk definition as a combination of potential flood consequences from different dimensions and their associated probabilities by referencing the potential consequence economic, population as well as infrastructures)

RI_C4: 3. Methodology: The article does not clarify how the interviews were conducted or how the literature studies consulted were selected. It would be useful to specify the methodology used for the research of scientific articles, detailing the selection criteria adopted.

RI_R4: The chapter “2.1. Methodology for the Derivation of a Measure Catalog” aims to address this gap that has been underlined by the reviewers. The methodology of the interviews is elaborated in “the second step” of chapter 2.1. Next to a description which questions the interviewees faced, a description of the method is added as well. “[…] The interview methodology follows [35] …].” Please indicate if you would like to have additional information on this part.

Another addition is the extended description of the literature studies made. Contrary to the statement “unstructured literature study”. There were three different types of literature study involved in this manuscript which in itself shows already that this literature study is structured. This is also mentioned in the introduction now. The three components of literature study were:

1. A literature study to investigate how similar manuscripts approach the collection of CI measures presented in the introduction.
2. A structured literature review checking for each individual CI sector, their technical hierarchies and whether measures have been defined and collected and whether they have been collected in relation to natural hazards or flooding. The authors have changed here systematically the search prompts for science-based search engines and thus have changed the description from “unstructured” review to “literature study with systematic search.”
3. The last part of chapter 2.1 describes that the recommendations from CI expert interviews highlighted further literature which describes a third part of the literature study.

These points have been made clear throughout the manuscript and improve the understanding of the readers.

RI_C5: 4. Style and format of citations: This is more a stylistic and formatting correction than a substantive one. Instead of merely citing numerical references, it would be better to specify the author or study being referred to. For example, instead of "as in [9], [10]" on line 74, it would be preferable to write "as in the study conducted by... [9] and... [10]." The same applies to line 93 and subsequent citations.

RI_R5: This remark is considered in the revised manuscript. An “and” has been added at the points in the text where the literature references were referenced actively. Sentence structures where the references are just listed passively were not modified. It is also noted that it is not necessary to introduce the citations in a sentence:

See the following reference from the IEEE Citation Guidelines:

“[...] Note: Authors and dates do not have to be written out after the first reference; use the bracketed number. Also, it is not necessary to write “in reference [2].” Just write “in [2]. [...]”

https://ieee-dataport.org/sites/default/files/analysis/27/IEEE%20Citation%20Guidelines.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The objective of the work needs to be better presented in the Abstract and Introduction section.

2. Lines 150 to 159: Please remove repeated information.

3. The subsection "2.1. Methodology for the Derivation of a Measure Catalog" needs additional information regarding the literature review. The authors state that they used an "unstructured literature study" as the first step to identify CI elements and hierarchical structures. Why was a systematic literature review not performed using a structured method (such as PRISMA)? What criteria were used to select the works that could contribute most to the topic? Note that this was an important step in the preparation of the catalog. The authors need to justify their strategy.

4. Figure 5 should be positioned after its citation. In addition, is this figure part of the method presented in section 3? If so, it should be presented in that section.

5. The discussion of the results needs to be expanded. The authors need to discuss the findings further and highlight the relevance of the results. The description of how the authors expect the work's findings to impact policymakers and other stakeholders might improve the discussion significantly.

6. Please correct the Data Availability Statement.

Author Response

The focus to address this review appropriately has been set on the description and contextualisation of the content of this manuscript about literature, theoretical background and methodology of the empiric methods. Another focus for this review concerns the discussion of the manuscript as well as the presentation of its findings.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

RII_C1: 1. The objective of the work needs to be better presented in the Abstract and Introduction section.

RII_R1: The abstract has been rewritten slightly to better highlight what the objective of this manuscript will be. As part of another review the feedback was given, that the introduction is too extensive. Nevertheless, it is always considerable feedback if the objective of a manuscript is not clear. Therefore, paragraphs in the introduction are reformulated to be less expansive and more pointedly written.

RII_C2: Lines 150 to 159: Please remove repeated information.

RII_R2: This is a mistake from the authors which has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

RII_C3: 3. The subsection "2.1. Methodology for the Derivation of a Measure Catalog" needs additional information regarding the literature review. The authors state that they used an "unstructured literature study" as the first step to identify CI elements and hierarchical structures. Why was a systematic literature review not performed using a structured method (such as PRISMA)? What criteria were used to select the works that could contribute most to the topic? Note that this was an important step in the preparation of the catalog. The authors need to justify their strategy.

RII_R3: In Chapter 2.1. additions were made to explain the strategy of the literature studies that were conducted – contrary to the statement “unstructured literature study” several layers of literature study were executed. Three different types of literature study were involved in this manuscript which in itself shows already that this literature study is structured: The three components of literature study were:

1. A literature study to investigate how similar manuscripts approach the collection of CI measures presented in the introduction.
2. A structured literature review checking for each individual CI sector whether measures have been defined and collected and whether they have been collected in relation to natural hazards or flooding. The authors have changed here systematically the search prompts for science-based search engines and thus have changed the description from “unstructured” review to “literature study with systematic search.”
3. The last part of chapter 2.1 describes that the recommendations from CI expert interviews highlighted further literature which describes a third part of the literature study.

These points have been made clear throughout the manuscript and improve the understanding of the readers for the systematic approach that was used for the presented work.

RII_C4: 4. Figure 5 should be positioned after its citation. In addition, is this figure part of the method presented in section 3? If so, it should be presented in that section.

RII_R4: Figure 5 is moved below the headline of chapter 4.1. This chapter specifically describes the network model that has been build for the case study. The interdependencies represented by connector elements were build specific for this case study. These interdependencies – specific to the case study- are displayed in Figure 5. Since it is not an generally accepted description of interdependencies the authors have chosen to leave this Figure in chapter 3 and not move it to chapter 3.

Also it is expected that the positioning of the figure and text body might be adjusted in the published version by the editorial office.

5. The discussion of the results needs to be expanded. The authors need to discuss the findings further and highlight the relevance of the results. The description of how the authors expect the work's findings to impact policymakers and other stakeholders might improve the discussion significantly.

RII_R5: The discussion of this manuscript is sure one part where the impacts for policymakers and stakeholders need consideration, but we would even go a step further and concentrate on a representation of this point in the conclusion. Therefore a paragraph has been added to the conclusion and a few sentences have been added to the discussion.

RII_C6: 6. Please correct the Data Availability Statement.

RII_R6: The data availability has been added for the data used in this case study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A few minor suggestions:

1. Some symbols, such as Tpop and phyd, are italicised, while others are not. Please ensure consistency throughout the document.
2. In Equations (1) and (2), why do the indices start from i = 0 and k = 0? What is the meaning of k=0 and i=0?
3. Pdis,sec [people] is defined as the area and number of disrupted people per sector i. Does dis refer to area, and does sec mean per second? Please clarify this in the paper.
4. How is R_CI,POP in Table 4 calculated?
5. If multiple measures are adopted simultaneously, how would the results in Table 4 be affected? For example, if measures 1 and 2 are applied together, is it possible to determine the combined impact?

Author Response

We hope that your comments have been considered and addressed appropriately and thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Your eye for detail has helped us improve the quality of the manuscript yet again. You can find the reply to your comments below in red.

RIII_C1: 1. Some symbols, such as Tpop and phyd, are italicised, while others are not. Please ensure consistency throughout the document.

RIII_R1: All variables italicised in the revised manuscript.

RIII_C2: 2. In Equations (1) and (2), why do the indices start from i = 0 and k = 0? What is the meaning of k=0 and i=0?

RIII_R2: As it is indicated by the reviewer i and k are indices which just give a numbering – “=0” just indicates that the index starts with 0:

“i” stands for the index of the individual elements, whose disruption time is summated to the total population time (Pdis) or the population time in the sector (Pdis,sec). Please also consider this sentence for the response to comment RIII_C3.

“k” stands for the index of the scenarios available through the variation of the hydrological boundary (e.g. T100, T1000, T10000)

RIII_C3: 3. Pdis,sec [people] is defined as the area and number of disrupted people per sector i. Does dis refer to area, and does sec mean per second? Please clarify this in the paper.

RIII_R3: As you have stated correctly Pdis,sec stands for the number of disrupted people per sector – what has been corrected is that “i” stands for the sector. This is not correct. “i” stands for the number of elements that are included in the summation, which is now included in the description of the text now as well.

RIII_C4: 4. How is RCI,POP in Table 4 calculated?

RIII_R4: RCI,POP is a simplification of RCI – this has not been introduced properly. A sentence has been added to clarify that RCI,POP only considers the number of people without their associated disruption time.

RIII_C5: 5. If multiple measures are adopted simultaneously, how would the results in Table 4 be affected? For example, if measures 1 and 2 are applied together, is it possible to determine the combined impact?

RIII_R5: The point made by the reviewers is very interesting – unfortunately the scope of the work is limited, and it was decided to shift this idea to the discussion and outlook part of the manuscript. Here it finds a representation as follows:

“Another addition worth considering for future case studies is testing the quantifiable risk-reduction that is achievable by combining measures in the model. An overlap of areas of impact could result in lower effectiveness than the sum of individual measures might suggest. Conversely, particularly broad measures could be identified that, despite being combined in the model representation, approach the sum of their individual results.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved, particularly in the areas where the criticisms were highlighted. It now demonstrates greater accuracy and precision in all the indicated aspects, reflecting an overall enhancement in clarity.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your effort in reviewing this paper and are happy to hear that all comments have been addressed sufficiently! Thank you very much for helping us improving this publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments to Author

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing my comments. 

With kind regards,

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your effort in reviewing this paper and are happy to hear that all comments have been addressed sufficiently! Thank you very much for helping us improve this publication.