PCLM-D-25-00409

It’s Not Just Risk—It’s Responsibility: Changing Drivers of Home Flood Protection

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Sirenko,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 31 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miguel Ángel Navas-Martín

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please note that PLOS Climate has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: 1.The manuscript reports major shifts in behavioural drivers between 2020 and 2023, but it does not aim to establish causality. It would help if the authors more explicitly discussed alternative explanations beyond the 2021 flood.

2.Responsibility is measured very differently across the two waves (a 5-point scale vs. a 100-point allocation). More explanation is needed on how conceptual and statistical comparability is ensured.

3.Excluding respondents who already implemented measures may bias the intention estimates downward. The authors may consider testing robustness by modelling adoption and intention separately.

4.The sample size drops from over 1,200 respondents in 2020 to just over 400 in 2023. The authors could discuss how this imbalance affects statistical power, especially for weaker predictors.

5.It is suggested to add article entitled “Mananoma et al. Designing a Multistage Flood Control Channel for Sediment and Flow Management in Coastal Areas” to the literature review.

6.The observed decline in self-efficacy may be influenced by external factors such as rising construction costs or labour shortages. The authors could explore this possibility in the discussion.

7.Perceived responsibility may both shape and be shaped by adaptation intentions. A brief discussion of potential endogeneity concerns would improve the robustness of claims.

8.The reported pseudo-R² values indicate moderate model fit. The authors might comment on whether alternative modelling approaches, such as mixed-effects models, were considered.

9.It is also suggested to add articles entitled “Supratman et al. An Assessment of Nature-Based Solutions Water Infrastructure for Flood Risk Reduction in Unplanned Area” and “Kusmajaya et al. Optimization of Flood Control in the Lake by Gate Opening Simultaneously” to the literature review.

10.Responsibility perception shows very strong odds ratios in 2023. The authors could clarify whether differences in scale between waves influence effect size interpretation.

11.The discussion suggests that the 2021 disaster-compensation scheme might have reduced private motivation to act. Including a variable on perceptions of state support could strengthen this argument.

12.Since the surveyed area did not experience the 2021 flood directly, respondents may have perceived the event as less personally relevant. This may help explain declining worry and intention levels.

Reviewer #2: 1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Overall, this manuscript meets the core publication criteria of PLOS Climate. It addresses a timely and policy-relevant question—how drivers of private household flood adaptation evolve over time—and does so using methodologically rigorous and transparent analysis. The use of two nationally representative survey waves (2020 and 2023) provides a valuable quasi-longitudinal perspective that is rare in the literature on private climate adaptation.The analytical framework is clearly grounded in Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), extended in a theoretically justified manner to include responsibility perception. The descriptive and regression results are internally consistent and generally support the authors’ main conclusions, particularly the central claim that perceived responsibility has become a dominant driver of adaptation intentions by 2023. The interpretation of findings is careful, avoids overclaiming causality, and appropriately acknowledges limitations. That said, some conclusions—especially those linking observed changes to the 2021 flood event and subsequent government compensation—remain speculative. While clearly framed as plausible explanations rather than causal claims, these interpretations would benefit from more cautious language or additional supporting evidence. Overall, however, the manuscript presents a technically sound and ethically conducted study with conclusions that are largely well supported by the data.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Yes. The statistical analysis is appropriate, rigorous, and well documented. The authors employ logistic regression models separately for each survey wave and adaptation measure, which is suitable given the binary outcome variable. The use of robust (HC0) standard errors, explicit checks for multicollinearity (VIF), and transparent reporting of odds ratios with confidence intervals strengthens the credibility of the results.

The application of the Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate correction within each wave is particularly commendable and demonstrates careful attention to multiple testing issues. Reporting adjusted q-values rather than relying solely on raw p-values is consistent with best practices. One area that could be clarified further is the comparability of the responsibility perception variable across waves, as it is measured using different instruments (Likert scale in 2020 versus allocation task in 2023). While the authors provide a thoughtful harmonization and explanation, additional sensitivity checks or robustness discussion would further strengthen confidence in cross-wave comparisons.

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings fully available?

Yes. The authors comply with the PLOS Data Policy. The Data Availability Statement clearly identifies the public repository (DANS Data Station Social Sciences and Humanities) where the underlying survey data are deposited, complete with a DOI. The manuscript states that no additional data were used, and the analyses appear to rely solely on these publicly available datasets. The inclusion of detailed regression tables and model diagnostics in the Supporting Information further enhances transparency and reproducibility.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Yes. The manuscript is generally well written, clearly structured, and accessible to an interdisciplinary audience. The narrative flow from theory to methods, results, and policy implications is strong, and figures and tables are clear and informative. There are, however, a few minor issues that should be addressed during revision:

Occasional typographical errors (e.g., “assymmetry” instead of “asymmetry” in the Introduction).

Some sentences, particularly in the Discussion, are quite long and could be tightened for clarity.

The explanation of odds ratios, while helpful for non-technical readers, may be slightly redundant for a specialist audience and could potentially be shortened. These are minor language and style issues that do not detract from the overall quality of the manuscript.

5. Review Comments to the Author

This manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the literature on private climate adaptation by demonstrating that behavioural drivers—particularly responsibility perception—are not stable over time, even within a relatively short three-year period. The use of repeated cross-sectional data allows the authors to highlight volatility in adaptation intentions and their determinants, which has important implications for adaptation policy design.

Key strengths include:

A strong theoretical grounding in PMT combined with a well-motivated extension to responsibility perception.

Transparent, reproducible, and statistically rigorous analysis.

Clear policy relevance, particularly regarding climate risk communication, responsibility framing, and the limits of information-based interventions.

Excellent use of figures and tables to communicate complex results.

Points for improvement or clarification:

Causal interpretation: While the manuscript appropriately avoids explicit causal claims, some discussion sections strongly imply that the 2021 flood and subsequent government compensation influenced responsibility perceptions. I encourage the authors to further temper or explicitly frame these interpretations as hypotheses for future research.

Measurement comparability: The change in measurement of responsibility perception between waves is understandable, but it remains a critical variable in the analysis. A brief robustness check or expanded discussion of potential measurement effects would strengthen the longitudinal interpretation.

Sample size differences: The substantially smaller 2023 sample (N=420 vs. N=1,251 in 2020) could be discussed more explicitly in terms of statistical power and uncertainty, even though model diagnostics are strong.

Generalizability: While the Dutch context is well justified, a short reflection on how these findings might (or might not) translate to countries with weaker flood protection institutions would broaden the manuscript’s appeal.

Overall, I find this to be a high-quality and thought-provoking study that is well suited for publication in PLOS Climate, subject to minor revisions addressing the points above.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

It’s Not Just Risk—It’s Responsibility: Changing Drivers of Home Flood Protection

PCLM-D-25-00409R1

Dear Mr Sirenko,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'It’s Not Just Risk—It’s Responsibility: Changing Drivers of Home Flood Protection' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Miguel Ángel Navas-Martín

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors have carefully addressed the reviewers’ comments, and the revised manuscript has been substantially improved as a result.

The main issues raised during peer review have been satisfactorily resolved, and the manuscript is now clearly and transparently reported, with appropriate acknowledgment of the limitations inherent to the observational design.

I am therefore pleased to recommend this manuscript for publication in PLOS Climate.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):