The LIFE-GARACHICO Project: A Holistic and Flexible Management of Coastal Flooding Risk in Praia da Vitória, Azores
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “The LIFE-GARACHICO Project: A Holistic and Flexible Management of Coastal Flooding Risk in Praia da Vitória, Azores” is well structured, and is easy to read. The application of the holistic approach is interesting and worth publishing. I have a few comments, that I would like them to be addressed before suggesting the manuscript for publication.
The IPCC refers to a different definition of risk, which is the product of probability times exposure times vulnerability. The authors should also provide this definition and highlight the advantages/disadvantages of this compared with the others.
It is said that the probability of occurrence of overtopping was calculated based on observed data over the last 25 years. I would be interesting to have a graph with the records of those events with water elevations to check how these are distributed.
Also some discussion on the robustness of the statistical analysis is required. Bear in mind that the authors are assessing 1% probability based on less than 30 years of data.
How do you distinguish between people, vehicles and buildings, when assessing table 4? Why is the probability different for each group? Isn’t the probability just dependent on the event probability? It is not clear how can this be made dependent on a feature? Please describe this in detail in the methodology.
Author Response
We appreciate all comments and suggestions provided by Reviewer 1. They were carefully considered, addressed, and incorporated into the manuscript, as we recognized their importance in clarifying potential doubts for future readers of our work.
-
Comment 1: The IPCC refers to a different definition of risk, which is the product of probability, exposure, and vulnerability. The authors should also provide this definition and highlight the advantages/disadvantages compared with others.
-
Response: Addressed and highlighted on page 4.
-
-
Comment 2: It is stated that the probability of occurrence of overtopping was calculated based on observed data over the last 25 years. It would be interesting to include a graph with the records of those events along with water elevations to check their distribution.
-
Response: Addressed and highlighted on pages 5–6 (Figure 3 added).
-
-
Comment 3: Some discussion on the robustness of the statistical analysis is required. Bear in mind that the authors are assessing 1% probability based on less than 30 years of data.
-
Response: Addressed and highlighted on page 6.
-
-
Comment 4: How do you distinguish between people, vehicles, and buildings when assessing Table 4? Why is the probability different for each group? Isn’t the probability just dependent on the event probability? It is not clear how this can be made dependent on a feature. Please describe this in detail in the methodology.
-
Response: Addressed and highlighted on pages 11–12.
-
We hope we have satisfactorily addressed all of the reviewer’s considerations and we sincerely appreciate the valuable contribution to improving our work.
Best regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe coastal flood vulnerability determination presented in the manuscript represents a meticulous approach to quantifying and localizing a complex phenomenon. The integration of geographic information systems with the analytical hierarchy process is a current approach, allowing the combination of physical and anthropogenic data to generate a more nuanced understanding of vulnerability. This method, while not my preferred choice, is the most accessible analysis. I recognize that it goes beyond a simple analysis based on individual factors, trying to capture the interdependencies and hierarchies between the different elements that contribute to vulnerability.
However, the approach has potential limitations and points that could be examined more critically.
Minor observations:
I suggest that the authors provide more detail on how the HIDRALERTA system is calibrated and validated.
I did not understand why the specific wave height and water level thresholds that trigger each alert level are not defined, maybe this aspect should be better explained.
I suggest that chapter 4, Discussion, be called Conclusions.
In conclusion, the manuscript is an outstanding contribution to the field of coastal risk management, and I recommend its publication following the authors' consideration of the minor observations.
Best regards,
The reviewer.
Author Response
We appreciate all comments and suggestions provided by Reviewer 1. They were carefully considered, addressed, and incorporated into the manuscript, as we recognized their importance in clarifying potential doubts for future readers of our work.
-
Comment 1: I suggest that the authors provide more detail on how the HIDRALERTA system is calibrated and validated.
-
Response: Addressed and highlighted on page 10.
-
-
Comment 2: I did not understand why the specific wave height and water level thresholds that trigger each alert level are not defined, maybe this aspect should be better explained.
-
Response: Addressed and highlighted on pages 8–9.
-
-
Comment 3: I suggest that chapter 4, Discussion, be called Conclusions.
-
Response: Addressed and highlighted on page 19.
-
We hope we have satisfactorily addressed all of the reviewer’s considerations and we sincerely appreciate the valuable contribution to improving our work.
Best regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI welcome the improvement of the manuscript. All but one of my comments have been properly addressed. The comment regarding the limited data set of 25 years is obviously not sufficient to estimate 100-year events. This should be mentioned in the manuscript. It should be kept in mind that the authors estimate annual statistics, so it is important to have a large data set of many years to estimate such extreme events. For methods that deal better with limited data sets, please refer the reader to articles such as https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/2969/2024/.
You can also cite https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03622-0
where it says: ‘Distributions are usually constructed using the maximum or minimum values of a climate variable per time unit (e.g. per day, month, year) in a time series of at least 30 years (as recommended by the World Meteorological Organisation). '
In my view, it should be sufficient to recognise this limitation based on the above and argue that the value of 25 years is nevertheless close to this limit and therefore extrapolation to 100 years is possible, even if caution is required for the purposes of decision making due to the associated uncertainties in the values obtained for extreme events.
To put it bluntly: these extreme values can deviate greatly from reality.
Author Response
We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback during this second round of review. The comments were carefully considered and have contributed significantly to the improvement of our manuscript.
In particular, the point raised regarding the limitations of using a 25-year dataset to estimate low-probability events has been acknowledged and addressed in detail. A corresponding clarification has been added to the manuscript and is highlighted in green on page 6. We fully agree with the reviewer on the importance of clearly communicating the uncertainties associated with extrapolating extreme values from relatively short time series, and the text has been revised accordingly. Both references suggested by the reviewer have been included to substantiate this discussion.
We trust that the revised manuscript now fully addresses the reviewer’s remaining concerns, and we are grateful for the opportunity to further strengthen our work through this valuable review process.
Best regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
