PCLM-D-25-00248

Assessing children’s vulnerability to climate change in Small Island Developing States - A case study from Saint Kitts and Nevis

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Ashorn,

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 respond carefully to all of the reviewer's comments when preparing your revisions. As we have thus far only been able to secure one external review, please be aware that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers to evaluate your revised submission, but we will avoid this if at all possible.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2025 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 rebuttal 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,

Jamie Males

Executive Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

i. Please clarify all sources of financial support for your study. List the grants, grant numbers, and organizations that funded your study, including funding received from your institution. Please note that suppliers of material support, including research materials, should be recognized in the Acknowledgements section rather than in the Financial Disclosure. 

ii. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. For example: "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (####### to AM; ###### to CJ) and the National Science Foundation (###### to AM)."

iii. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

iv. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

4. Please ensure that your Ethics Statement is available in its entirety at the beginning of your Methods section, under a subheading 'Ethics Statement'.

5. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 

6. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

7. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

8. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

Figures 1 and 4: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

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. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: General Considerations, Rationale for Responses, and Final Conclusion

General Consideration

This research represents an original, relevant, and innovative contribution to the field of climate risk assessment, with a focus on children. By piloting the Children’s Climate Risk Index – Disaster Risk Model (CCRI-DRM) in a Small Island Developing State (Saint Kitts and Nevis), the authors successfully translate a global framework into a tool applicable at the local scale, yielding concrete results that can inform decision-making in highly vulnerable contexts.

It should be noted that this type of methodology (global framework applied at the local scale) should include recommendations on how to “adjust” such models to local contexts in order to effectively generate and implement public policies. Community participation and the real representativeness of NGOs should also be considered. Participatory diagnostics are key to understanding local realities, development dynamics, and risk perception among communities. In addition, multidimensional indicators such as poverty indices, the GINI coefficient, and access-to-services indicators should be incorporated.

For example, the pupil–teacher ratio indicator does not capture how many children are excluded from the education system—information that is just as critical as the ratio itself. Finally, gender, generational aspects, and life-cycle perspectives should be included, given that early childhood development is shaped not only by external factors but also by parental well-being and development.

Strengths

Originality: This is the first application of the CCRI-DRM in a SIDS, representing an important methodological advance.

Relevance: The topic is of great importance to both climate and child rights agendas.

Methodology: The combination of global and local data, together with co-creation and validation processes with national stakeholders, strengthens the study.

Results: High-risk areas (Saint Paul Capisterre and Saint George Basseterre) are clearly identified, and risks driven by exposure are distinguished from those driven by vulnerability.

Specific Weaknesses

Data: Strong reliance on proxies and global databases (WorldPop, MODIS, CHIRPS), and the absence of child-specific disaggregated data, limit the precision of results.

Weighting: Equal weighting of all indicators may obscure the relative importance of critical variables such as poverty, education, or healthcare access.

Future scenarios: The analysis focuses on current conditions only, without integrating climate change projections (e.g., sea-level rise, storm intensification).

Intersectionality: While poverty, education, and health are included, the model does not fully address how gender, age, or disability shape child vulnerability.

Validation: Validation relies solely on expert workshops and does not compare results with observed disaster impacts.

Rationale for Responses to Questions 1–6

1. Technical soundness and conclusions:

Some limitations should be addressed in future iterations: reliance on proxies and global datasets, absence of child-disaggregated data, and equal weighting of indicators.

Overall, the manuscript presents a rigorous investigation, with a solid conceptual framework and results highly relevant for climate and child health policy. I recommend acceptance after minor or moderate revisions.

2. Statistical analysis:

Limitations include equal weighting of indicators, which may hide the true importance of critical factors such as poverty and healthcare access.

No sensitivity analyses or alternative aggregation methods were conducted, which could reduce uncertainty.

In summary, the analysis is rigorous but could be improved through weighting refinements and statistical validation.

3. Data availability:

In general, the key datasets underpinning the findings are either available or described in the manuscript and supplementary materials.

Transparency could be strengthened by clarifying access pathways to national datasets provided by government agencies.

4. Clarity and presentation:

The study is written in standard English, with clear academic style and logical structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions).

Figures and tables appropriately complement the narrative, though some could be simplified for clarity.

6. Anonymity of review:

I prefer my identity to remain anonymous in this review process. However, I have no objection if the full content of my review is published as part of the peer review history of the manuscript, should the authors choose this option.

Ethical and Publication Considerations

No ethical issues were identified in this study. Data collection and stakeholder participation were conducted transparently and without the involvement of sensitive child-related information.

No concerns regarding duplicate publication or breaches of publication ethics.

Final Conclusion

This manuscript is of high quality, presenting a solid methodological approach and delivering findings of strong value for both research and practice. While there are limitations concerning data sources, indicator weighting, and the lack of forward-looking scenarios, these do not undermine the central findings.

I recommend acceptance after minor or moderate revisions, which would strengthen the scientific impact and policy applicability of the work.

**********

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

**********

[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.]

Assessing children’s vulnerability to climate change in Small Island Developing States - A case study from Saint Kitts and Nevis

PCLM-D-25-00248R1

Dear Mr. Ashorn,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Assessing children’s vulnerability to climate change in Small Island Developing States - A case study from Saint Kitts and Nevis' 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,

Jamie Males

Staff Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):