Are interactions important in estimating flood damage  to economic entities? The case of wine-making in France

Nortes Martínez, David; Grelot, Frédéric; Brémond, Pauline; Farolfi, Stefano; Rouchier, Juliette

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3057-2021

Articles | Volume 21, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3057-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3057-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 21, issue 10

Research article

|

13 Oct 2021

Research article |

| 13 Oct 2021

Are interactions important in estimating flood damage to economic entities? The case of wine-making in France

David Nortes Martínez, Frédéric Grelot, Pauline Brémond, Stefano Farolfi, and Juliette Rouchier

Download

Final revised paper (published on 13 Oct 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Nov 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'general comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Dec 2020
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Frédéric Grelot, 22 Mar 2021
RC2: 'Review Comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Feb 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Frédéric Grelot, 22 Mar 2021

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (06 Apr 2021) by Olga Petrucci

Dear Dr. Grelot and co-Authors,

Thank you for the submission of your manuscript “Are interactions important in estimating flood damage to economic entities?”.

As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. Both reviewers recommended major revisions, and therefore I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript.

Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use the same words that you used in what you have already uploaded). Please, also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one (you can include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’).

I read carefully the suggestion supplied by the referees and I think that their advices could improve the quality of your paper.

I add my personal suggestions:

1) Data gathering: actually, I find the sources but not the type of data that you collected (We collected data from the Aude and Var administrative departments (southern France), both subject to major floods that have impacted the winegrowing sector ….). Could you please describe what kind of data are you talking about?

2) I agree with R2: the subsections should be reduced

3) A clear figure/diagram of the methodology is needed in order to understand the starting point and the way to reach the results. The research approach presented in the paper must be clear enough to be reproduced by other researchers.

4) Conclusions should be more concise and direct.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review to either the previous reviewers (if they agree) or new reviewers.
Kind regards,
Olga Petrucci
NHESS Editor

Hide

AR by David Nortes Martínez on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Jun 2021) by Olga Petrucci

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Jun 2021)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Jul 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper is improved , with further details of methods. See my points regarding costing methods and reporting, results presetnation, and more claity on whether the resutls make a difference to the practice of cost estimation . The case is synthetic and little reference is made to actual observed flood costs i the sector to which these % increases apply.

I think the relevant parts should be extracted from the large appendix, and a link provided to this as supplmentary infromation . The table on indicators is not developed made suggestion in the attached files Nhess-2020-386, version 2 , 050721
Are interactions important in estimating flood damage to economic entities?

Reviewer 2
Thanks to the authors for their responses to the points I made as reviewer. The paper now flows better and contains additional description and explanation of the methods, particularly regarding the chosen model.
I have some remaining points that I think still require some attention to enable the reporting of the work to make its full contribution. I have made comments of detail on the manuscript.

Title: suggest adding ‘ :the case of winemaking in France’

Costs definitions and classifications:
I go back to my original point that in my view should be addressed in the manuscript .
As the commentary in the introduction implies, there is often lack of clarity in the definition, classification and treatment of costs, and this can lead to a combination of confusion, uncertainty and misinterpretation , The topic of the paper is central to this, dealing as it does with 'indirect flood costs'. Definitions of flood costs and treatment of indirect costs have varied. In this context, the authors need to clarify and explain the typology/classification they are using, and how the classification and estimates of costs fit (or does not) with the conventions used by others. There is an important methodological link here.

Furthermore, and important in my view, the authors should return to this point in the discussion showing how their approach and estimates relate to the review of the literature on this topic at the beginning of the paper .

A critical point also is whether taking the definition of indirect costs as they do makes a 'significant' difference to the estimate of flood damage costs, and in what circumstances. The authors refer to this later, but again this could be framed in terms of this opening commentary.

The point should be made, in the manuscript and in the abstract , that the modelling and the results are synthetic and not based on actual recorded or observed costs. (it would be nice to anchor them to observations on actual costs, from other work).

Detail of cost definitions and classifications, including make up of costs.
Detail is now provided in a long appendix, to which limited reference is actually made. There needs to be more explanation in the manuscript itself , with more information summarised in the table on ‘indicators’ , please see comments. Is the appendix really supplementary information

Presentation of results.
I remain of the view that estimates of absolute costs for the scenarios, summarised in a table, would be helpful, together with a profile that shows the distribution of (synthetically generated) costs by type. %s have obvious limits. A table of results would better support the points made in the discussion.
The key question: whether this type of assessment makes a difference and under what circumstances could then be more clearly answered.
Other points
See comments on the manuscript.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (08 Jul 2021) by Olga Petrucci

AR by Frédéric Grelot on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (01 Sep 2021) by Olga Petrucci

ED: Publish as is (13 Sep 2021) by Olga Petrucci

Short summary

Estimating flood damage, although crucial for assessing flood risk and for designing mitigation policies, continues to face numerous challenges, notably the assessment of indirect damage. We focus on flood damage induced by the interactions between economic activities. By modeling the production processes of a cooperative wine-making system, we show that these interactions are important depending on their spatial and temporal characteristics.