|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?
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.
See comments on the manuscript.