Dear Dr. Salman,

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 Jan 27 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 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.

• 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,

Rukhsana Rukhsana

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

2. Please note that PLOS ONE 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/plosone/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.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. 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.

5. We note that Figures 1, 3A-E, 4A-G, 5A-F, 6, 7, 8 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3A-E, 4A-G, 5A-F, 6, 7, 8 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalea

Additional Editor Comments:

Review Report.

1. The abstract could benefit from a more streamlined presentation. Some sentences are slightly repetitive, particularly regarding vulnerability factors, and could be combined for brevity. he abstract could more explicitly highlight the practical implications of the study's findings, particularly in terms of how the results could influence policy or lead to tangible improvements in cyclone preparedness.

2. "Spatial Distribution of Vulnerability" Section in results and discussion, The section is generally clear but could be structured better for readability. The discussion on physical, social, and mitigation vulnerability seems fragmented. It might help to more clearly separate the findings on each criterion (physical, social, and mitigation), rather than switching between them in the same paragraph.

3. When referring to maps and tables, ensure a consistent description (e.g., "Fig 6 illustrates..." followed by "As shown in Table 5...") to improve flow.

4. The mention of figures (Fig 6, Fig 7, Fig 8) and tables is helpful but would benefit from a clearer connection between the text and the visuals. It might be more effective to explicitly state what each figure or table illustrates before or after mentioning it.

5. Ensure that the references to the figures and tables are numbered and consistently formatted.

6. The geographical locations mentioned (e.g., Bhola, Barguna, Patuakhali) are important but need further clarification regarding why these areas are specifically vulnerable (e.g., do they have a higher proportion of vulnerable populations, lack of infrastructure, or other unique factors?).

7. The percentages of the total area mentioned in relation to vulnerability categories are useful, but further explanation of how these figures were derived would enhance credibility. For instance, were these areas assessed based on a specific methodology (e.g., satellite data, field surveys)?

8. Resulte and discussion shoulf be separately explained in more detail.

9. The terms used to describe vulnerability (e.g., “very high,” “high,” “moderate,” etc.) are appropriate, but consistency in terminology is key. Ensure that terms like "susceptibility," "vulnerability," and "sensitivity" are used clearly and consistently across the entire report to avoid confusion.

10. The use of "moderate" and "moderately vulnerable" seems a bit repetitive, as these terms are used in both physical and social vulnerability contexts. Clarifying how they differ across contexts would improve precision.

11. The data on the physical vulnerability categories (e.g., “high” and “very high” vulnerability accounting for 45% of the area) is helpful, but the underlying factors (e.g., land cover, elevation, proximity to the coast) should be explained in more detail to give readers a clearer understanding of why these factors contribute to vulnerability.

12. Similarly, for social vulnerability, while the description of factors such as population density, gender, disability, and agricultural reliance is good, a more detailed discussion on how these factors contribute to vulnerability would strengthen the analysis.

13. Mitigation Capacity Discussion:The section on mitigation capacity could benefit from a more nuanced analysis. While it mentions "poor road networks," "poor cyclone warning systems," and "lack of infrastructure," it would be useful to describe the extent of these deficiencies. For example, how do these issues compare across regions? Are some areas better equipped despite the overall low mitigation capacity in the southern and southeastern regions?

14. Additionally, while the findings about Barishal district having higher mitigation capacity are noted, the factors contributing to this higher capacity (e.g., better infrastructure or preparedness) could be explored more in-depth.

15. • The percentages and area calculations (e.g., "30.95% very high vulnerability", "26.42% moderate vulnerability") are useful, but they need clearer contextual explanation. A brief mention of how these areas were classified based on the vulnerability factors would add value. Were the classifications based on specific thresholds or ranges?

16. For mitigation capacity, the percentages are helpful, but more detailed descriptions of what "very low," "moderate," or "high" mitigation capacity entails in practice would provide better insights into the actual conditions on the ground.

17. High resolution figure should be given.

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

Dear Dr. Salman,

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.

• 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,

Sher Muhammad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. We’ve received reports from two anonymous reviewers, both of whom recommend major revisions. In light of their detailed feedback, please prepare and submit a substantially revised version addressing reviewers' comments.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  This study employs FAHP and geospatial techniques to assess tropical cyclone vulnerability in central coastal Bangladesh. The manuscript is well written and structured and the presented findings provide actionable insights for policymakers and NGOs to improve cyclone preparedness and resilience in vulnerable coastal communities. Few adjustments are needed before being considered for publication, and I would be ready to assess the revised version again after applying the following adjustments:

Limit the use of first person pronouns (we used, we utilized, our study…etc.) across the whole manuscript.

Line 123-125: You stated that “According to the literature, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is the most prevalent and well-suited approach for spatial multi criteria evaluation [36].” Add that AHP is widly recognized in risk assessment associated with cyclones. Add a relevant reference such as “Mohseni, U., Jat, P. K. and Siriteja, V. (2025). Multi-criteria analysis-based mapping of the cyclone-induced pluvial flooding in coastal areas of India. DYSONA - Applied Science, 6(2), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.30493/das.2025.490282”

Line 155-157: You stated that “Super Cyclones Sidr (2007) and Aila (2009) have severely damaged the coast, killing 3,500 people, injuring 191, and causing significant environmental and property damage [30].” Add that many still perceive them as a major cause of socioeconomic vulnerability and water scarcity in Southwestern Bangladesh. Add a relevant reference such as “Bhowmik, D., Kader, Z., Hosen, B. and Hossain, S. (2025). Exploring socioeconomic vulnerability and natural disasters impacts on water access in the south coastal region of Bangladesh. DYSONA - Applied Science, 6(1), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.30493/das.2024.483646”

Fig. 2 is old fashion and somewhat mundane. Try making it more compact and modern adding some light coloring to it

The results are well-presented and discussed. You also included a limitation section. However, you should discuss your view on how to overcome these limitation, and set few guidelines for future studies in light of your debates.

Enhance the captions of figures and tables. A good caption should include all the data needed for a reader to comprehend the general purpose of figures and tables without returning to the text.

Reviewer #2:  Title of the research: Cyclone vulnerability assessment of the central coast of Bangladesh: a comprehensive study utilizing FAHP and geospatial techniques

The coastal belt of Bangladesh is among the most cyclone-prone regions in South Asia. This research proposes an advanced mapping framework to assess tropical cyclone vulnerability in the central coastal zone using a combination of geospatial analysis and the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP). The study evaluates the spatial distribution of cyclone risk by incorporating eighteen indicators that span physical exposure, social sensitivity, and mitigation capacity. The analysis reveals that the southern fringe districts—particularly Bhola, Barguna, and Patuakhali—are at heightened risk. These areas are characterized by frequent cyclone occurrences, close proximity to the Bay of Bengal, low-lying terrain, gentle slopes, and populations with high dependency ratios, including women, persons with disabilities, and agricultural workers. The study also identifies significant weaknesses in existing mitigation infrastructure, including limited access to cyclone shelters, inadequate warning systems, and sparse road connectivity.

The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, development agencies, and local authorities aiming to design targeted interventions and strengthen disaster risk reduction mechanisms in vulnerable coastal zones. While I support the potential of this study for publication, I recommend a major revision based on the outcomes of the peer review process to enhance clarity, rigor, and policy relevance.

Justification of research: numerous studies have been conducted on cyclone vulnerability assessment in the region. It is better to state what is the new contribution from this study at the outset of this study.

Literature review and results: The study consults limited international literature of the discipline. Relevant examples can be drawn from the following recent sources in disaster prone settings:

• Change in cyclone disaster vulnerability and response in coastal Bangladesh

• Factors of cyclone disaster deaths in coastal Bangladesh,

• Reasons for non-evacuation and shelter-seeking behaviour of local population following cyclone warnings along the Bangladesh coast

Results and Discussion:

Since the results and discussion are presented together without a clear distinction, the interpretation of the data and the broader implications of the study remain ambiguous. This structure makes it difficult for readers to differentiate between the empirical findings and the authors' analytical insights or contextual explanations. As a result, the contribution of the study to existing knowledge, as well as its practical significance for cyclone vulnerability assessment and mitigation planning, is not effectively communicated. To enhance clarity and impact, the authors should consider separating the results from the discussion or, at a minimum, ensuring that each key finding is followed by a focused interpretation and explanation of its relevance within the broader research context. This would allow readers to better understand how the data supports the study’s conclusions and recommendations.

It is also less clear how the study will align with national and international development agendas. Conclusions seem to be just repeating some findings without linking the research findings with relevant disaster management policy and strategies in the region.

**********

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:  Edris Alam

**********

[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.

Cyclone vulnerability assessment of the central coast of Bangladesh: a comprehensive study utilizing FAHP and geospatial techniques

PONE-D-24-47688R2

Dear Dr. Salman,

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,

Sher Muhammad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for considering PLOS One for your manuscript. I am glad to recommend your manuscript for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: ................................................................................................................

Reviewer #2: The authors have demonstrated commendable responsiveness to the previous review comments. The revised manuscript clearly reflects the incorporation of suggested improvements, especially in terms of methodological clarity and explanation of the FAHP process. I appreciate the authors’ efforts in addressing all previous concerns thoughtfully and thoroughly. The revised manuscript represents a significant improvement and stands as a strong, publishable contribution to the field of disaster risk assessment and geospatial analysis.

**********

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:  Edris Alam

**********