Changing Conditions: Global Warming-Related Hazards and Vulnerable Rural Populations in Mediterranean Europe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting literature review which discusses the challenges associated with increasing climate hazards and risks that rural areas in Europe face. The topic has relevance and is timely, and the review provides a summary of some of the recent developments in the literature. 

There are some minor English language edits that I suggest you make, to improve the flow and style of the paper. 

There are aslo a couple of major changes that I recommend, to help tighten and focus the paper, and really pinpoint the specific challenges faced by the rural areas mentined in your title. I think you already have the text you need, it's just a case of reorganising the structure so that the specific relevance for rural areas is clear in terms fo the three different hazard types that you discuss. 

The details of how the literature review were conducted should also be included in a short methods section, otherwise we have no idea how systematic or comprehensive this review was. 

See my comments in the text for details.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language is fine other than my suggestions for improving accuracy and reducing subjective words.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper represents an analysis of the Global Warming-related Hazards and vulnerable rural populations and the dynamics between these two elements. The manuscript has several shortcomings and needs to be improved: this work can be extended in more details, while the added value should be more clearly presented. The manuscript lacks motivation and it is not very clear the purpose or contribution of this paper. A clearer focus on what the authors intend to do with this paper must be outlined.

The abstract offers concise and correct information on the remaining part of the article. However, the structure of the paper is not logical, as it does not include methodology, results and discussion. Please re-structure it accordingly. The conclusion part is too concise and it is not related to the abstract.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.       The topic is essential in the present global context, although it has less to do with ”urban science”. The paper concentrated on three hazards (heatwaves, droughts and wildfires), but as  multi-hazards are implied, it could have referred also to other hazards (flood, storms etc.), that are also linked to climate change.

2.       It is a rather descriptive literature review that refers mainly to Southeren (Mediterranean) Europe. The title should include that, as it is too general for the moment.

3.       The abstract is too descriptive. The final part refers to the paper as filling a literature gap, but it is unclear how.

4.       THE BIGGEST ISSUE: There is no methodology involved. The references are numerous (including many recent references). However, the authors should work on it, transform it into a more structured literature review, and indicate some criteria for choosing the literature they analyze. I can suggest PRISMA flow as a suitable method.

5.       The review itself is interesting and covers many issues, but the structure (and criteria for choosing the references) is missing, so the authors should address this issue.

A general proofreading would be helpful. There are some errors in the text, although the English is generally okay.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is now a really nice paper. I hope that the suggestd edits were useful, and many thanks for incorporating them into your paper. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The new version of the article looks much better. There are noticeable improvements, and even though the paper lacks a structured methodology for a review article, it shows a good knowledge of the topic and brings a sound synthesis that can be useful for other, more comprehensive studies. Therefore, even noticing the apparent limitations of the approach, we can agree with the publication of the article as such.