Assessing Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Case Study of Nakhon Si Thammarat and Krabi

Reviewer 1

Text highlighted in yellow color.

14

High energy wave climate is not equal to high vulnerability. In fact, dissipative beach environments receive very high wave energy and are quite stable.

14

Modify “such as significant wave height and coastal erosion.“ to “including wave height, tidal level, coastal erosion, and slope.”

I understand that the high energy wave climate is not equal to high vulnerability. 

In this study, the combination of six factors were used to generate the vulnerability level. The other factors apart from wave height that make Krabi more vulnerable include slope, erosion, and tidal level.

25

Longshore

29

Changed “transverse” to “longshore”

33

All of these topical statements in this first paragraph should not be based on the same references, as it inferstoo close a silmilarity

25-28

Modified the sentence and change the reference:

Low-lying coastal areas, situated between land and an ocean or lake, known as a coastline or shoreline, experience heightened vulnerability based on their physical expo-sure. This vulnerability is magnified if they are more susceptible to socio-economic factors (López-Dóriga et al. 2020).

36

avoid passive voice when possible

39

I guessed you mean avoid active voice, so the sentence was changed to:

A range of other issues specific to coastal environments is further exacerbating the challenges associated with human utilization of coastal areas and posing threats to coastal ecosystems

54

Need a "."

58

Added

56

should refer to original from way back such as Gornitz et al., 1993;

60, 388

Gornitz 1991 added.

111

Already established

115

Changed “Nakhorn Si Thammarat (NST)” to “NST”

119

Figure 2. The red outlined box should be indicated with red outline in map key too.

127

The new map replaced the original one.

125

Some formating issues (perhaps my version but justified text in columns works better than centred-)

133

Table 1. Changed to justified

Table 2 (1.6)

that

134

Changed “with” to “that” (Table 2)

132

Not relevant if the tidal range is to be explained. Otherwise it seems like you are indicating that ranges may have changed over time. I would simply indicate that the timeframe for data is such and such but refer to different tidal ranges on both sides as the relevant info here

140

Removed the statements before “During the period from 1997 to 2007, …….”

144

((

148

Removed “(“

150

the relevant resolution here is Z. If that is 90 DEM is useless.

154

Added “…with a vertical accuracy of 10 meters.”

155

(topography) it would be key to see a profile. With such a coarse data set profiles may not be valid

310

The map of slope is shown in Figure 3(a).

180

was this based on any previous studies? If so REF

183

This is based on this dataset since it is relatively compared among these coastal sub-districts in the study area. This sentence was added:

based on the house density range in the study area, as follows:

189

As above: this is a CRITICAL factor in this type of study that make extraordinarily subjective judgement central to results

194

Change “for the purpose of the study” to “adapted from Duriyapong F. and K. Nakhapakorn (2011)”

218

Confusing when 1 is also least vulnerable a little bellow

233

Rewritten by using the word “code” to help clarifying as following:

The class coded as 1 signifies the lowest vulnerability, while the class coded as 5 represents the highest vulnerability.

225

Difference?

245

Removed “and”, so it is “physical environmental factors”

231

Though my background is not particularly in Social Sciences, I see this approach quite limited and not suitable for the importance of this part of the methodology. It should certainly be improved to base the most sensitive part of the methodology. These should be interviews (structured interviews) to KEY stakeholders or rather Experts in their fields in order to assign such weight in the method.

249

Modified:

… a structured interview gathering insights from a selected group of eight participants representing both public and private sectors in NST and Krabi. The participants were chosen from key stakeholders responsible for disaster management at the provincial level, including representatives from the Provincial Environmental section, Marine Department, Marine and Coastal Resources Department, Provincial Farmers Council, and Provincial Chamber of Commerce.

239

A discussion on the reporting units (spatial units) should be added earlier to indicate why that unit is representative etc. Or if it the only data bin, then justify applicability.

122-125

The spatial unit was mentioned earlier in 2.2 (line 117 in the pdf from the reviewer version). The reason was added:

To analyze certain factors such as slope, house density, and land cover, it is necessary to use spatial units in the form of polygons. In the context of GIS data in Thailand, the smallest available administrative unit represented as polygons is the sub-district, while villages are depicted as points.

250

Tide level is an unusual term for this. It should be related to tidal range, or to anomalies or extra high Spring tides. Tides fluctuate a lot and taking  a single level over a short period of time limits the applicability of the method

278

Since the tides fluctuate a lot, this study used the average high tide during a specific period of time as mentioned in 2.3.1 in the analysis. So, in this context, Tidal level refers to the average high tide. So, the following sentence was added:

This study utilized the average high tide as the tidal level.

259

That is altimetry, not slope.

295, 310

I have rechecked, and it is confirmed that the values represent slope in degrees.

264

Thus it is not an independant variable? The slope and flooding should not be linked. I rather see marine flooding in this index cause by storm surge, a factor that is NOT SLR nor wave height (or tide) and that affects vulnerability in severe weather.

291

This sentence was changed to:

They are prone to marine flooding caused by storm surges, increasing vulnerability during severe weather conditions.

267

Figure 3b indicates 2 mm not meters. CHANGE Figure KEY

310

The key was edited and the map 3b was replaced.

283

Why is data not just on coastal areas (like rest). Inland data of any use?

310

The map was replaced with the one with sub-districts in the study area (Figure 3c)

300

may be not the right term.

326

Changed “ramdom” to “varied”

303

Colour ramp may be incorrect here. More is better and less is worse. Turn around?

330

The key is correct. This text was inserted in the caption:

(High percentage, low vulnerability in the key)

311

re-write

340

Changed “signifying” to “emphasizing”

318

coefficient

347

Change “factor weight” to “coefficient”

320

added

348

Change “summed” to “added”

333-335

Absolutely obvious. Not needed.

361

Removed.

339

Risk and vulnerability NOT same.

364

Change “more exposed to the risks of” to “more vulnerable to”

362

Not a discussion as such. I believe the results should be exploited further in the context of ICZM. A more lengthy and detailed explanation on how policy can use these results to address existing gaps is needed. Also, international examples on managing vulnerability may add to the discussion.

397

440

The discussion section has been rewritten according the suggestion points, except the first paragraph.

The last paragraph of conclusion was added.

366

To me, the key shorcoming here.

391

The sentence was removed

368

391

The sentence was removed

423

Funding XXX, grant number XXX

448

It has been removed in the blind version. The original sentence were as following:

This research was funded by the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), and the Thailand Social Research and Innovation (TSRI), grant number NE/S003231/1.  

432

from the corresponding author.

Removed.

434

such as...

461

Added: such as GISTDA, GEO2TECDI, BORA, DOPA, and CDD

Reviewer 2

Original Line

Revised Line

Text highlighted in Cyan color.

70

Other works are need to be mentioned Alexandrakis, G., De Vita, S., Di Vito, M.A. (2019) Preliminary risk assessment at Ustica based on indicators of natural and human processes Annals of Geophysics vol 61, 2019 https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7765

28, 390

The work was added in the Reference, and cited in line 27 and 374.

208

This paragraph needs to be more detailed and also to refer to each variable.

2.3.2

209, 215, 227, 236, 241

The detailed of values of each factor were inserted as highlighted in blue. This includes the newly inserted Table 3, Equation 1, and Z-Score in Table 5.

309

Where is the analysis? which method the authors used?

2.4.2

254, 264

338, 344

The AHP technique was stated in 2.4.2. More texts, Table 6 and 7 were added for more clarification