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: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-124', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jun 2025
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 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-124', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jun 2025
Overall quality: The manuscript, in its current form, does not meet the necessary standards for publication. If at all, major revisions—amounting to a fundamental restructuring and almost a rewriting—would be required before it could be reconsidered for review. The paper lacks both formal and content-related rigor. Its overall objective, contribution, and purpose remain unclear. There is no clearly defined research question, research gap, or conceptual framework, which results in the absence of a coherent methodology and subsequent analysis. As it stands, the text remains largely descriptive, with imprecise, at times incorrect, use of key terms and concepts. Additionally, the language and writing style significantly hinder readability and comprehension.
Further comments:
- The introduction does not provide clear definitions of key terms or a sufficient description of the central concepts and processes addressed in the paper (e.g., CRM). Furthermore, it lacks a clear argument for the relevance and necessity of the study, as well as an explicit identification of a research gap. A brief review of existing literature—or at least references to relevant discussions or prior work—is entirely missing, which limits the paper’s ability to position itself within academic discourse.
- The paper does not clearly state which data were used or how they were collected. Even more critically, the methodological approach remains vague: it is unclear whether any structured analytical steps were applied, and if so, which ones. This undermines credibility of the research. Additionally, the heavy reliance on the author’s own prior work, without adequate engagement with external sources, seems problematic for meeting scientific standards.
- It is not transparent how the findings were derived. The analytical steps that led to these findings are neither described nor justified, making the results difficult to assess in terms of validity and reliability. This is also true for the recommendations presented,
- Conceptual Approach and Use of Terminology: The paper employs a broad range of concepts and terminology, but their use is often imprecise or inconsistent. In several cases, key terms are not clearly defined or are applied in a way that does not align with established academic usage. This weakens the conceptual clarity and is also problematic for understanding the argumentation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-124-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 140 | 20 | 14 | 174 | 9 | 11 |
- HTML: 140
- PDF: 20
- XML: 14
- Total: 174
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1