Public Support for Flood Risk Management: Insights from an Italian Alpine Survey Using Systems Thinking
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI regard this as an excellent and important paper. I have some comments which are directed at possible additional developments and further insight.
1. There is a lot that could be said about 'anticipatory governance' and the problematic status this has in the context of the centralised and 'top down' managerialist approach widely imposed in Anglo-America (and Australasia).
2. Page 4 line 145. change 'this was the strongest event' to 'this was the most powerful event' to improve English nuance.
3. The par. 155 - 162 on p. 5 is a shorthand summary only fully meaningful to statisticians thoroughly familiar with every item on the list. As this par. is a vital link in the paper it could be helpful to make it more accessible to a wider readership.
4. On p. 6 pars. 2, 3 and 4 there is potential ambiguity in beginning par. 1 with 'In our model...' but starting par. 2 with 'This is not intended... and it is not really clear what the 'This' refers to to.
The potential ambigity is compounded in par. 4 which begins 'The framework represents...', but what exactly is 'the framework'? is it 'the model' in par. 1 - or the wider contextual factors that arise in par. 3?This is not serious just a matter of some minor revisions so the reader does not become lost.
5. On p. 7 the par. 3 starting at line 245 would be helped by representing the sequence of points raised in a i), ii) and iii) format as this is both very compressed material - and it also involves implications drawing upon complex evidence.
6. P. 8, lines 283-284 on the 'autonomy' of graduates and young people is of very great importance in the Anglo-world where the goal of secondary and higher education is 'informed submission', rather than genunely critical thinking in an era of information overload.
7. Par. 3 beginning line 317 is exciting in that the potential of 'the model' as regards the intelligent integration of quantitative and qualitative factors is crisply summarised. This is donme in a way that challenges the minimisation of trust and the maximisation of control in what this reviewer theorises as 'managerial modernity'.
8. Further to the above in 7, lines 371-374 on p. 11 raise issues of great significance and of potentially wide application in an era of ever greater complexity and control in which panic-thinking and conspiracy theories can infect the minds of citizens.
9. The material on page 12 should be of great interest to readers, both academic and activist who are concerned with promoting societal participation rather than submissive conformity
10. In overall terms, the material and argument in this paper could well be 'taught' (ie activated) through drawing upon the discussion in 'management science' of the contested yet vital distinction between 'management' and leadership'. This reader envisages the creation of workshop trainings in which material drawn from arguments in this paper could be deployed to enhance an informed and multi-agency 'from below' approach to the creation of community resilience in the context of extreme events!
Author Response
Comments 1. There is a lot that could be said about 'anticipatory governance' and the problematic status this has in the context of the centralised and 'top down' managerialist approach widely imposed in Anglo-America (and Australasia).
Response 1: thank you for your comment, The paper presents only a part of the larger LIFE FRANCA project that with other activities (including Scenario Planning, Three Horizons, Strategic Interviews), has sought to introduce “anticipatory governance” practices and skills in the management of natural hazards in an Italian Province; this paper is not the appropriate venue for a broader and more theoretical discourse on the problematics of anticipatory governance, distinguishing different characteristics in different Anglo-American contexts or in Asia.
Comment 2. Page 4 line 145. change 'this was the strongest event' to 'this was the most powerful event' to improve English nuance.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out, I agree and I changed the text accordingly
Comments 3. The par. 155 - 162 on p. 5 is a shorthand summary only fully meaningful to statisticians thoroughly familiar with every item on the list. As this par. is a vital link in the paper it could be helpful to make it more accessible to a wider readership.
Response 3: Agreed, I expanded the text with brief descriptions of the statistical tests used.
Comments 4. On p. 6 pars. 2, 3 and 4 there is potential ambiguity in beginning par. 1 with 'In our model...' but starting par. 2 with 'This is not intended... and it is not really clear what the 'This' refers to to. The potential ambigity is compounded in par. 4 which begins 'The framework represents...', but what exactly is 'the framework'? is it 'the model' in par. 1 - or the wider contextual factors that arise in par. 3? This is not serious just a matter of some minor revisions so the reader does not become lost.
Response 4: Agree, I clarified the references, using more homogeneous terms, e.g. line194 “In our conceptual framework, represented as a stock-flows model”, line 206 “Such a conceptual framework is not intended…”
Comments 5. On p. 7 the par. 3 starting at line 245 would be helped by representing the sequence of points raised in a i), ii) and iii) format as this is both very compressed material - and it also involves implications drawing upon complex evidence.
Response 5. Agree, I revised the paragraph using the points as suggested.
Comments 6. P. 8, lines 283-284 on the 'autonomy' of graduates and young people is of very great importance in the Anglo-world where the goal of secondary and higher education is 'informed submission', rather than genunely critical thinking in an era of information overload.
Response 6: I Interesting observation, which I had not considered, however, in this case it is a matter of acting in a coordinated manner during an emergency, an autonomy of thought and deviation of action from civil defense directions carries a risk to oneself and to the community, during an emergency it is unethical to discuss levels of autonomy in choices, instead critical thinking is desirable, I agree with the reviewer, in peacetime, outside of an emergency. To address this issue, I have added references to so-called social learning, and potential applications of the model in training and participatory workshops that can include critical thinking in the place of 'informed submission' under command-and-control oriented management.
Comments 7. Par. 3 beginning line 317 is exciting in that the potential of 'the model' as regards the intelligent integration of quantitative and qualitative factors is crisply summarised. This is done in a way that challenges the minimisation of trust and the maximisation of control in what this reviewer theorises as 'managerial modernity'.
Response 7. Thank you for your insightful comment While we appreciate the enthusiasm for linking our findings to broader theoretical paradigms, such as what you term "managerial modernity," we must clarify that the scope and aims of this study are more focused and pragmatic. Our intention is to use the model as a reflective tool to better understand the complex feedbacks within flood risk management systems, rather than to directly critique or engage with the broader sociological or managerial theories. The integration of qualitative and quantitative factors within the model is specifically aimed at improving practical decision-making and stakeholder engagement in flood risk management contexts. While the notion of "managerial modernity" offers an interesting lens, it extends beyond the methodological and applied goals of this research. To address your comment, we have added further elaboration in the discussion section to clarify the intended scope of the model's application, emphasizing the model's utility in highlighting dynamic interactions between trust, perception, and institutional actions in a way that supports adaptive and inclusive planning, focusing on how the integration of these dimensions informs anticipatory governance and community engagement strategies, which are crucial for managing flood risks effectively.
We hope this addresses your observation while remaining aligned with the specific focus and contributions of our study.
Comments 8. Further to the above in 7, lines 371-374 on p. 11 raise issues of great significance and of potentially wide application in an era of ever greater complexity and control in which panic-thinking and conspiracy theories can infect the minds of citizens.
Response 8. Thank you for highlighting the significance of the issues raised in the context of increasing societal complexity, control, and the challenges posed by panic-thinking and conspiracy theories. We acknowledge the relevance of these dynamics in shaping public perceptions of risk and trust in institutions, especially in the domain of flood risk management. While our study does not specifically address the phenomena of panic-thinking or conspiracy theories, the findings and the systems-thinking framework we employ do indirectly engage with these issues by emphasizing the critical role of trust, transparent communication, and community engagement. The systems perspective highlights how narratives—whether accurate or distorted—can influence trust and public support, creating reinforcing feedback loops that may either bolster or undermine effective risk management. In response to your comment, we expanded the discussion section by mentioning future research opportunities regarding the influence of misinformation and panic-driven narratives.
Comments 9. The material on page 12 should be of great interest to readers, both academic and activist who are concerned with promoting societal participation rather than submissive conformity
Response 9: Thank you for highlighting the relevance to academic and activist audiences concerned with promoting societal participation. Indeed, fostering active societal participation is central to the systems-thinking framework discussed in the article. While we agree that societal participation is crucial in fostering resilient and adaptive communities, we would like to clarify that our study is not intended to directly address or critique issues of conformity or social compliance in broader sociopolitical contexts.
In response to your comment, we further clarified in the conclusion section that the aim of participatory approaches is to empower communities with knowledge and tools to co-design and co-manage risk reduction strategies. This actively would counters tendencies toward passive acceptance or conformity, encouraging a more engaged and resilient citizenry.
Comments 10. In overall terms, the material and argument in this paper could well be 'taught' (ie activated) through drawing upon the discussion in 'management science' of the contested yet vital distinction between 'management' and leadership'. This reader envisages the creation of workshop trainings in which material drawn from arguments in this paper could be deployed to enhance an informed and multi-agency 'from below' approach to the creation of community resilience in the context of extreme events!
Response 10. Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive suggestion regarding the potential application of the material in this paper within the context of workshop trainings and the broader discussion in management science about the distinction between "management" and "leadership." While the study does not explicitly engage with this distinction, we appreciate your vision of how the findings and arguments could be applied to foster community resilience through informed, multi-agency, and participatory approaches.
In response to your comment, in the discussion section we have incorporate some references to these points, such as potential for application in training contexts, distinction between “leadership” and “management”, community-driven approaches. While the article remains focused on its primary goals, we hope this additional perspective enhances its relevance and practical applicability in contexts such as those you describe.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the article could be an important contribution to the field of studies of social aspects of environmental issues. The conducted survey is especially valuable, as it shows important findings relevant to policy making. However, the article includes many other considerations, such as, a conceptual framework based on systems thinking. All these digressions do not contribute to the clarity of the article idea and should be removed. I strongly advise the authors to concentrate on 1) the conducted survey, 2) its findings and 3) relevance of the findings for policy making. Accordingly, all the text should be amended, especially, introduction (in particular, objectives of the study), conceptualization, discussion and conclusions.
Author Response
Comment1: The article includes many considerations, such as the conceptual framework based on systems thinking, which do not contribute to the clarity of the article idea and should be removed.
Response1: We respectfully disagree with the assessment that the systems thinking framework is a digression. On the contrary, it represents one of the study's key contributions to the field. The framework complements the survey findings by providing a dynamic lens to understand the complex feedback loops between public perception, institutional trust, and flood risk management. It bridges theoretical insights with practical relevance, particularly for policymakers aiming to implement adaptive and long-term strategies. However, we acknowledge the need to refine its presentation to ensure it remains tightly integrated with the survey and findings.
Comment2: The authors should concentrate on the conducted survey, its findings, and the relevance of the findings for policy making.
Response2: We appreciate this suggestion and agree that the focus on the survey findings and their policy implications is crucial. We ensure that these aspects are emphasized throughout the manuscript. At the same time, the systems thinking framework is reframed to directly support the interpretation of the survey results and their relevance for policymaking.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsgeographies-3381737
Thank you for the review invitation.
Overall, this is a well-written and thorough essay that adds much to the discussion of flood risk management.
The authors present a compelling case for the importance of public perception and confidence in institutions in developing and implementing flood risk control initiatives.
The study's emphasis on the influence of a catastrophic weather event on public perception is particularly important, as it offers novel insights into how crises may change social attitudes about risk and risk management measures.
I have a few suggestions that might assist to enhance the paper:
• The discussion section could be expanded to provide a more in-depth analysis of the study's results (Socio-hydrological concept can be useful for this revision).
• The authors should elaborate on the implications of their findings for the design and implementation of flood risk management plans. • They should also discuss the study's limitations and suggest future research directions.
Despite these modest modifications, I feel this is a good study that should be published. I advocate accepting it with minor adjustments.
Author Response
Comments 1: The discussion section could be expanded to provide a more in-depth analysis of the study's results (Socio-hydrological concept can be useful for this revision).
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to expand the discussion section and incorporate the socio-hydrological concept. In response, we have revised the discussion to link study’s results to a more integrative perspective on the feedback loops and complexities identified.
Comment2: The authors should elaborate on the implications of their findings for the design and implementation of flood risk management plans.
Response 2: The revised discussion now mentions how these insights can inform adaptive governance and participatory approaches to flood risk management, emphasizing their relevance for long-term resilience-building. We hope these additions align with your expectations.
Comment3 : They should also discuss the study's limitations and suggest future research directions.
Response 3: We thank you for this suggestion. In line with your comment, we have included a short paragraph on the limitations of the research and expanded the discussion section to explicitly outline how the insights derived from our model and survey can inform the development of more effective flood risk management strategies.
Specifically, in the conclusion section we added a list of possible applications and further developments, such as: incorporating trust dynamics, balancing quantitative and qualitative factors, adaptive and narrative strategies, and co-design with stakeholders.
We hope that these additions will respond to your suggestions and further enhance the applicability of our research findings.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject of the study is very important. The authors have done excellent analysis and corrections but miss out on few vital inputs to achieve novelty.
The objective of the study needs to be rewritten to clarity. It should be what the study did and not bringing what the study did!!! Both in abstract, end of the introduction, and should be captured in the conclusions what the study intended to achieve and what it did.
Otherwise the study could be accepted after these minor corrections.
Author Response
Comment1: The objective of the study needs to be rewritten for clarity.
Response1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have revised the objectives for greater clarity in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions. The revised text now explicitly states what the study set out to achieve and what it accomplished. This should help readers better understand the purpose and findings of the research.
Comment2: The objective should reflect what the study did, not just what it aimed to do.
Response: We have refined the articulation of the objectives in relevant sections to clearly outline the actions taken in the study (e.g., conducting a pre-post risk perception survey, analyzing its results, and developing a systems thinking framework) and their contributions to the field.
