Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management in Malaysia
, Minhaz Farid Ahmed 1,*, Mazlin Bin Mokhtar 1,2, Bijay Halder 3 and Miklas Scholz 4,5,6,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are some comments for authors to improve the quality of manuscript as follows:
(1) I think the abstract should be rewritten to highlight the innovation of this study. Meanwhile, why did authors develop this method for practical issue? What are the advantage of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management? Can reader get suitable policy for flood management by NbS? All above issues are unclear
(2) Introduction section can include four key components: motivation, literature survey, contributions, and the organization of paper. Please modify this section accordingly. Please add some more detailed previous studies to support your developed model. There are many good studies in the related fields, but which have their shortcomings. Please enhance your novelty of developed method based on previous research works. Meanwhile, please update the reference lists including the most recent and relevant references.
(3) The structure of this paper is deficit. Please add some expression in the ending of “Introduction” section. Meanwhile, the framework of your developed method or application should be added.
(4) What are the practical issues in study? How did NbS use in a practical flood management in Malysia? Could author show readers method development and highlight research aims.
(5) What practical problem does the result solve or reflect? We can only find results in 2020 in Figure 2. What did Figure 2 tell for readers? What did these steps and results mean? Could author summarize the general laws for method application through these steps and results?
(6) In discussion section, can this method be applied all over the world? We can only find results which highlight in Malysia.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some comments for authors to improve the quality of manuscript as follows:
(1) I think the abstract should be rewritten to highlight the innovation of this study. Meanwhile, why did authors develop this method for practical issue? What are the advantage of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management? Can reader get suitable policy for flood management by NbS? All above issues are unclear
(2) Introduction section can include four key components: motivation, literature survey, contributions, and the organization of paper. Please modify this section accordingly. Please add some more detailed previous studies to support your developed model. There are many good studies in the related fields, but which have their shortcomings. Please enhance your novelty of developed method based on previous research works. Meanwhile, please update the reference lists including the most recent and relevant references.
(3) The structure of this paper is deficit. Please add some expression in the ending of “Introduction” section. Meanwhile, the framework of your developed method or application should be added.
(4) What are the practical issues in study? How did NbS use in a practical flood management in Malysia? Could author show readers method development and highlight research aims.
(5) What practical problem does the result solve or reflect? We can only find results in 2020 in Figure 2. What did Figure 2 tell for readers? What did these steps and results mean? Could author summarize the general laws for method application through these steps and results?
(6) In discussion section, can this method be applied all over the world? We can only find results which highlight in Malysia.
Author Response
To
The Editor
Water, MDPI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing me to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management” to Water. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the time and effort you have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript.
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and concerns.
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: I think the abstract should be rewritten to highlight the innovation of this study. Meanwhile, why did authors develop this method for practical issue? What are the advantage of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management? Can reader get suitable policy for flood management by NbS? All above issues are unclear
Response: The abstract section is rewritten and added all suggestions. Please check the line numbers 24 – 26 (reason), 30 – 33 (advantage of NbS), and 34 – 37 (policies).
Comment 2: Introduction section can include four key components: motivation, literature survey, contributions, and the organization of paper. Please modify this section accordingly. Please add some more detailed previous studies to support your developed model. There are many good studies in the related fields, but which have their shortcomings. Please enhance your novelty of developed method based on previous research works. Meanwhile, please update the reference lists including the most recent and relevant references.
Response: The entire introduction section is modified and rewritten. Line numbers 51 – 54, and 80 – 94.
Comment 3: The structure of this paper is deficit. Please add some expression in the ending of “Introduction” section. Meanwhile, the framework of your developed method or application should be added.
Response: The methods are added in the introduction section. Line numbers 103 – 112, and 115 – 120.
Comment 4: What are the practical issues in study? How did NbS use in a practical flood management in Malysia? Could author show readers method development and highlight research aims.
Response: Please check the section 2. Line number 133 – 137, and 156 – 166.
Comment 5: What practical problem does the result solve or reflect? We can only find results in 2020 in Figure 2. What did Figure 2 tell for readers? What did these steps and results mean? Could author summarize the general laws for method application through these steps and results?
Response: The flood management in Malaysia is essential for sustainable livelihood. This study reflects the previously published solutions and identifies the best solution for Malaysia. Figure 2 reflects the literature selection process and the final literature to understand the reader for different literature in the ARSEN countries. The method for selecting the literature are added in section 3 and figure 2.
Comment 6: In discussion section, can this method be applied all over the world? We can only find results which highlight in Malysia.
Response: The results are highlighted only in Malaysia based on the climate zone and areal variation. Please check the line number 123 – 127.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the authors discussed the Nature-based solution (NbS) for flood management. The manuscript provides some interesting results. The NbS has advantages for flood management. However, the reviewer has teh following comments that require further clarification.
(1) What is the negative or disadvantage or limitation of NbS? This may need to be clearly stated.
(2) How long will NbS take to see the outcomes for Flood Management? A few month or years?
(3) It is unclear to me: What is research methodology presented in this paper?
(4) It is unclear to me that why the authors need to discussed the publications in WoS and Scopus related to flood management?
(5) It seems that the authors only based on data collection of publications and come out the ending. This may not conventional scientific research.
(6) Conclusion section need to be further improved. It seems only some general concepts were summarised.
In summary, It is unclear what the new scientific contribution this paper provided.
Author Response
To
The Editor
Water, MDPI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing me to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management” to Water. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the time and effort you have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript.
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and concerns.
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
Reviewer 2
Comment 1: In this paper, the authors discussed the Nature-based solution (NbS) for flood management. The manuscript provides some interesting results. The NbS has advantages for flood management. However, the reviewer has the following comments that require further clarification.
Response: The manuscript is modified based on the comments and suggestions.
Comment 2: What is the negative or disadvantage or limitation of NbS? This may need to be clearly stated.
Response: This section is added in the introduction section. Line number 80 – 83.
Comment 3: How long will NbS take to see the outcomes for Flood Management? A few month or years?
Response: Depending on the particular intervention and the local environment, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) may take a while to yield discernible results for flood management. Certain options, such as green roofs or rain gardens, can reduce surface runoff and show results in a matter of months. However, as ecosystems stabilize and expand, larger-scale interventions like reforestation or wetland restoration might not completely mature and provide flood mitigation advantages for several years. These timelines should be taken into consideration during planning to guarantee both immediate and long-term flood resilience.
Comment 4: It is unclear to me: What is research methodology presented in this paper?
Response: The study conducts an NbS solution based on the previous studies focused on ARSEN counties and identifies the best solution for Malaysia towards flood management. The details of the study procedure are added in Section 2 and Figure 2. Tables (1 to 4) are added to understand the solutions and recommendations.
Comment 5: It is unclear to me that why the authors need to discussed the publications in WoS and Scopus related to flood management?
Response: This is the literature identified in the 2 main websites for literature review on NbS for flood management in ARSEN countries. Please see line number 123 – 127.
Comment 6: It seems that the authors only based on data collection of publications and come out the ending. This may not conventional scientific research.
Response: This review article identified the different solutions for flood management and select the suitable NbS methods for flood management in Malaysia. This is a review article not a research article.
Comment 7: Conclusion section need to be further improved. It seems only some general concepts were summarised.
Response: The conclusion section is modified. Line number 418 – 442.
Comment 8: In summary, It is unclear what the new scientific contribution this paper provided.
Response: This paper provides suitable NbS for flood management in Malaysia. Mentioned in the line numbers 105 – 109, and section 5 (some recommendation).
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) The need for the study (Lines 91-93) is not acceptable. – How local mismanagement can be the reason for this bibliometric study?
(2) “This weakness is a form of weakness” – what does it mean?
(3) According to Fig. 1, how air quality will be improved through Nature based Solutions (NbS) in flood management?
(4) It is not clear how several examples (green roof, eco-friendly drainage) of Nature based Solutions mentioned in Fig. 1 will help in flood management.
(5) I could not find the Novelty of this work.
(6) From which source, 96 papers were found?
(7) Which keywords were used to download such 96 papers?
(8) What do you mean by “Other (n = 6)” and “Other (n = 16)”?
(9) “Reports not retrieved based on full text (n = 14)” - - - meaning not clear.
(10) Reports excluded: Other (n = 16) - - on what basis, these 16 papers were excluded?
(11) Only 17 papers were used for this study. This is very little in number and a serious limitation of this study.
(12) “Figure 2. The PRISMA 2020 statement” - - - Figure 2 is not the PRISMA 2020 statement.
(13) Line 211: “The review of numerous studies … conducted” – You got only 17 papers. Therefore, how could you say numerous studies were done?
(14) How many papers were used to plot Fig. 3? At present, it does not represent 17 papers.
(15) Tables 1-4 are presented in a monotonous manner.
(16) “Malaysia prime minister, Ismail Sabri Yaakob, admitted that there were weaknesses in flood management” – need to provide the reference.
(17) The authors claimed that their work provides Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management and Preparedness. However, they did not provide any such new solution.
(18) The work done in this paper is not at par with the paper's title and objectives.
(19) Overall, it looks like a simple review paper without any analysis.
(20) This paper does not contribute anything new to the science.
(21) Also, it is not justifiable how the eight authors contributed significantly to accomplish this small review work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
To
The Editor
Water, MDPI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing me to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management” to Water. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the time and effort you have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript.
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and concerns.
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
Reviewer 3
Comment 1: The need for the study (Lines 91-93) is not acceptable. – How local mismanagement can be the reason for this bibliometric study?
Response: This section is removed. The focused point is an urbanized area called Shah Alam is a primary location and identifying the entire Malaysia’s flood management issues and findings some NbSs for flood management.
Comment 2: “This weakness is a form of weakness” – what does it mean?
Response: Changed. Line numbers 133 to 136.
Comment 3: According to Fig. 1, how air quality will be improved through Nature based Solutions (NbS) in flood management?
Response: Air quality can be enhanced by Nature-based Solutions (NbS) such as urban greenery, which involves planting trees and installing green roofs (Fig. 1). These remedies lessen the urban heat island effect by filtering the air, absorbing pollutants, and promoting natural cooling. The vegetation helps regulate flooding and improves urban health by capturing particulate matter, improving carbon sequestration, and fostering cleaner air. In addition to tackling the dual problems of floods and air pollution, this improves the general quality of the environment.
Comment 4: It is not clear how several examples (green roof, eco-friendly drainage) of Nature based Solutions mentioned in Fig. 1 will help in flood management.
Response: Nature-based solutions (NbS) for flood control include green roofs and environmentally friendly drainage systems, which improve water absorption and lower surface runoff. Vegetation-covered green roofs absorb rainfall, lowering the amount of runoff that enters drainage systems. Eco-friendly drainage techniques, such bioswales or permeable pavements, let water filter naturally and seep through, lowering the risk of flooding, enhancing water quality, and halting urban runoff. These methods lessen the strain on conventional drainage systems, which helps to reduce floods in cities.
Comment 5: I could not find the Novelty of this work.
Response: Added in the line number 103 – 107.
Comment 6: From which source, 96 papers were found?
Response: Scopus and WoS, added in the introduction section. Line number 122 – 130.
Comment 7: Which keywords were used to download such 96 papers?
Response: Added in the section 3, line number 207 – 217.
Comment 8: What do you mean by “Other (n = 6)” and “Other (n = 16)”?
Response: The other meaning is duplicate copy, non-English literature, and except Southeast Asian countries. Because we identified two websites Scopus and WoS.
Comment 9: “Reports not retrieved based on full text (n = 14)” - - - meaning not clear.
Response: Some literatures are identified but due to the inaccessibility of the full text we remove it from the review report.
Comment 10: Reports excluded: Other (n = 16) - - on what basis, these 16 papers were excluded?
Response: Based on the duplicate copy, language, and review report (not a research paper)
Comment 11: Only 17 papers were used for this study. This is very little in number and a serious limitation of this study.
Response: The main focus is Southeast Asian counties and NbS for flood management. The study is limited based on the Scopus and WoS in Southeast Asia.
Comment 12: “Figure 2. The PRISMA 2020 statement” - - - Figure 2 is not the PRISMA 2020 statement.
Response: Please check the citation. We prepared this based on the
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. bmj 2021, 372.
Comment 13: Line 211: “The review of numerous studies … conducted” – You got only 17 papers. Therefore, how could you say numerous studies were done?
Response: Thank you for your comment. We modified this line. Please check the line number 259.
Comment 14: How many papers were used to plot Fig. 3? At present, it does not represent 17 papers.
Response: Added in the figure 3. The figure represents the flood management works done in Malaysia.
Comment 15: Tables 1-4 are presented in a monotonous manner.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We modified the tables year-wise.
Comment 16: “Malaysia prime minister, Ismail Sabri Yaakob, admitted that there were weaknesses in flood management” – need to provide the reference.
Response: Added in line number 361 – 363.
Comment 17: The authors claimed that their work provides Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management and Preparedness. However, they did not provide any such new solution.
Response: Please check the line number 370 – 417 (Section 5).
Comment 18: The work done in this paper is not at par with the paper's title and objectives.
Response: The objectives and title are changed as per the work done.
Comment 19: Overall, it looks like a simple review paper without any analysis.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript is a review article. Some policies for NbS in Malaysia are added in Line number 370 – 417.
Comment 20: This paper does not contribute anything new to the science.
Response: This paper reviews previous literature in Southeast Asia and prepares a NbS for Malaysia for flood management. Line number 370 – 417.
Comment 21: Also, it is not justifiable how the eight authors contributed significantly to accomplish this small review work.
Response: The total authors are 5 not eight. Please check the author contribution section.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- Change the title to: Nature-based Solutions for Flood Management
2- What is the Novelty of this research?
3-Add "Research Limitation" in Introduction.
4-What about "Best Management Practice"?
5-What about publications before 2014?
6-What about Chapter Books?
7- The title is for all countries! but you reviewed only 10 Asian countries!
8-What about Flood Regionalization methods?
9-Compare the results with other Asian countries Studies!
10-Please add below reference:
Sharma, U. C., Sharma, V. and Eslamian, S., 2022, Flood Management-Status, Causes and Land Use Impact in Brahmaputra Basin-Ch. 4 in Flood Handbook, Vol. 3: Flood Impact and Management, Ed. by Eslamian, S., and Eslamian, F., Taylor and Francis, CRC Group, USA.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNA
Author Response
To
The Editor
Water, MDPI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing me to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management” to Water. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the time and effort you have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript.
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and concerns.
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
Reviewer 4
Comment 1: Change the title to: Nature-based Solutions for Flood Management.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Title changed.
Comment 2: What is the Novelty of this research?
Response: Added in line number 103 – 107.
Comment 3: Add "Research Limitation" in Introduction.
Response: Added in line number 115 – 121.
Comment 4: What about "Best Management Practice"?
Response: Best Management Practices (BMPs) are approaches or strategies that are generally acknowledged to be successful in reaching certain environmental goals, including improving water quality or managing flooding. BMPs include techniques that assist control runoff, lessen floods, and enhance water quality, such as vegetated swales, permeable pavements, green roofs, and stormwater detention ponds. Both urban and rural flood management methods can use these approaches, which are flexible enough to adapt to different contexts.
Comment 5: What about publications before 2014?
Response: The main focus of the study is NbS for flood management in Southeast Asia, as per the literature on Scopus and WoS, NbS flood management literature is limited, and identified papers are added in Tables 1 to 4.
Comment 6: What about Chapter Books?
Response: The literature added only accessible, and open source literature are added in this study. Chapters and Books are excluded and mentioned in the figure 2.
Comment 7: The title is for all countries! but you reviewed only 10 Asian countries!
Response: As per the literature found in Scopus and WoS, only 10 counties are identified. That’s why we used only 10 countries for this study.
Comment 8: What about Flood Regionalization methods?
Response: The use of flood regionalization strategies, which categorize regions based on their flood characteristics, enables more efficient flood risk management. These methods usually include classifying regions based on factors including land usage, rainfall patterns, soil types, and geography. Statistical regionalization, hydrological modeling, and geographic information systems (GIS) are some of the techniques used to assess flood risk across areas. This facilitates the development of more efficient flood management plans that are tailored to each location and region.
Comment 9: Compare the results with other Asian countries Studies!
Response: As per the climate, regional landscape, and study interest, we only focus on Southeast Asian counties. That’s why, we are not added any other Asian countries for the literature review.
Comment 10: Please add below reference:
Sharma, U. C., Sharma, V. and Eslamian, S., 2022, Flood Management-Status, Causes and Land Use Impact in Brahmaputra Basin-Ch. 4 in Flood Handbook, Vol. 3: Flood Impact and Management, Ed. by Eslamian, S., and Eslamian, F., Taylor and Francis, CRC Group, USA.
Response: Added in line number 59 - 61. Citation number 9.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis version is OK.
Author Response
To
The Editor
Water, MDPI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing me to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management” to Water. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for your time and effort in providing valuable feedback on my manuscript.
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and concerns.
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: This version is OK.
Response: Thank you for your positive comment of the manuscript.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed my comments. I recommend the revised version.
Author Response
To
The Editor
Water, MDPI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing me to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management” to Water. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for your time and effort in providing valuable feedback on my manuscript.
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and concerns.
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: The authors have addressed my comments. I recommend the revised version.
Response: Thank you for your positive comment of the manuscript.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have attempted to reply to most of my comments. However, some are yet to be addressed. Now my observations are as follows:
(1) Two keywords “Structural and Non-Structural Measures” and “Flash Flood” are not relevant to this work. So such measures were addressed here. Most of the NbSs are applicable to low floods only.
(2) The heading of section 3 cannot be “Summary of findings”. It is not appropriate. Better to write “Observations from literatures”
(3) In Figure 2 caption, “The PRISMA 2020 statement” is not appropriate as PRISMA 2020 was a general guideline and applicable to literatures on any topic. Whereas, the present work addresses only NbS.
(4) The entire Figure 2 caption is not correct. This figure is not any general updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rather it is very limited to a specific subject area (NbS) and region.
(5) If this study focuses on Southeast Asia, then why does Fig. 3 address only about Malaysia?
(6) As mentioned in Table 1, the meanings of W4, P2, W1, W2, and W3 are yet to be defined in the manuscript.
(7) Since most of the parts of this study address only about Malaysia therefore the manuscript title needs to be revised accordingly.
(8) Some references are not as per journal guidelines.
(9) English writing still needs significant improvement.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish writing still needs significant improvement.
Author Response
To
The Editor
Water, MDPI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing me to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management” to Water. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for your time and effort in providing valuable feedback on my manuscript.
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and concerns.
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
Reviewer 3
General Comment: The authors have attempted to reply to most of my comments. However, some are yet to be addressed. Now my observations are as follows:
Response: The manuscript is now revised as per the comments and suggestions.
Comment 1: Two keywords “Structural and Non-Structural Measures” and “Flash Flood” are not relevant to this work. So such measures were addressed here. Most of the NbSs are applicable to low floods only.
Response: Keywords changed.
Nature-Based Solutions (NbS), Decision-making, Climate change adaptation, Flood Risk Management, Flood Mitigation.
Comment 2: The heading of section 3 cannot be “Summary of findings”. It is not appropriate. Better to write “Observations from literatures”
Response: Changed. Line number 182.
Comment 3: In Figure 2 caption, “The PRISMA 2020 statement” is not appropriate as PRISMA 2020 was a general guideline and applicable to literatures on any topic. Whereas, the present work addresses only NbS.
Response: Yes, this topic only focuses on NbS, and based on the literature we prepared Figure 2. Please check some literature for your reference. They used the same methods as the PRISMA 2020 report. Please see the following referecnes.
Trevisani, V., Balestri, E., Napoli, M., Caraffi, S. G., Baroni, M. C., Peluso, F., ... & Garavelli, L. (2023). Diprosopus: A Rare Case of Craniofacial Duplication and a Systematic Review of the Literature. Genes, 14(9), 1745.
Wintraecken, V. M., Vulik, S., de Wild, S., Dirksen, C., Koppert, L. B., de Vries, J., & Smidt, M. L. (2022). A descriptive systematic review of the relationship between personality traits and quality of life of women with non-metastatic breast cancer. BMC cancer, 22(1), 426.
Comment 4: The entire Figure 2 caption is not correct. This figure is not any general updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rather it is very limited to a specific subject area (NbS) and region.
Response: Already mentioned some literature. Please check those.
As per the literature review and our knowledge, this method can use any systematic review analysis. If required we can share much more literature, they also used the same method for systematic review and also a specific topic. This is not possible to prepare all domain research.
Comment 5: If this study focuses on Southeast Asia, then why does Fig. 3 address only about Malaysia?
Response: The main objective of the study is to find some NbS-based solutions in Southeast Asia and find the best solution for flood management in Malaysia with Southeast Asian counties.
We focused Southeast Asian NbS demo, or established framework, because of the same climate zone and geographic similarities. Please check the objective of your research. Line numbers 26 – 30, and 123 – 130.
The NbS and flood mitigation were the search terms used to find the articles published between 2019 and 2024 that were taken from the journal portals. The survey was limited based on the ten members of the ASEAN country, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The most suitable techniques for a flood mitigation plan for Malaysia identified via this review would contribute to better and more comprehensive flood risk management by identifying its effectiveness to be used in Malaysia.
Comment 6: As mentioned in Table 1, the meanings of W4, P2, W1, W2, and W3 are yet to be defined in the manuscript.
Response: Removed. Based on the literature, those are short forms of every class. Please see the table 1 and reference 34 for your reference.
Comment 7: Since most of the parts of this study address only about Malaysia therefore the manuscript title needs to be revised accordingly.
Response: Revised.
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Flood Management in Malaysia
Comment 8: Some references are not as per journal guidelines.
Response: The entire references are prepared in Mendeley software and use Water citation style.
Comment 9: English writing still needs significant improvement.
Response: Certificates of the native English speaker are already added with the trach change mode word file. Please check for your reference.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
