Assessing Future Flood Risk and Developing Integrated Flood Risk Management Strategies: A Case Study from the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the UK, including England, great importance is given to the issue of climate change and its possible consequences. The UK’s Climate Change Act from 2008 set out one of the world’s first, legally binding national frameworks for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting climate change risks. This country can certainly be considered as one of the leaders in developing plans to adapt its infrastructure and societies to remain viable in the face of exacerbated and/or new climate risks. This study looks at climate change adaptation framework in the UK, in particular at changing flood risk in England, UK. The authors examine the policy framework and actions that underpin England’s adaptation. At the same time, the authors analyse the flood risk projections for the future that feed into the UK’s Climate Change Risk Assessment with the flood risk management portfolios and try to interpret the results and give some recommendations. As a result, the paper should be interesting not only to the risk analysts and policymakers as the authors assume. It may be general lesson about  integrated flood risk management approaches.

I have no critical remarks.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the supportive review of the paper.

This review includes no critical remarks or suggestions for improvements. Therefore, no responses are required and no revisions have been made to the paper in response to this review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes a complex approach to assessing future flood risk and developing flood risk management strategies. 

The manuscript has a good structure, the research is well conducted an the presentation of the results is well done.

 

 

   

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the supportive review of the paper.

This review includes no critical remarks or suggestions for improvements. Therefore, no responses are required and no revisions have been made to the paper in response to this review.

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

This study focuses on adaptive planning for flood management in the United States. The topic is very interesting, and it has practical importance. Though this topic is quite interesting and of practical significance, the manuscript requires revision to improve its quality.

 

Abstract

The abstract is well structured and reflected the insights of the study.

 

Introduction

-The introduction is also structured. The background and importance have been described properly, but the author should add at least a paragraph before going to describe 1.1, and 1.2. The new paragraph should consequences of the flood risk, wrong strategies, and importance of the right strategies of risk management, and the linkage between adaptive planning and flood disaster management properly.

-The research questions and specific objectives should be clarified under 1.3.

-The research gap requires more clarification. So, the author is advised to add some literature to clarify the research gap and novelty.

-There are many in-text citation style errors. The author is advised to use the format of Brown et al. [13], Warren et al. [14], Sayers et al. [23], and Kovats et al. [25]. The general reader will feel bored if you cited as “as discussed in [23]”. So, the style should be avoided throughout the manuscript.

-The author is advised to remove the duplicate reference of “Sayers et al.” which is cited 2 times in [23], and [24].

- The author is also advised to maintain the coherence of the description.

 

Materials and Methods

-This section is poor and not structured.

-The author is advised to divide into several sub-sections to describe the context, data sources, variable selection procedure, and measurement of variables to address the research question.

-Need to clarify “Summarized from Table 6.1 in [23] and more details available in [24]. What is your summary from what? Who are [23] and [24]? Please see my comments in the introduction section.

-How did you measure future flood risk? Need to clarify.

- How did you measure to explore integrated flood risk management strategies? Need to clarify.

 

Results

-This section requires extensive revision.

-The section shows several cases of flood exposures, but the author should explain how did it represent future flood risk?

-The analysis seems correct, but there should have literature support. The author should add some literature to support the findings and citations from recent literature.

-The author should compare the results with similar types of studies. The previous literature can support the findings and increase the acceptability of the study.

-In the result section, there is no indication of the development of integrated flood risk management strategies. The author is advised to clarify it.

 

 

Discussion

-This section is well structured, but the author is advised to rephrase the sub-section titles, like Acceptance of Uncertainty in adaptive planning, Diverse Participation in adaptive planning, and Development of Co-Benefits in adaptive planning, so that the reader easily identify the discussion section from conceptual framework section. The same sub-section title can create confusion, which should be avoided in the discussion section.

 

 

Conclusion

The author is too short to represent the insights of the study. It should add key findings, recommendations, and practical implications. The limitation of the methodology and future research direction can make the conclusion more reader-friendly.

 

References

-Need to check the whole section and follow the journal style.

 

-Need to complete several references like [1-6, 7-10], and remove the under-review article [11].

Author Response

We wish to thank the reviewer for a comprehensive and useful set of comments. Our responses appear in italics after each comment.

General comments

This study focuses on adaptive planning for flood management in the United States. The topic is very interesting, and it has practical importance. Though this topic is quite interesting and of practical significance, the manuscript requires revision to improve its quality.

 

Abstract

The abstract is well structured and reflected the insights of the study.

 

Introduction

-The introduction is also structured. The background and importance have been described properly, but the author should add at least a paragraph before going to describe 1.1, and 1.2. The new paragraph should consequences of the flood risk, wrong strategies, and importance of the right strategies of risk management, and the linkage between adaptive planning and flood disaster management properly.

This is an excellent observation and we have added a new, high-level introductory paragraph.

-The research questions and specific objectives should be clarified under 1.3.

We have clarified the objective of the study in Section 1.3.

-The research gap requires more clarification. So, the author is advised to add some literature to clarify the research gap and novelty.

Section 1.3 has been further revised to include more details on the research gap (with reference to the literature).

-There are many in-text citation style errors. The author is advised to use the format of Brown et al. [13], Warren et al. [14], Sayers et al. [23], and Kovats et al. [25]. The general reader will feel bored if you cited as “as discussed in [23]”. So, the style should be avoided throughout the manuscript.

I am unsure whether these are real “errors” or not as the approach I’ve used appears to be in line with the citation and referencing style guide. However, I have added some author names where they improve the flow of the sentence.

-The author is advised to remove the duplicate reference of “Sayers et al.” which is cited 2 times in [23], and [24].

These sources are not duplicates: [23] is the main report and [24] is an Appendix to the main report. These were published as separate documents and [24] includes very specific information that is pertinent to this study. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate to leave them as separate references.

- The author is also advised to maintain the coherence of the description.

 We have been through the rest of the paper and ensured that the revised referencing style is coherent throughout the text.

Materials and Methods

-This section is poor and not structured. The author is advised to divide into several sub-sections to describe the context, data sources, variable selection procedure, and measurement of variables to address the research question.

Sub-headings and an introductory sentence have been added. In general, we have referred the reader to the Sayers et al. report as this has much more detail on the processes. Our aim within section 2 is to present enough information to understand the paper, which I believe we have achieved.

-Need to clarify “Summarized from Table 6.1 in [23] and more details available in [24]. What is your summary from what? Who are [23] and [24]? Please see my comments in the introduction section.

This text has been revised to identify 23 and 24 and to describe that the table is a summary of more complete information from the references.

-How did you measure future flood risk? Need to clarify.

This is described in Section 2.1 i.e. a statistical modification of present day impact curves based on assumptions of climate changes, population growth and FRM strategies.

- How did you measure to explore integrated flood risk management strategies? Need to clarify.

 This is described in Section 2.2 and Table 1 in particular i.e. a series of meetings with FRM policy professionals leading to quantitative future changes in FRM approaches. These are then used to adapt the impact curves based on evidence that the impact of those approaches. This has been made more explicit in the sentence before Table 1.

Results

-This section requires extensive revision.

As described below, this section has been significantly improved.

-The section shows several cases of flood exposures, but the author should explain how did it represent future flood risk?

This is a repeat of the comment from the method section and has been addressed there.

-The analysis seems correct, but there should have literature support. The author should add some literature to support the findings and citations from recent literature. And The author should compare the results with similar types of studies. The previous literature can support the findings and increase the acceptability of the study.

We have added 5 new references to the results sections to add to the contextualisation of the river, coastal and surface water flooding results.

-In the result section, there is no indication of the development of integrated flood risk management strategies. The author is advised to clarify it.

The development of the FRM strategies is discussed in the methods section. The 3 FRM scenarios – RWS, CLA, EWS – are referred to clearly throughout the results section.

 

Discussion

-This section is well structured, but the author is advised to rephrase the sub-section titles, like Acceptance of Uncertainty in adaptive planning, Diverse Participation in adaptive planning, and Development of Co-Benefits in adaptive planning, so that the reader easily identify the discussion section from conceptual framework section. The same sub-section title can create confusion, which should be avoided in the discussion section.

 We have adapted the sub heading to be more general to assist the reader in identifying lessons that can be learned for other regions.

 

Conclusion

The author is too short to represent the insights of the study. It should add key findings, recommendations, and practical implications. The limitation of the methodology and future research direction can make the conclusion more reader-friendly.

 These aspects have been added to the conclusions section.

References

-Need to check the whole section and follow the journal style.

I have followed the journal’s referencing style guide very closely, see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#references I have re-checked the reference list and can find no  inconsistencies. No action taken. 

-Need to complete several references like [1-6, 7-10], …

These sources are UK Government reports (with no specific named authors) and are cited as if they were books as per the journal referencing style guide. No action taken.

-… and remove the under-review article [11].

The journal referencing style guide includes a format for including articles in review (and even in preparation) so I would assume that this is acceptable. No action taken.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is interesting but some concerns should be addressed:

The logic of the introduction needs to be improved. The structure is a bit difficult to follow for a reader. The authors should start with a grand challenge such as the frequency and diversity of natural hazards as a consequence of climate change.

• Esmaiel, Aly, et al. "Integration of flood risk assessment and spatial planning for disaster management in Egypt." Progress in Disaster Science 15 (2022): 100245.
• Auliagisni, Widi, Suzanne Wilkinson, and Mohamed Elkharboutly. "Using community-based flood maps to explain flood hazards in Northland, New Zealand." Progress in Disaster Science 14 (2022): 100229.
• Urrutia II, J. Manuel, et al. "A validated geospatial model approach for monitoring progress of the Sendai Framework: The example of people affected in agriculture due to flooding in Ecuador." Progress in Disaster Science 15 (2022): 100233.
• Uddin, Kabir, and Mir A. Matin. "Potential flood hazard zonation and flood shelter suitability mapping for disaster risk mitigation in Bangladesh using geospatial technology." Progress in disaster science 11 (2021): 100185.
• Gharib, Zahra, et al. "Developing an integrated model for planning the delivery of construction materials to post-disaster reconstruction projects." Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 9.3 (2022): 1135-1156.
• Gharib, Zahra, et al. "Post-Disaster Temporary Shelters Distribution after a Large-Scale Disaster: An Integrated Model." Buildings 12.4 (2022): 414.

Research gaps and contributions should be clearly identified.

 

There is a need to improve the conclusion and the conclusion section significantly. authors should discuss how the results of this research can be applied to different phases of disaster risk management. As an example of how this study can facilitate flood disaster response strategies, such as evacuation planning, see: "A modelling framework to design an evacuation support system for healthcare infrastructures in response to major flood events." Progress in disaster science 13 (2022): 100218. And An integrated decision model for managing hospital evacuation in response to an extreme flood event: a case study of the Hawkesbury‐Nepean River, NSW, Australia." Safety science 155 (2022): 105867.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comments and we respond to the individually below in italics after the relevant points.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting but some concerns should be addressed:

The logic of the introduction needs to be improved. The structure is a bit difficult to follow for a reader. The authors should start with a grand challenge such as the frequency and diversity of natural hazards as a consequence of climate change.

This comment has been addressed in response to Reviewer 3’s comments.

 

• Esmaiel, Aly, et al. "Integration of flood risk assessment and spatial planning for disaster management in Egypt." Progress in Disaster Science 15 (2022): 100245.
• Auliagisni, Widi, Suzanne Wilkinson, and Mohamed Elkharboutly. "Using community-based flood maps to explain flood hazards in Northland, New Zealand." Progress in Disaster Science 14 (2022): 100229.
• Urrutia II, J. Manuel, et al. "A validated geospatial model approach for monitoring progress of the Sendai Framework: The example of people affected in agriculture due to flooding in Ecuador." Progress in Disaster Science 15 (2022): 100233.
• Uddin, Kabir, and Mir A. Matin. "Potential flood hazard zonation and flood shelter suitability mapping for disaster risk mitigation in Bangladesh using geospatial technology." Progress in disaster science 11 (2021): 100185.
• Gharib, Zahra, et al. "Developing an integrated model for planning the delivery of construction materials to post-disaster reconstruction projects." Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 9.3 (2022): 1135-1156.
• Gharib, Zahra, et al. "Post-Disaster Temporary Shelters Distribution after a Large-Scale Disaster: An Integrated Model." Buildings 12.4 (2022): 414.

I assume that the reviewer is suggesting we incorporate these references into our paper. If so, then I don’t think there is strong justification to include any of them as there are no clear overlaps with flood risk projections methods or the development of long-term, integrated FRM strategies.

 

Research gaps and contributions should be clearly identified.

This comment has been addressed in response to Reviewer 3’s comments.

 

There is a need to improve the conclusion and the conclusion section significantly. authors should discuss how the results of this research can be applied to different phases of disaster risk management. As an example of how this study can facilitate flood disaster response strategies, such as evacuation planning, see: "A modelling framework to design an evacuation support system for healthcare infrastructures in response to major flood events." Progress in disaster science 13 (2022): 100218. And An integrated decision model for managing hospital evacuation in response to an extreme flood event: a case study of the Hawkesbury‐Nepean River, NSW, Australia." Safety science 155 (2022): 105867.

Whilst I accept that disaster risk management is important, the aim of the paper was not to focus on any particular FRM approach but rather to investigate the potential scale of risk reduction that an integrated FRM/adaptation strategy could achieve.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments have been addressed point-by-point. The revised version has been improved a lot. It is now publishable. 

Author Response

"All comments have been addressed point-by-point. The revised version has been improved a lot. It is now publishable."

There are no further comments to respond to.

Reviewer 4 Report

There are no acceptable research gaps provided; the gaps should be extracted from a critical review. the previous comments have not been addressed significently.

In addition, provided contributions cannot be considered as contributions for a scientific paper. The differences between this study and the current studies should be clearly explained.

Author Response

I wish to thank Reviewer 4 for their valuable comments. I also wish to apologise as some of responses to their first review purely referred to responses to Reviewer 3, which I was content had responded to Reviewer 4's comments but I did not articulate this explicitly. Below, I now include those explicit responses (in italics).

 

There are no acceptable research gaps provided; the gaps should be extracted from a critical review. the previous comments have not been addressed significently.

Please accept my apologies: I didn’t properly expand on the comment in the response to Reviewer 3 that I referred to in my initial response to Reviewer 4.

I had stated in the Reviewer 3 response that Section 1.3 had been revised to include more details on the research gap, including reference to the literature. However, I didn’t state that this included reference to a recent review of the sector. I have I now further expanded the text to make this explicit in the paper and to expand on the identification of the specific gap:

“The review and reflection on the climate change risk assessment and adaptation planning processes in an individual nation represents a significant gap in the literature with notable previous studies taking a whole system risk/adaptation perspective for an individual nation [29] or examining high-level global patterns [30]. Furthermore, Adger et al. [29] also identify integrated risk assessments as a “frontier of climate change risk assessment” and, therefore, we advance this field by focussing on risk assessment and adaptation strategy portfolios across a specific sector: flood risk management.”

29. Adger, W. N.; Brown, I.; Surminski. S. Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy. 2018 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2018, 376 20180106.
30. Berrang-Ford, L.; Siders, A.R.; Lesnikowski, A.; Fischer, A. P.; Callaghan, M. W.; Haddaway, N. R.; Mach, K. J.; Araos, M.; Shah, M. A. R.; Wannewitz, M.; et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. 2021, Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 989–1000.

 

In addition, provided contributions cannot be considered as contributions for a scientific paper. The differences between this study and the current studies should be clearly explained.

I concede that the specific area of novelty may be difficult to unpick given that this paper is based on the major modelling effort that supported the UK’s 2022 Climate Change Risk Assessment. We can reassure the reviewer, however, that this analysis includes important elements of the results from that project that were not published as any part of the CCRA and that we have revised the text to make the specific area of novelty more clear:

“The overall goal of this paper is to assess the extent to which projected future flood risk can be managed by plausible FRM strategies. This will be achieved by analysing the integrated FRM elements of the most recent climate change risk assessment [26] in England in more depth than in underlying research report [26] or relevant CCRA chapter [28]. In particular, this includes a novel breakdown of the impact of different FRM portfolios across the different sources of flood risk and a more complete examination of the contribution of the individual elements of those FRM portfolios.”

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

accept