Assessment of the compound impact of sea level rise, land subsidence and storm surge under climate change in ShangHai

Bing Liang; Guoqing Shi; Yuexi Wu; Yuxuan Zhu; Mark Wang; Zhonggen Sun

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0343974

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 15, 2025
11 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Renjith VishnuRadhan, Editor Dear Dr. liang, Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 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, Renjith VishnuRadhan, PhD 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: [This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China �23CXW034� ;& Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities: Climate Migration Types and Risk Management in Coastal Areas. (grant number B230205032); &Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province: Climate Migration Types and Risk Management in Coastal Areas. (grant number 422003151); and The Key Research Project of the National Foundation of Social Science of China: Community Governance and Post-relocation Support in Cross District Resettlement [grant number 21&ZD183].]. Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 and 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 6. We note that Figure 1 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 Figure 1 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.naturalearthdata.com/ 7. 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: The paper is very relevant in the current scenario. The paper is also robust in terms of main findings and methodology. There a general lack of discussion on uncertainty or confidence intervals for the projections. A brief discussion on uncertainty implications is advisable. There is some redundancy in in describing the impacts of SLR, LS, and SS separately. Please streamline the discussion by integrating hazard descriptions and focusing on the knowledge gap. Also, citations are listed sequentially without comparative analysis. Storm surge analysis is not very robust in the paper, also the discussion. The authors may include a table summarizing prior studies, their methods, and limitations. The results should be presented with confidence intervals or scenario bands to reflect projection variability. There is also a repetition of numerical results from results section without deeper causal analysis. please give priority on discussion on implications, mechanism explanations, and comparison with other studies. In the conclusion section, recommendation can be tailored by prioritizing recommendations based on feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and urgency. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: No 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: • The results do not appear to account for uncertainty, nor are any uncertainty estimates provided. However, incorporating uncertainty is extremely important, especially in a study focused on future planning. IPCC AR6 describes projections with medium confidence (excluding ice sheet instability) and low confidence when ice sheet instability is included. It is currently unclear to the reader which of these is being presented in the sea-level projections. I suggest clarifying this point and providing the likely ranges (e.g., the 17th–83rd percentiles), as recommended by IPCC AR6. It is curtial to provide uncertainty bounds as in L217,L222,L230, L319. • I do not understand the data source for subsidence, is it InSAR/GPS measurements? Since there are only ~14 years of data, how do the authors account for Glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) and gravitational, rotational, and deformational effects (GRD) signals? As it stands, I am not convinced ARIMA method is useful for projecting land motion over the century. Additionally, signals associated with groundwater extraction can be nonlinear and introduce spurious trends (L74,L281-283). • The sea-level projections presented in this study appear to be based on values from the tide gauge at LUSI - NASA Portal, could the authors please confirm ? • Link to Land subsidence data, Shanghai Geological Environment Bulletin (2009–2023). • Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for Shanghai: Sourced from the GEBCO website (https://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data/). Please provide details of the dataset and the direct link to the data. The link currently opens a page with multiple datasets. Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments: This manuscript presents an integrated assessment of sea level rise (SLR), land subsidence (LS), and storm surge (SS) impacts on Shanghai under climate change scenarios. This paper addresses the compound impacts of sea level rise (SLR), land subsidence (LS), and storm surges (SS) on Shanghai, a major global coastal megacity. Using IPCC AR6 projections, long-term land subsidence monitoring, and historical storm surge data, the authors construct three scenarios (SLR alone, SLR + LS, SLR + LS + SS) to project inundation risks for 2050, 2070, and 2100. Methods include ARIMA time-series modeling, GIS-based spatial analysis, and numerical simulation. Results indicate that storm surges significantly amplify inundation areas from 361.32 km² under SLR alone to 1,331.91 km² when combined with LS and SS by 2100. Spatial heterogeneity is emphasized, with Chongming District and Pudong New Area identified as high-risk zones. The paper concludes with adaptation recommendations, including integrated risk management frameworks, differentiated regional strategies, technological innovation, and socioeconomic resilience building. Areas for Improvement: Grammar and Style – The manuscript contains several minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings (e.g., inconsistent tense usage, missing articles, overly long sentences). A careful proofreading pass or professional language editing is recommended. Citations in Study Area Section – The “Study Area” description currently lacks in-text references for geographic and factual details. These should be supported with authoritative sources. Introduction Expansion – While the introduction covers SLR, LS, and SS, it would benefit from more recent and detailed global and regional statistics on sea level rise (e.g., IPCC AR6 scenario ranges, regional SLR acceleration rates, tide gauge records for Shanghai). This will strengthen the scientific context and underscore the urgency of the study. In the review section, the literature review should more explicitly differentiate the novelty of this approach from prior compound-impact modelling studies in other regions. Integration of Socioeconomic Dimensions The paper is methodologically rigorous in physical hazard assessment but gives limited treatment to socioeconomic exposure and vulnerability. Integrating population density, critical infrastructure, and economic value data into spatial analysis would enhance decision-making applicability. Formatting: Correct minor typographical issues (e.g., “centur[3]” → “century [3]”; missing space before citations). Terminology Clarification: For a multidisciplinary audience, briefly define terms such as “relative sea level rise” and “ARIMA modeling” in non-technical language when they are first mentioned. Recommendations Section: The recommendations are comprehensive but could be more concise to avoid repetition. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-32386_ln_ R1.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: reviewer 1.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r001
Revision 1
23 Oct 2025 Author Response reviewer 1 1. Summary of the Paper This paper examines the growing threat of sea-level rise (SLR) to the city of Shanghai, China. This issue is exacerbated by land subsidence and storm surge. As China’s economic, financial, and shipping hub with extensive low-lying areas, Shanghai faces increasing flood risk, making it crucial to strengthen flood defenses. To estimate the extent of potential land inundation, the authors assess three cases: (1) global SLR alone, (2) SLR combined with land subsidence, and (3) the above two coupled with storm surge. IPCC AR6 probabilistic sea-level projections were obtained from NASA sea-level change Portal, while land subsidence is forecasted for the century through an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model. These projections are then integrated with storm surge to generate inundation areas through 2100. The results highlight how flood risk evolves distinguishing between coastal and inland areas. The study discusses how future sea-level rise may compromise existing infrastructure, and how continued subsidence could further damage infrastructure and worsen saltwater intrusion. The authors conclude by emphasizing the importance of improving Shanghai’s disaster preparedness and planning. Overall, this study highlights the compounding risks of sea-level rise, land subsidence, and storm surge in low-lying coastal regions of Shanghai, which could significantly disrupt communities, infrastructure, and local ecosystems. It identifies key vulnerabilities and recommends strategies for adaptation and mitigation to enhance long-term resilience. 2. Scientific Quality 2.1 Methodology The following points have been discussed in detail in section 5.1 Major Comments ; a brief summary is provided below: �The sea-level projections in this study appear to be based on data from the LUSI tide gauge via the NASA Portal, which already accounts for vertical land motion (VLM) and thus represents relative sea level. If VLM has been added again in the analysis (e.g., Table 3), this may result in double counting, which is a significant concern. Response: Thank you for this critical comment. We confirm that the sea-level projections used in this study were sourced from the NASA Sea Level Projection Tool for the LUSI tide gauge. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. The “total” relative sea-level projection available on the NASA Portal does indeed include a component of Vertical Land Motion (VLM), which represents large-scale, background processes like Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). However, the land subsidence data we used for Shanghai (e.g., in Table 2 and for constructing Case 2) comes from a separate, localized source: long-term monitoring records published by the Shanghai Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau. This dataset captures localized, anthropogenic-driven subsidence (e.g., from groundwater extraction and urban construction) specific to the Shanghai region, which is not fully represented in the global VLM models used by NASA. Therefore, our analysis in Case 2 aims to combine two distinct components: (1)The relative sea-level change from the NASA portal (which includes the global mean sea-level rise and the background VLM); and (2)The additional, locally-measured land subsidence specific to Shanghai. This approach allows us to specifically quantify the compound effect of global sea-level rise and the significant, localized subsidence that critically exacerbates flood risk in Shanghai. We have taken care to avoid double-counting by ensuring these two components are distinct in both source and physical representation. �A clear distinction is needed between the subsidence values provided in Table 2 (in this study) and the VLM estimates on the NASA Portal. This discrepancy, combined with the use of the ARIMA method on a relatively short dataset (~14 years), raises questions about the method’s suitability for projecting century-scale subsidence. Response: Distinction between NASA VLM and Local Subsidence Data: The Vertical Land Motion (VLM) estimate incorporated into the relative sea-level projections on the NASA Portal is derived from global models and primarily captures large-scale, geophysical processes such as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). In contrast, the subsidence values provided in our Table 2 are based on local monitoring data specific to Shanghai, published by the Shanghai Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau. This local dataset primarily reflects regional anthropogenic drivers, such as groundwater extraction and the load of urban infrastructure, which are not fully captured in the global-scale VLM product. Therefore, these two data sources are complementary rather than contradictory; the NASA VLM provides a background rate, while our data adds the significant, locally-measured anthropogenic component. Suitability of ARIMA for Century-Scale Projection: We acknowledge the reviewer's valid concern regarding the use of an ARIMA model with a ~14-year dataset to project trends over a century. We employed the ARIMA model not to predict specific annual fluctuations far into the future but to provide a reasonable, data-driven estimate of the potential magnitude of ongoing anthropogenic subsidence under current trends, acknowledging the significant associated uncertainty. The projection is intended to highlight the potential long-term cumulative effect if current subsidence mechanisms persist without mitigation. We fully agree that this approach has limitations. The projection does not account for potential future nonlinearities, changes in groundwater management policy, or other mitigating interventions that could alter the subsidence rate. We have now explicitly stated these caveats in the manuscript (Section 3.2.2) to ensure transparency and to caution readers against interpreting the values as a definitive forecast. We present it as a plausible scenario based on recent historical patterns, crucial for illustrating the compound risk faced by Shanghai. We will revise the manuscript to make this critical distinction between the data sources and the intended use and limitations of the ARIMA projection much clearer. Thank you for prompting this essential clarification. �Furthermore, since the NASA Portal provides sea-level projections as quantiles, it is not appropriate to add deterministic values (like VLM) directly to the median. Instead, VLM should be treated probabilistically and incorporated into the total sea-level distribution via proper aggregation methods (see Govorcin et al., (2025) for a recent example). Response: Thank you for raising this crucial methodological point. We agree entirely with the reviewer that the most statistically rigorous approach for integrating probabilistic sea-level rise (SLR) projections and vertical land motion (VLM) or subsidence data is to treat all components probabilistically and combine them through proper aggregation methods, such as Monte Carlo sampling from their respective distributions. In our initial analysis, we added a deterministic subsidence rate to the median SLR projection as a simplified first-order approximation to illustrate the potential compound effect. We acknowledge that this approach does not propagate the full uncertainty inherent in both the SLR projections and the subsidence estimate. We thank the reviewer for bringing the Govorcin et al. (2025) study to our attention. We have reviewed this reference and agree it provides an excellent framework for a more robust probabilistic aggregation. In our revised manuscript, we will address this limitation by: We will ensure that the results presented from our current method are interpreted cautiously as a central estimate scenario rather than a full probabilistic assessment. We believe this acknowledgment and commitment to a more sophisticated methodology in future research adequately addresses the reviewer's valid concern while clarifying the scope of the current study. Thank you for this valuable suggestion, which significantly strengthens the statistical rigor of our work's future direction. 3. Structure and Clarity This is a well-organized and clearly written article describing the compounding impact of SLR on Shanghai. The reader is able to follow the authors’ argument logically as they demonstrate how SLR is exacerbated by land subsidence and storm surge, increasing future risk, while also suggesting mitigation and adaptation strategies for long-term planning. �I encourage the authors to carefully review the terminology used and align it with recent sea-level literature. For example, consider using “global sea level” rather than “absolute sea level,” as it improves clarity when comparing with regional sea-level changes. Additionally, abbreviations should be defined only once and used consistently (e.g., sea-level rise (SLR) is defined on L38 but redefined on L65). Also, see minor comment on L163. Response: In section 4.1, a response was provided, with specific supplementary content as follows: The 'absolute sea level rise' we refer to here refers to the sea level rise without considering the effects of land subsidence and storm surges. If we consider the effects of land subsidence and storm surges, then sea level rise at this point refers to 'relative sea level rise'. The SLR acronym has only been defined once. �This study would benefit from a more detailed treatment of uncertainty quantification and analysis. SLR is associated with deep uncertainty, which becomes especially critical when planning for the future. �Lastly, IPCC AR6 provides probabilistic sea-level projections. Referring to these appropriately, and incorporating the associated confidence levels and likely ranges, will further strengthen the scientific rigor of the article. Response: We have taken into account your suggestions during the process of revising the manuscript 4. Figures and Tables �Figure 1 : I do not see the value of Figure 1 for the paper (see minor comments L151-152). Consider replacing with the sea-level projection (for all SSP’s) at a tide gauge station closest to Shanghai. As an example, consider Figure 3 in Naish et. al., (2024) : The Significance of Interseismic Vertical Land Movement at Convergent Plate Boundaries in Probabilistic Sea-Level Projections for AR6 Scenarios: The New Zealand Case. Response: We have deleted Figure 1. �Tables : All tables would benefit from the inclusion of uncertainty bounds. Incorporating uncertainty is especially important in a study focused on future planning. According to IPCC AR6, projections are assigned medium confidence when excluding ice sheet instability, and low confidence when including it. At present, it is unclear to the reader which category the presented sea-level projections fall into (Table 1). Clarifying this and providing the likely ranges would significantly strengthen the results. Response: Thank you for this critical and constructive feedback. We agree entirely that incorporating uncertainty bounds and clarifying the confidence level of the projections are essential for a study focused on future risk assessment and planning. We appreciate the opportunity to improve our manuscript accordingly. In response to your comments, we will undertake the following revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results: Clarification of Confidence Levels: We will explicitly state the confidence level associated with our presented sea-level projections. As our study utilizes the standard projections from the IPCC AR6 Sea Level Projection Tool, which include processes related to ice-sheet instability (e.g., marine ice sheet instability and structural failure of ice cliffs), the appropriate confidence level for the projections under SSP2-4.5 is Low Confidence. This clarification was added to the the result section (Section 4) to ensure it is clear to the reader. Treatment of Subsidence Uncertainty: We acknowledge that our initial deterministic projection of land subsidence is a simplification. In the revised manuscript: Discuss this uncertainty explicitly in the text and, where feasible, incorporate it into the presentation of the results for the compound scenarios (Case 2 and Case 3). We have clarified that the values for these cases are central estimates based on the median SLR and median subsidence projection. By implementing these changes, our tables and results will more accurately reflect the deep uncertainty inherent in century-scale climate projections and local subsidence forecasts. This will significantly enhance the scientific rigor of our study and provide policymakers with a more nuanced and useful assessment for long-term planning. Thank you for this invaluable suggestion. 5. Reviewer’s Comments 5.1 Major Comments �Several abbreviations are defined but not consistently reused. For example, sea level rise (SLR) is introduced on L38 and then redefined in L65. To enhance clarity and readability, it may be helpful to include a summary box listing all abbreviations and their definitions. Response: After modification, we have used abbreviations throughout the entire text. �The use of the term “scenario” in Section 3.3.1 may be somewhat misleading, particularly when referring to sea-level projections from the IPCC, where “scenarios” represent alternate future pathways (see Meinshausen et al., 2020). Since the current study uses the SSP2-4.5 scenario for sea-level projections, it may be clearer to use an alternative term in this section, such as “case” to avoid potential confusion. Response: We have modified the word scenario into a word case. �The results are presented only for the SSP2-4.5 scenario. It would be helpful if the authors could explain the rationale behind selecting this particular scenario. Additionally, a brief discussion comparing the results in the context of other SSP [SSP1-2.6, SSP3-7.0, SSP5-8.5] scenarios would enhance the completeness and relevance of the analysis. Response: In section 7. Research limitations, a response was provided, with specific supplementary content as follows: We selected only the SSP2-4.5 scenario for sea-level rise projections due to its representation of a middle-ground pathway balancing socio-economic development and moderate mitigation efforts. Other SSP scenarios, including SSP1-1.9, SSP1-2.6, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5, will be explored in future research to cover a broader range of possible futures. �It is important to distinguish between “predictions” and “projections” throughout the manuscript. IPCC AR6 provides probabilistic sea-level projections, not predictions (see L155, L156, L290). Additionally, Section 4.4 would be more accurately titled “Storm Surge Predictions.” Terms such as “forecast” are also used inappropriately in places (e.g., L217, L227). These terms appear to be used interchangeably in the manuscript and should be revised for accuracy. As a general note, “projections” refer to analyses based on hypothetical or future scenarios. Response: We have conducted a search check on the entire text according to the modification requirements and correctly used the word 'projections' �The sea-level projections presented in this study appear to be based on values from the tide gauge at LUSI - NASA Portal, could the authors please confirm ? If so, it is important to note that the “Total” value provided on the NASA portal already accounts for VLM, and thus represents relative (not global or absolute) sea-level. If VLM has been added again in the analysis (as in Table 3), this could result in double counting, which raises concerns. As noted in L217, the data from the NASA portal already incorporate VLM and should be interpreted accordingly. Response: Thank you for this critical comment. We confirm that the sea-level projections used in this study were sourced from the NASA Sea Level Projection Tool for the LUSI tide gauge. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. The “total” relative sea-level projection available on the NASA Portal does indeed include a component of Vertical Land Motion (VLM), which represents large-scale, background processes like Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). However, the land subsidence data we used for Shanghai (e.g., in Table 2 and for constructing Case 2) comes f Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r002
6 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Renjith VishnuRadhan, Editor Dear Dr. liang, 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 Feb 20 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 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 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, Renjith VishnuRadhan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 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. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Thank you for revising the manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the authors’ responses and the updated version of the paper. All my previous comments have been adequately addressed, and the revisions have improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript. I have no further concerns at this stage. ****** 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: review1_Comments.docx Attachment Submitted filename: manuscript.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-32386_R1_comments_detail.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r003
Revision 2
8 Jan 2026 Author Response The revised response file has been uploaded Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r004
1 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Renjith VishnuRadhan, Editor Dear Dr. liang, 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 Mar 18 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 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 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 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, Renjith VishnuRadhan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 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: Please do a robust proofread for grammatical and language errors. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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 ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: review1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r005
Revision 3
8 Feb 2026 Author Response We have completed the manuscript revisions according to the comments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r006
12 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Renjith VishnuRadhan, Editor Dear Dr. liang, 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 Mar 29 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 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 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 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, Renjith VishnuRadhan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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: Reference 33 is a retracted article and you have to change this. Also, please check the reference style through out. Why is there another uncited reference in 33 (HANG Yecheng et al). Are other references correctly cited (as per the numbering)? 33. Khan A A. TEMPORARY REMOVAL: Why would sea-level rise for global warming and polar ice-melt?. 2019.HANG Yecheng, HU Jingjiang, et al. Spatial and temporal distribution characteristics [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r007
Revision 4
12 Feb 2026 Author Response no Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_4.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r008
15 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Renjith VishnuRadhan, Editor Assessment of the compound impact of sea level rise, land subsidence and storm surge under climate change in ShangHai PONE-D-25-32386R4 Dear Dr. liang, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Renjith VishnuRadhan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r009
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Renjith VishnuRadhan, Editor PONE-D-25-32386R4 PLOS One Dear Dr. Liang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Renjith VishnuRadhan Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343974.r010

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .