Sea Level Rise and Coastal Impacts: Innovation and Improvement of the Local Urban Plan for a Climate-Proof Adaptation Strategy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors!
The title is correct, the layout of the abstract with keywords is correct. A thoroughly conducted analysis is worth noting. The use of 61 literature and internet items deserves recognition. Cooperation with various types of research means indicates the credibility of the research undertaken. In point three, I have the impression that the authors use mental shortcuts. …. Recites: it is a significant science in itself and a fascinating challenge…. I propose to quote the facts - because the use of the phrase itself and fascination, is a relative concept and is not a scientific concept. I understand that we are dealing with Passionate Authors, but not every reader will find out on the basis of two words about this meaning. Conclusions are definitely too short. The authors concluded what they expect in the future! What are the conclusions? Conclusions? Please supplement! Using the same phrases frequently / starting with the same phrase doesn't look professional in a research article. Line 479, 484, 498…. With reference Reference 60 - the date of access to the website is missing I recommend publishing an article with a request to read the suggestions carefully.
I wish you good health!
Greetings!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
A BRIEF SUMMARY
The paper titled “Sea level rise and coastal impacts. Experimentation and innovation of the local plan for a climate-proof adaptation strategy” presents a good topic for readers of this Journal. However, I do believe that the manuscript needs significant improvements, in order to be published. Some important issues that do not help reader to understand your research and the results out of it:
- Lack of an adequate method description.
- In title has reported “experimentation”. If I read experimentation, I expect to read a paper with hydraulic (numerical) modelling and/or experimental data, which I do not find in this work. I strongly suggest changing the title.
- Too little bibliography for this type of work, on a so broad topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper to make the foundation for the arguments stronger. For example, in this work lacks an accurate risk analysis. For which return periods did you conduct the study? I suggest to include also the hydraulic risk into the Hazard indicator as shown in following Case Studies:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051466
- https://doi.org/10.3390/s19061399
- https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse5040051
- https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-181-2016, 2016
- https://doi.org/10.1680/cm.61149.607
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
- The English language needs to be revised throughout the text
- The format is messy and does not help the reader (for example some captions and tables 4-5-6 are written in Italian Language)
- The text is not well organized and I had to read many times to understand the methodology authors have used and their conclusions.
- The "Conclusions" section is quite short and does not highlight the main findings of the paper. You have to highlight the paper novelty.
- Figure 1: is not clear. I suggest replacing it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
A BRIEF SUMMARY
The paper has been improved following revier comments. In my opinion, it is ready for publication. Congratulations.
Only one “minor comment”: In Introduction section, I suggest to insert following studies on “storm surge” and “coastal risk analysis” in urban area (similar at your case study).
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04420-y
- https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051466
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
We would like to thank again the reviewer for her/his constructive comment and suggestion.
We have received the suggestion in the line 119 of the text
Thank you very much for your attention
