How about Now? Changes in Risk Perception before and after Hurricane Irma

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-        This manuscript is an important contribution to the risk reduction research focusing on perceptions. The inclusion of pre-event data sets this study apart from the existing body of literature.

-        Clearly written manuscript and covers literature well.

-        Table 1: I like the idea of a table summarizing and offering a comparison of these different theories, but is there a way to make this more visually informative? Rather than a sentence of the findings could the theories be grouped or organized to quickly help readers organize similarities/differences between them. As is, I’m still doing the same work to interpret the theories/research as in the text.

-        In 3.1, lines 168-170- why are Tampa and St. Petersburg among the most vulnerable? Social vulnerabilities of population? Physical? Both?

-        Overall, detailed description of the methods with a replicable design. T-test appropriate for pre-post-test analysis. For both surveys, authors mention 317 surveys were required for a survey sample, but 315 were received (line 285).  Was this the total for both years or each year? What was the response rate for each year? Authors indicate demographic changes between 2016 and 2017—what are some of the factors driving demographic changes? Is this related to who was impacted vs. recovered post-disaster.

-        Table 4- capitalize “A” in adults over 65

- Results and discussion are detailed and clearly described. Discussion links well to other studies. 

-        Conclusions are a bit brief—can authors spotlight one or two big changes in risk perception over time (480-487)? Limitations are thoughtful.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

In the paper, the authors presented the results of a study on changes in risk perception before and after Hurricane Irma.
The manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. I rate the relevance of the content presented at a medium level. The research presented is unique due to studying the same population before and after a crisis event. However, the results obtained are expected and only confirm the previous findings. The rarity of this type of research is evidenced by the works cited, which would usually be considered too old. However, the small amount of quantitative research on the effects of disasters in the affected communities justifies the selection of literature. No excessive self-citation was found in the article.
The manuscript is scientifically sound. Any quantitative study is a contribution to science. The unique value of this study lies in the fact of examining the same population before and after the occurrence of an emergency event. The method of hypothesis verification was chosen correctly. However, the hypothesis itself raises whether it is necessary to verify it. The authors themselves state that the study's results confirm the previous findings. What is valuable, however, is the task of the strength of expected responses.
The results of the manuscript are reproducible based on the details given in the method section and the results section.
The visualization of the study results is not questionable.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the study. The authors allude to the lesser strength of Hurricane Irma's impact than expected in the discussion section. He proposes to discuss in counterpoint the conclusions of the analysis of the effects of Hurricane Senda, which, despite its relatively low strength and expected landfall, caused massive damage to critical infrastructure for society (https://www.fema.gov/sandy-5-year).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf