This paper presents the results of a survey held among the residents of a recent severe flood event in Germany. It is a valuable piece of work both for the academic community interested in risk communication and for authorities to draw lessons from and improve practices in the future. While the overall quality of the work sufficient to warrant publication, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. Most importantly, the structure of the paper could benefit from clearer research questions, hypotheses and a methods and results section following this structure.

Overall the language is good and the paper reads well, but some phrases are rather “spoken” language than written language style (e.g., line 39: “save people’s lives”. I would rewrite to: “prevent fatalities” or “prevent loss of life”. Second example in line 79: “…how the targeted population…”. I would change to: “…warning perception by the target population…”). The article would benefit from review by a native English writer. Below I provide further details on this, as well as other comments by section, and then detailed comments in a table.

Introduction

This section has a clear structure and explains the background, the need for the research and the research aim clearly. However, detailed research questions and hypotheses are missing, which are needed to justify the methods used (types of data (indicators) gathered, methods of data collection etc.).

Data and Methods

It is stated that the survey was distributed via facebook, and a press release was sent through the newspaper. However, it seems like the survey could only be accessed through facebook. Why did the authors choose this method, and how did they make sure this didn’t lead to a biased sample, as facebook is only used by a specific demographic, leaving out other specific demographics that might be important. Beyond age, general tech-savvyness and online presence play a role in the accessibility of the survey to people using facebook. If the authors somehow tried to correct for this bias, please provide some information about how this was done. If not, please discuss how the method might have influenced the outcome and what this means for the conclusions.  

Also, it is explained what the questions in the survey were regarding, however I am missing some explanation as to why these questions were posed (what were the exact research questions the authors want to answer with the set of questions they selected, including the demographical questions), and what were they expecting to find? Part of this information could already be provided in the introduction. Furthermore, is the survey accessible to the reader somehow? It would be good to add them to supplementary materials for reference and future use by the readers.

The Likert scales used in the survey are analysed statistically, using the answers as numerical values. Although this is common practice, it is strictly speaking not valid, as these numbers are only category indicators, and not actual numerical values of the answer, and can thus not be used for statistical analysis (drawing mean, sd etc).

Results and discussion

If the factors investigated and presented in Table 2 explain so little in the receipt of an official warning, what then is (or could be) the most important predictor for this?

All the results are self-reported data from the survey. I wonder how this self-reported data compares to behaviour and if this could be discussed in this section (e.g., how do the numbers of “knowing what to do” compare to the observed behaviour of people on the day?). Would there be any such comparison possible here in the discussion?

The results presented in Figure 5 show very little variation. This is a common problem with asking respondents what they want, choosing from a list of options: they are going to want it all. Such results are not very helpful when resources are scarce and trade-offs have to be made (in this case, we want to keep a warning clear and concise). A better way to measure such preferences could therefore be asking respondents to rank or to distribute a limited number of points among the options.

A section on further research is missing. I already made some recommendations in this review, e.g., comparing self-reported information to actual behaviour (if this is not going to be implemented by authors).

Conclusions

Because the research questions weren’t completely clear (see other comments), the conclusion doesn’t naturally follow from the rest of the paper. When this issue is resolved, the conclusion might be written in a more concise manner, going back to these research questions.

There are many references to the main text as well as other papers in the conclusion. I recommend rewriting the conclusion according to my above instructions, and avoid any references, as a conclusion should stand on its own, not repeat the results, but rather state the significance and meaning of results. As it stands, the conclusion mostly summarises the main text.

Furthermore, I think the paper could benefit greatly from a separate section (within conclusion or at the end of the discussion) that summarises the most important recommendations from this research. This research is very practical and applied, and has great potential to aid authorities around the world.

Please find detailed comments in the table below:

This paper provides very important insights into the early warning, preparedness, and response of the German flood event in 2020. The major aim of the paper is to analyze the operation of the warning system in July 2021 and to compare survey results to survey results of historic floodings in Germany. The results presented in this paper will be of high value to improve the disaster management in Germany.

I agree with the major recommendations provided in the comment RC1; thus, below, I will provide only a few suggestions in addition to the already stated recommendations.

Introduction/Methods

The introduction provides a clear and in-depth overview on the event, its impacts, and on the early warning structure in Germany. Considering that one major aim of the paper is to compare the event with previous flooding events in Germany, it could be of advantage to briefly introduce these flooding events. This would improve the reader’s understanding on the context of the previous events that may support the understanding of similarities and differences identified between the historic and the recent event. It could be included in form of a table or short paragraph in the introduction or methods chapter.

Results/Discussion

The section presents the extensive results of the survey by partly comparing them to previous flooding. It could be of advantage to have on section dedicated (e.g., between 3.2 and 3.3) on the major similarities/differences identified between the events and discuss these. Considering also the following question: are there aspects that actually improved during the past decades?

Conclusion

The conclusion could be more specific in terms of recommendations for the future (e.g., ‘communication […] have to be considerably enhanced’ –> you could specify/list how it should be enhanced).

Also, it could be interesting to see who these recommendations would be addressed to - who would be in charge of addressing the criticalities identified in this research.

I also agree that there shouldn’t be any references (incl. to figures) in the conclusion.

Lastly, the last sentence (L324-325) is of high importance, but this topic was not discussed in the paper.