PONE-D-23-41282“What influences how well householders living in previously flooded communities feel they are protected or could recover from future flooding? results of a survey”PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Twiddy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. We would recommend "major revision" for the submission. We agree with both reviewers, especially on the clarification of terminology and concepts, improvement of the abstract, literature review enhancement, and more details on statistical analysis

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2024 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sutee Anantsuksomsri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

I would recommend "major revision" for the submission. I agree with both reviewers, especially on the clarification of terminology and concepts, improvement of the abstract, literature review enhancement, and more details on statistical analysis.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author should consider the following additional comments:

1. The abstract should clearly state the objectives of the paper.

2. The reader may have questions regarding the accuracy of the statement that flooding impacts more people than other environmental disasters, as well as what is meant by "environmental disasters" in this context.

3. The manuscript should explore potential confounders for statistical analyses, such as religion, income, and ethnic group.

4. It would be beneficial to provide information on Hull's population demographic characteristics and the relationships between the population and sample demographics.

5. Table 5 needs better explanation as it is currently difficult to understand without accompanying text.

6. Consider rearranging the section titled "Strength and Limitations" to "Limitations and Strength." The aforementioned points can be discussed as limitations of the study.

Reviewer #2: Overall, I find the study to be promising, but there are a few critical areas that require attention and improvement before it can be considered for publication. Please find detailed feedback below:

Insufficient Literature Review and Conceptual Framework:

The manuscript lacks a comprehensive literature review, particularly in establishing a robust theoretical framework connecting demographic factors and the perceived ability to cope and recover from floods. It is crucial to provide a more detailed theoretical foundation to convincingly support the research objectives. I recommend incorporating relevant literature that directly addresses the linkage between demographic context/factors and flood resilience. This will strengthen the theoretical underpinning of your study and ensure that the research is aligned with its stated objectives.

Clarity in Terminology – Resilience vs. Perceived Capacity:

The manuscript often uses the term "resilience" to describe the outcomes related to the feeling of recovering and the ability to protect oneself from floods. However, resilience and perceived capacity are distinct concepts. It is advisable to refrain from categorizing the findings as contributing to "resilience" without a more nuanced exploration of these terms. Consider revising the terminology to accurately reflect the study's focus on the perceived capacity to cope and recover from floods.

Illustration of Hazards and Challenges for Different Demographic Groups:

The extent of hazards and challenges faced by different age groups and genders is not sufficiently illustrated in the current manuscript. To enhance the understanding of the difficulties experienced by various demographic groups, I recommend providing a more detailed analysis of the hazards encountered and their impact on different age groups and genders. This will contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive interpretation of the study findings.

Enhanced Policy Recommendations:

The policy recommendations lack a direct and explicit link to the discussion. Instead of suggesting "specific work" or "practical action," consider providing concrete and targeted policy recommendations that align with the research findings. For instance, during the flood prevention phase, consider suggesting measures such as increasing the experience of female and elderly populations through flood drills or simulation exercises. Additionally, consider conducting short interviews to identify specific concerns among these demographics, allowing for more precise and actionable policy recommendations. Such detailed and context-specific suggestions will enhance the practical utility of your research, particularly for the city of Hull.

I appreciate the effort you have put into this research, and I believe that addressing these concerns will significantly strengthen the manuscript. I look forward to reviewing a revised version that incorporates these suggestions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yanin Chivakidakarn Huyakorn

**********

[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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-41282R1“What influences how well householders living in previously flooded communities feel they are protected or could recover from future flooding? results of a survey”PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Twiddy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Jul 22 2024 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sutee Anantsuksomsri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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:

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript, "What influences how well householders living in previously flooded communities feel they are protected or could recover from future flooding? results of a survey," to PLOS ONE.

After reviewing the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers, I recommend a Minor Revision for your submission.

Overall, your revised manuscript is much improved. However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed. I agree with Reviewer 1 that the regression results and the conclusion need some more improvement.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript was significantly improved. The descriptive statistics are well shown. The results, discussions, and conclusion are very interesting. The reviewer suggests the following three points:

1. Overall, the manuscript can improve its readability to be more attractive to readers. The reviewer hopes the authors can examine and polish the manuscript from the audience's viewpoint.

2. Compared to other sections, the ordinal regression analysis part (3.6) in the aforementioned 1st point could benefit from improvement, especially for expressions. For instance, Table 5 can provide a general explanation, making it easier for readers to comprehend the author's interpretations. The reviewer provides an example for the interpretive expression part, but authors are not required to follow it; the authors can simply refer to it and consider the points presented.

- Gender: Females are significantly less likely to feel confident in their recovery from flooding compared to males. The odds ratio of 0.551 indicates that females are 45% less likely to move up a category in recovery confidence compared to males.

- Age Groups: The age group 51-64 shows a negative estimate but is not statistically significant (p=0.696). Other age groups show positive estimates, with the age group 25-34 being close to significance (p=0.075), suggesting a trend where younger people may feel more confident in their recovery, but these effects are not strong enough to be conclusive in this analysis.

3. The conclusion section still needs improvement in its writing style.

Reviewer #2: The policy recommendations could benefit from increased specificity; however, considering the primary objectives of the research, they are deemed acceptable.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? 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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

“What influences how well householders living in previously flooded communities feel they are protected or could recover from future flooding? results of a survey”

PONE-D-23-41282R2

Dear Dr. Twiddy,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sutee Anantsuksomsri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I am delighted to say that your paper has been thoroughly revised and is now in good shape for publication.

Reviewers' comments: