Risk-based flood protection planning under climate change and modeling uncertainty: a pre-alpine case study

Dittes, Beatrice; Kaiser, Maria; Špačková, Olga; Rieger, Wolfgang; Disse, Markus; Straub, Daniel

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1327-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1327-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1327-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 5

Research article

|

15 May 2018

Research article |

| 15 May 2018

Risk-based flood protection planning under climate change and modeling uncertainty: a pre-alpine case study

Beatrice Dittes, Maria Kaiser, Olga Špačková, Wolfgang Rieger, Markus Disse, and Daniel Straub

Download

Final revised paper (published on 15 May 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Nov 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review on Risk-based flood protection planning under climate change and modelling uncertainty: a pre-alpine case study', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jan 2018
- AC1: 'The authors would like to thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed comments. Please find the response in the supplement.', Beatrice Dittes, 17 Mar 2018
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Feb 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to the comment of anonymous referee #2', Beatrice Dittes, 17 Mar 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (31 Mar 2018) by Margreth Keiler

Dear Beatrice Dittes and co-authors,

Thank you again for your interesting submission "Risk-based flood protection planning under climate change and modelling uncertainty: a pre-alpine case study" as well as for the response to the comments of the referees.

Both referees addressed that the manuscript is of interest for the readers of NHESS and the flood risk community. Combining both reports the main points which were addressed are more precise or detailed information of the rational, the applied methods and regarding the addressed uncertainties. I would only like to add that you should check how you used the terms ‘damage’ and ‘damages’ throughout the manuscript. ‘Damages’ is not the plural of ‘damage’. Damage means ‘loss or injury to a person or property’. It is an uncountable singular noun and has no plural form. Damages means ‘money claimed by, or ordered to be paid to, a person as compensation for loss or injury’. It is an uncountable plural noun and has no singular form.

All responses seem to take-up the constructive comments of both referees and will allow to present your approach and results more clear. Therefore, I decided for minor revision and I will review again your revised manuscript.

Please follow the guidelines of NHESS to prepare one response file (as .pdf) including (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response to each comment one by one, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf including the author's response must be submitted. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript (http://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html#interactivepublicdiscussion).

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

Hide

AR by Beatrice Dittes on behalf of the Authors (02 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Apr 2018) by Margreth Keiler

AR by Beatrice Dittes on behalf of the Authors (22 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (13067 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

We study flood protection options in a pre-alpine catchment in southern Germany. Protection systems are evaluated probabilistically, taking into account climatic and other uncertainties as well as the possibility of future adjustments. Despite large uncertainty in damage, cost, and climate, we arrive at a rough recommendation. Hence, one can make good decisions under large uncertainty. The results also show it is preferable to plan risk-based rather than protecting from a specific design flood.