the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 19 May 2025
Potential Climate Risk Management in German Regions: Case Studies in Lusatia, inner part Spree Forest and Ahr Valley Region
Abstract. The continuously more frequently threatening disasters are triggered mainly by climate change, next to further natural and cultural drivers. Continuously increasing global temperature and climate change represent current threats for rural and urban areas of the world, as well as Germany. Therefore, the high risks and spatially exposed situations of – in this research exclusively – terrestrial inhabitants for natural hazards are displayed next to dry land ecosystems, wetlands, and low mountain ranges with their cultural and natural landscapes.
The here supported regional perspective (embedded in a broader global research endeavour) includes a comparative assessment of three case studies from regions of Lusatia, the inner part lying Region of Spree Forest, the 2021 highly flood-affected Ahr Valley. This research analyzed the present CRM-implementation situation and its` behind risks behaviour within processing CRM. The result is a resume for an optimized, innovative and effective Climate Risk Management (CRM).
- Preprint
(838 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-124', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jun 2025
reply
This paper has some serious issues with its content and format, which really call into question its scientific relevance, clarity and reliability.
1. Unclear objectives: Even in the introduction, it remains unclear what the paper actually aims to achieve. No clear research question or hypothesis is formulated; instead, the text remains at a general, descriptive level - the aim is to examine CRM in three different regions. Nor does it become clear in the course of the paper what contribution the work is intended to make to the scientific discussion. There is also no actual, scientifically sound evaluation of CRM in the regions (see also point 3).
2. Methodology: The methodology is only partly described in a comprehensible manner. It remains unclear how data was collected, selected, and esp. analyzed. The procedure described remains vague, which severely limits reproducibility and scientific validity. The predominant reference to the author's own previous publications is particularly critical. This gives the impression of self-referential argumentation that does not meet scientific standards.
3. Selection and implementation of case studies: The selection of case studies appears arbitrary and unjustified. There are no criteria for why these particular examples were chosen, and above all, there is no systematic comparison. The three regions are not compared with each other, so why are they presented at all? Furthermore, the distinction between Lusatia and the inner part of the Spree Forest is not clear to me - in my opinion, no distinction is made in the paper either. Instead of analytical depth, the presentation remains superficial.
4. Inadequate elaboration of the case studies: Although these “case studies” are repeatedly referred to, there are mainly general sections with largely descriptive content and no structured analysis. There is no real in-depth examination of the case studies. Were the findings actually gained from work in these regions?
5. Language: The language is sometimes imprecise in places, colloquial, and contains minor spelling errors (also in Fig. 5). Some terms are used incorrectly (risk, vulnerability), which leads to additional confusion.
6. Figures: The figures in the paper are blurry and in some cases have no apparent relevance to the text. Sometimes, they do not contribute to understanding or argumentation and appear more like filler than analytical visualizations. Esp. Fig. 4 is unclear to me.
7. Conceptual vagueness: Numerous (theoretical) concepts are introduced but only dealt with superficially. Terminology is not always defined, so that key terms are used inflationarily and unsystematically (CRM, CCA, DRR, RS etc.). But what is e.g. the CALUWA application?? A consistent theoretical framework is lacking. It is also unclear why Chapter 6, for example, contains a great deal of general information about climate change in Germany and the probability of dozens of different disasters. This makes no sense at all in this context, especially since the report is not about volcanoes or tornadoes. Moreover, ThinkHazard does not appear to be a particularly good source either.
Conclusion: In its current form, the paper does not meet the requirements for a scientific publication in terms of either content or form. It lacks clarity, methodology, analytical depth, and theoretical foundation. A fundamental revision is urgently needed, with a particular focus on developing a common thread, a clear research objective, transparent methodology, and clear scientific argumentation, where the case studies are actually used for analysis and the conclusions are drawn from the previous analysis.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-124-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 91 | 11 | 7 | 109 | 6 | 9 |
- HTML: 91
- PDF: 11
- XML: 7
- Total: 109
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1