“The Greatest Benefit Is to Think Differently”: Experiences of Developing and Using a Web-Based Tool for Decision-Making under Deep Uncertainty for Adaptation to Sea Level Rise in Municipalities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the development and testing of a tool to support decision-making in the context of adapting to climate change (ACC) using one method of decision-making under deep uncertainty (DMDU) in five municipalities in Sweden.

Although the article has potential for publication, it presents some weaknesses as outlined below.

The gap to be filled in the literature is presented in a confusing way. The authors state that “DMDU methods often ignore the organizational and individual contexts in which decision-making takes place” and that the proposed article addresses this gap. But there is no discussion of this in the article. A tool that implements only one DMDU method was built and tested and aspects of employee of five municipalities perception regarding the usefulness of the proposed tool were investigated, so what is the gap to be filled?

The developed and tested web tool is presented as a prototype, which addresses only one problem in ACC, which is sea level rise. Employees who tested the tool presented positive aspects of the tool, as well as suggestions for adjustments and improvements. At various times in the article, the authors state that the results presented show that if this tool is developed in a final version, including all suggestions for adjustments and improvements, it can be very useful in the context of decisions in ACC, so what is the the contribution of the article? How does it advance in this domain? What are the theoretical and practical implications of what was actually proposed in the article?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thanks for your useful comments. Please see our responses in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors proposed a robust decision support tool when planning for uncertain sea level rises in municipalities. The author made the tool by using a user-centric participatory design process. The manuscript point out valuable insight into the deep uncertain situation such as the sea level rise. However, the reviewer thinks that the manuscript script has room to be improved by revision with the following points. 

1. The research problem definition is missing. The research questions 1 and 3 can be quantified in a mathematical form. If the authors present how the question will be measured and make decisions will be valuable to the reader. 

2. In section 3, the overall schematic diagram of the research flow is necessary. 

3. In the case of section 4, the development tool's data,  program language, and structure for the web application need to be presented. 

4. Figure 1,2 red lined area is presented. The principal of how the tool is decided on in this area should be elaborated. 

5. The contribution of this manuscript can be stated more in the conclusion. 

6. The future works need to be explained in discussion. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thanks for your helpful comments. Please see the attached letter for our detailed responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version of the article is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors successfully revised the manuscript to satisfy the reviewer's comments. The manuscript is the appropriate form for publication.