A Multi-Hazard Climate, Displacement and Socio-Vulnerability Score for New York City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to develop a Climate, Displacement and Socio-Vulnerability index score, building on the climate vulnerability index literature and existing data sources, for five climate hazards (coastal and riverine flooding, heatwaves, hurricanes and winter weather) in New York City, by census tract.  The study also seeks to identify social and other variables that have changed in the census tracts with highest scores.  Such indexes can help identify hotspots of climate change-related vulnerability for policy-makers.  Combining indices, and looking across climate hazards, has value and such tools will increasingly be required to effectively target interventions to protect the most vulnerable.  

The statistical analysis seems carefully done (see a few comments on enhancing some of the rationale for choices in Methods below), and the results identified are interesting and policy-relevant.  I have three main comments, followed by more detailed observations/suggestions.  

1.     The study goal could be more clearly stated and presented.  Is the goal to create the CDSV index score for NYC, or to create the index score and examine the evolution social, housing, health and other factors in the census tracts found to be hotspots for this index?  I sense it is the second.  If this is the case, the paper would be more effective if this is reflected in its structure.  I.e., the Methods would outline the steps for both parts of the analysis (index score creation and analysis of social/health variables), the Results would reporting findings from both analyses.

2.     The Discussion section currently provides only the additional analysis of social and health variables for hotspot census tracts (whereas, per point 2 above, this material may be best addressed in the Methods and Results sections).  Moreover, there is currently no limitations section identifying potential drawbacks in the study approach or data; this would be important to add.  Also lacking in the Discussion section is the context of other climate vulnerability indices for urban areas – what does this index do that others do not?

3.     Generally, less may be more in terms of presentation of figures.  Suggest choosing a smaller number of figures to present the main results in a clear and sharp way.  

 

Introduction

Line 51 and other places – perhaps another way to refer to studies rather than just the bracketed reference would be useful.

 

Methods

Line 83-85.  A short statement explaining why these 5 hazards were chosen would be important.  I assume these are the climate hazards of greatest relevance to NYC, based on studies, the city resilience plan, etc.  But this should be stated/referenced.

 

Lines 113-114.  The text that should follow Line 105 is joined to the Figure 1 caption, this should be adjusted for clarity. 

 

Line 134-136.  A brief justification for using additive normalization without weighing would be helpful.

 

Line 139.  Three not tree

 

Line 165-168.  What is the intended implication of this sentence?  I am assuming the meaning is margins of error to follow in future research (not intended to apply to this paper) with availability of errors for the FEMA NRI data? (And that this issue will be addressed in the limitations part of the Discussion section of this paper – note that I did not see it addressed there). This could be clarified to avoid confusion.

 

Line. 207 and beyond.  Is it appropriate to identify specific housing developments and subway stations (in the context of residents’ privacy).  Is it not sufficient to note the census tract and provide the descriptive data?  Policy-makers who could act on this knowledge know how to identify locations of census tracts.

 

Line 300.  Coastal not costal

 

Line 304.  As with Figure 1, it seems here too the text that should follow Line 287 is actually merged in with the caption for Figure 7.  This would need to be adjusted, currently it is difficult to follow the trail.

 

 

Discussion

 

This section seems to be missing three things: (1) A summary of what was found in the main analysis, at the outset of the section; (2) reference to the relevant literature and what this study does that is innovative and policy-relevant; and (3) limitations of the analysis/data presented (at least the issue of lack of margins of error mentioned in the text should be raised specifically as a limitation).

 

Line 316 and beyond.  The section starts in on the secondary analysis of changes in socio-economic and housing conditions, and continues with racial/ethnic and health outcome factors (Line 356 and beyond) in areas with high CDVS scores – without stating in clear terms the core of what was identified in the main analysis.  And for clarity in the analysis, perhaps it would be more effective to include these additional analyses in the main Results section?  Currently, details related to the methods of these additional analyses are included in the Discussion section, and could more effectively be included in the Methods, and the Results reported along with main findings.  

 

Line 411 and beyond.  Why choose asthma and diabetes?  Why not other health outcomes?  A rationale is needed for choosing these health outcomes and not others.

 

Conclusions

 

Line 444.  This sentence is not easy to interpret, consider redrafting with shorter clearer sentence(s).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English overall is clear, other than the noted merging of text and captions, some overly-long sentences that could be more clearly understood if shorter, and some typos.

Author Response

Review # 1

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to develop a Climate, Displacement and Socio-Vulnerability index score, building on the climate vulnerability index literature and existing data sources, for five climate hazards (coastal and riverine flooding, heatwaves, hurricanes and winter weather) in New York City, by census tract.  The study also seeks to identify social and other variables that have changed in the census tracts with highest scores.  Such indexes can help identify hotspots of climate change-related vulnerability for policy-makers.  Combining indices, and looking across climate hazards, has value and such tools will increasingly be required to effectively target interventions to protect the most vulnerable. 

The statistical analysis seems carefully done (see a few comments on enhancing some of the rationale for choices in Methods below), and the results identified are interesting and policy-relevant.  I have three main comments, followed by more detailed observations/suggestions. 

1. The study goal could be more clearly stated and presented. Is the goal to create the CDSV index score for NYC, or to create the index score and examine the evolution social, housing, health and other factors in the census tracts found to be hotspots for this index?  I sense it is the second.  If this is the case, the paper would be more effective if this is reflected in its structure.  I.e., the Methods would outline the steps for both parts of the analysis (index score creation and analysis of social/health variables), the Results would reporting findings from both analyses.

R: Thanks for the comment. We state in the introduction the goal of the index “ The score combines the data from the climate, displacement and socio-economic aspects with the ultimate goal being to identify those areas where risk of the combination of the three factors is the highest (e.g., hotspots due to compounding effects).”

Concerning the second comment: we have re-written the Discussion and restructured the paper according to reviewers’ suggestions.

2. The Discussion section currently provides only the additional analysis of social and health variables for hotspot census tracts (whereas, per point 2 above, this material may be best addressed in the Methods and Results sections). Moreover, there is currently no limitations section identifying potential drawbacks in the study approach or data; this would be important to add.  Also lacking in the Discussion section is the context of other climate vulnerability indices for urban areas – what does this index do that others do not?

R: As asked by this and another reviewer, we have moved the Discussion into a new sub-section of the Results and have re-written the Discussion. Concerning the question at the point above, we clearly expressed that the score here produced is novel as it integrates MULTIPLE climate hazards as well as displacement, which has never been done before, at least for NYC. 

3. Generally, less may be more in terms of presentation of figures. Suggest choosing a smaller number of figures to present the main results in a clear and sharp way. 

R: Thanks for this feedback. We would like , however, to keep the number of figures as is. This is consistent with other papers published in the same journal and in other journals.

 

Introduction

Line 51 and other places – perhaps another way to refer to studies rather than just the bracketed reference would be useful.

R: Thanks, We have revised that.

 

Methods

Line 83-85.  A short statement explaining why these 5 hazards were chosen would be important.  I assume these are the climate hazards of greatest relevance to NYC, based on studies, the city resilience plan, etc.  But this should be stated/referenced.

R: Indeed, these hazards were climate hazards of greatest relevance to NYC. We based this choice on previous NPCC work and on recommendations from the city, as - for example - in https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/environmental/climate-health-profile-report.pdf. We have added a sentence explaining this.

 

Lines 113-114.  The text that should follow Line 105 is joined to the Figure 1 caption, this should be adjusted for clarity.

R: Done, thanks

 

Line 134-136.  A brief justification for using additive normalization without weighing would be helpful.

R: Thanks. We added that.

 

Line 139.  Three not tree

R: Done, thanks.

 

Line 165-168.  What is the intended implication of this sentence?  I am assuming the meaning is margins of error to follow in future research (not intended to apply to this paper) with availability of errors for the FEMA NRI data? (And that this issue will be addressed in the limitations part of the Discussion section of this paper – note that I did not see it addressed there). This could be clarified to avoid confusion.

R: Yes, We have added information here.

 

Line. 207 and beyond.  Is it appropriate to identify specific housing developments and subway stations (in the context of residents’ privacy).  Is it not sufficient to note the census tract and provide the descriptive data?  Policy-makers who could act on this knowledge know how to identify locations of census tracts.

R: We understand and respect the suggestion from the reviewer. Nevertheless, we would like to keep those geographic references so that readers who are not policy makers can identify the regions with more familiar geographic places that can be also easily identified in maps (eg Google maps) or by local stakeholders. 

 

Line 300.  Coastal not costal

R: Done, thanks

 

Line 304.  As with Figure 1, it seems here too the text that should follow Line 287 is actually merged in with the caption for Figure 7.  This would need to be adjusted, currently it is difficult to follow the trail.

 R: Done, thanks.

 

Discussion

 

This section seems to be missing three things: (1) A summary of what was found in the main analysis, at the outset of the section; (2) reference to the relevant literature and what this study does that is innovative and policy-relevant; and (3) limitations of the analysis/data presented (at least the issue of lack of margins of error mentioned in the text should be raised specifically as a limitation).

 

Line 316 and beyond.  The section starts in on the secondary analysis of changes in socio-economic and housing conditions, and continues with racial/ethnic and health outcome factors (Line 356 and beyond) in areas with high CDVS scores – without stating in clear terms the core of what was identified in the main analysis.  And for clarity in the analysis, perhaps it would be more effective to include these additional analyses in the main Results section?  Currently, details related to the methods of these additional analyses are included in the Discussion section, and could more effectively be included in the Methods, and the Results reported along with main findings. 

 

R: We have re-written the Discussion section and moved the material contained in the previous Discussion section to a sub-section of the Results. 

 

Line 411 and beyond.  Why choose asthma and diabetes?  Why not other health outcomes?  A rationale is needed for choosing these health outcomes and not others.

R: We chose these two health issues because data was available for those specific regions and we were able to perform the quantitative analysis. In the case of asthma, this illness can be strongly connected to respiratory effects associated with air quality arising from heatwaves.

 

Conclusions

 

Line 444.  This sentence is not easy to interpret, consider redrafting with shorter clearer sentence(s).

 R: Thanks, we revised that sentence from:

“We have also shown that the sensitivity of the population to the combination of climate 444 hazards, displacement and socio-vulnerability has been increasing over the past decades 445 because of the evolution of socio-demographic factors and to the geographic regions 446 where the combined effect is the highest. “

 

To

 

“We have also shown that the population exposed to the combination of climate hazards, displacement and socio-vulnerability has been increasing over the past decades because of changes in socio-demographic factors where CDSV shows the highest values.”

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English overall is clear, other than the noted merging of text and captions, some overly-long sentences that could be more clearly understood if shorter, and some typos.

R: Thanks, we revised the text according to this suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report of " A multi-hazard climate, displacement and socio-vulnerability score for New York City."

General Opinion: The manuscript is an original article. It is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published. I have itemized the following comments and suggestions to help the authors improve the quality of the manuscript.

Abstract: The overall structure of the abstract is not standard and incoherent. I observed key missing information in the abstract. These issues need to be clarified. Below are some of them.

o   The objectives and methods were not clearly presented.

o   No quantitative results were provided

Keywords: The keywords are appropriate.

Introduction:  I observed the concept was nicely introduced. The authors provided useful information about the existing or similar studies.

Materials and Methods: the research procedures and techniques are fairly described and reproducible. The authors provided study limitations. I have a minor comment on the software was used for the analysis.

Results: The results section is complemented with significant figures to help visualize results. However, I observed major weaknesses in the formatting of the figures and clarification on few descriptive statistics used in the study.

·       The presentation figures and tables need to be improved. Between Fig. 4 and 5 is blank page. This comment applies to similar cases all results sections

·       In line 180, the authors used mean. Then in line 415 were computed, and line 419 also, medium values were used. Please clarify or provide reason (s) for this.

Discussion: this section needs to improved. find few information here that is either repeated or should be moved to the methods section.

·       Lines 358-367: Kindly move this information to the methods section.

·       Line 316-322: this information can be moved to the methods section. Authors may rather focus on the results to discuss their key findings.

·       In the introduction, the authors claim it was the first time such a work was done in NY, but few comparative analyses were done in the discussion section.

Conclusion: The conclusion is too lengthy and wordy. To improve the readability of this section, I suggest the conclusion be presented in bullets point. For example, information in lines 424-436 is useful. it can be summarized further. Only bullets of the key findings be maintained here.

References: The references cited are relevant to the study. However, I observed (1) most of the citations used (webpage links) do not follow the journal style of citing. (2) the webpages are not placed in the reference list. I would suggest the authors improve this aspect as well.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required 

Author Response

Review # 2  report of " A multi-hazard climate, displacement and socio-vulnerability score for New York City."

General Opinion: The manuscript is an original article. It is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published. I have itemized the following comments and suggestions to help the authors improve the quality of the manuscript.

Abstract: The overall structure of the abstract is not standard and incoherent. I observed key missing information in the abstract. These issues need to be clarified. Below are some of them.

o   The objectives and methods were not clearly presented.

o   No quantitative results were provided

R: We have added new sentences in the abstract to reflect the suggestions provided by the reviewer. We have added one numerical result but we feel it is impossible to report the numbers for other cases in the abstract because there are too many cases (e.g. hazards) and results. We hope this satisfies the reviewer.

Keywords: The keywords are appropriate.

Introduction:  I observed the concept was nicely introduced. The authors provided useful information about the existing or similar studies.

Materials and Methods: the research procedures and techniques are fairly described and reproducible. The authors provided study limitations. I have a minor comment on the software was used for the analysis.

Results: The results section is complemented with significant figures to help visualize results. However, I observed major weaknesses in the formatting of the figures and clarification on few descriptive statistics used in the study.

• The presentation figures and tables need to be improved. Between Fig. 4 and 5 is blank page. This comment applies to similar cases all results sections

R: Thanks for the feedback. We have re-formatted all figures and spaces. We also expect that final details will be resolved during the typesetting of the final version (should the paper be accepted).

• In line 180, the authors used mean. Then in line 415 were computed, and line 419 also, medium values were used. Please clarify or provide reason (s) for this.

R: We added median values to the section concerning CDSV values for consistency.

 

Discussion: this section needs to improved. find few information here that is either repeated or should be moved to the methods section.

• Lines 358-367: Kindly move this information to the methods section.
• Line 316-322: this information can be moved to the methods section. Authors may rather focus on the results to discuss their key findings.

R: We have re-written the Discussion section and moved the text form the previous Discussion section into a new subsection of the Results.

• In the introduction, the authors claim it was the first time such a work was done in NY, but few comparative analyses were done in the discussion section.

R: This is because we are not aware of any other study that looks at the compounding effect of the climate hazards here considered for NYC that also include socio-vulnerability. This is even more true when it comes to displacement. We would be very happy to add a discussion comparing our results with others’ if the reviewer can provide suggestions.

Conclusion: The conclusion is too lengthy and wordy. To improve the readability of this section, I suggest the conclusion be presented in bullets point. For example, information in lines 424-436 is useful. it can be summarized further. Only bullets of the key findings be maintained here.

R: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion but we would prefer to keep the Conclusion in its current format. Currently, the length of the Conclusions section is consistent with other papers published in this journal. Reporting bullet points is not matching the style of other papers, therefore we would prefer avoiding that.

 

References: The references cited are relevant to the study. However, I observed (1) most of the citations used (webpage links) do not follow the journal style of citing. (2) the webpages are not placed in the reference list. I would suggest the authors improve this aspect as well.

R: We have formatted our references using Zotero and the format suggested by the journal. We are not sure the suggestion from the reviewer in this regard. Apologies if we missed anything. Also, concerning the websites: we would prefer to keep them within the text for improved readability. We include in the references only literature work. We would appreciate advise on this from the editors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study from Tedesco et al. presents and analyzes a Climate, Displacement and Socio-Vulnerability (CDSV) score for multiple climate hazards over New York City. The manuscript presented here needs to be restructured and properly written. The results section appears to be incomplete. The discussion shows results and not a discussion itself. The figures must be improved. I couldn't see the supplemental material. I have left some comments below about the part of the manuscript that could be evaluated. The manuscript, as such, requires major changes. I suggest the authors to resubmit the manuscript, advising them to provide effective responses to the issues here evidenced.

 

Comments

 

1-      The quality and graphic art of the figures should be improved. For example, I suggest:

-          The figures must be visible to the naked eye. At the current resolution (and size), that's a bit difficult.

-          Lettering the figures on the left margin at the top. Those letters should be smaller, according to the size of the figures.

-          A brief title above each panel will improve the interpretation of the map figures.

-          The size of the references must also be adjusted in some cases.

 

2-      The CSDI index is defined between 0 and 100 and Figure 3 shows values between 0 and 80. Please readjust the references (or maps, as appropriate). What are the regions between black lines, with numbers inside in Fig. 3?

 

3-      Supplementary material cannot be viewed.

 

4-      The results section appears to be incomplete. I leave my comments below regarding the part that is presented. The presentation and analysis of the results must be improved.

 

a.       Please improve the discussion of Figure 3. The spatial behavior of the index is not analyzed (lines 177-184).

b.       Figure 5 in black and white makes interpretation difficult. Is it possible to map with colors?

c.       What is FIP?

d.       Not being able to evaluate the supplementary material makes it difficult to review the results.

 

5-      The discussion section appears to show results and not a discussion. Please restructure and organize the paper properly.

 

Minor Comments

Line 81: FEMA is note defined.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Reviewer # 3

The study from Tedesco et al. presents and analyzes a Climate, Displacement and Socio-Vulnerability (CDSV) score for multiple climate hazards over New York City. The manuscript presented here needs to be restructured and properly written. The results section appears to be incomplete. The discussion shows results and not a discussion itself. The figures must be improved. I couldn't see the supplemental material. I have left some comments below about the part of the manuscript that could be evaluated. The manuscript, as such, requires major changes. I suggest the authors to resubmit the manuscript, advising them to provide effective responses to the issues here evidenced.

 Comments

 1-      The quality and graphic art of the figures should be improved. For example, I suggest:

-          The figures must be visible to the naked eye. At the current resolution (and size), that's a bit difficult.

R: We are not sure what is meant here with a “naked eye”. All figures match the standard of 300 dpi. We would like to get feedback from the editors and/or typesetter on this, before changing them.

-          Lettering the figures on the left margin at the top. Those letters should be smaller, according to the size of the figures.

R: This aspect will be dealt with, we suspect, in typesetting. We would like to ask feedback form the editors on this.

-          A brief title above each panel will improve the interpretation of the map figures.

R: We are not sure this is allowed and usually journals tend to discourage this and they recommend to use captions for this purpose. We would appreciate feedback from the editors.

-          The size of the references must also be adjusted in some cases.

R: We are not sure what is meant here. If the reviewer refers to the size of the fonts of the references we could not find any font to have a different size than others. We apoligize if we misunderstood.

 

2-      The CSDI index is defined between 0 and 100 and Figure 3 shows values between 0 and 80. Please readjust the references (or maps, as appropriate). What are the regions between black lines, with numbers inside in Fig. 3?

R: The values range between 0 and 80 but no area reaches that value. In order, to better show the map, we decided to have an upper threshold of 80. Using a maximum value of 100 would “dilute” the contrast and make the figure less legible.

 

 3-      Supplementary material cannot be viewed.

 R: We are not sure why the supplementary material is not showing. We submitted it with the article and would like to get feedback from the editors in this regard.

 

4-      The results section appears to be incomplete. I leave my comments below regarding the part that is presented. The presentation and analysis of the results must be improved.

 

3. Please improve the discussion of Figure 3. The spatial behavior of the index is not analyzed (lines 177-184).

R: We have added extra sentences describing the figure. We think that the quantitative discussion reported in the following supports the analysis of the results in Fig. 3. We hope the reviewer agrees with us.

1. Figure 5 in black and white makes interpretation difficult. Is it possible to map with colors?

R: We change that, thanks.

1. What is FIP?

R: Federal Information Processing Series. We added the definition. Thanks for pointing this out.

1. Not being able to evaluate the supplementary material makes it difficult to review the results.

R: We are not sure why the supplementary material is not showing. We submitted it with the article and would like to get feedback from the editors in this regard.

 

5-      The discussion section appears to show results and not a discussion. Please restructure and organize the paper properly.

 R: Done/

Minor Comments

Line 81: FEMA is note defined.

R: We defined the acronym.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised version of the MS and have no further comments.  I wish the authors the best with this innovative and valuable work looking at urban climate and health vulnerability from a multi-hazard perspective.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can now be published.