the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Mar 2025
Methodological approach to multi-hazard analysis: the case of the Garrotxa region (Catalonia, Spain)
Abstract. Amidst the escalating impacts of climate change and the growing frequency of natural disasters, the urgent need for robust multi-risk assessment and proactive mitigation strategies has become increasingly apparent. The Garrotxa region, characterized by its diverse array of weather-related hazards (such as torrential rains, floods, debris flows, lahars, tornadoes) and geological hazards (including landslides, rockfalls, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions), presents an example of the challenges faced by communities globally, necessitating a shift towards anticipatory disaster management. Departing from conventional simulation models, we recognize the fundamental role of past experiences in shaping future risk assessments and mitigation strategies. This paper introduces a methodology for the creation of a multi-hazard database tailored to the Garrotxa region, serving as a foundational step towards subsequent multi-risk analysis. By meticulously documenting the region's historical hazards since 1900, our approach aims to equip stakeholders with a nuanced comprehension of multiple natural processes. This comprehensive strategy, which combines modern monitoring techniques with historical context, forms a synergistic approach crucial for effective, long-term disaster risk mitigation. Our work not only sheds light on the unique challenges faced by the Garrotxa region but also provides a scalable model for regions grappling with diverse natural phenomena worldwide. This contribution aims to enhance disaster resilience in regions confronting similar potential multi-hazard scenarios.
- Preprint
(928 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1226', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2025
reply
This paper presents the development of a historical database of six natural hazard events (i.e., Earthquakes, Floods, Ground subsidence, Landslides, Rock falls and Wildfires) in the Garrotxa region of Catalonia, Spain, covering the period 1900 - 2023. The authors aim to address challenges of data fragmentation, inconsistency, and lack of accessibility by compiling existing records into a centralised and standardised database for the case study.
The idea of developing a multi-hazard dataset is timely, especially in the context of the growing global concern that hazards no longer occur in isolation but often interact, creating more complex risk scenarios. Understanding such interactions is essential for improving forecasting, preparedness, and risk reduction.
However:
While the paper claims to present a multi-hazard database, the methodology currently treats each hazard type separately, with little evidence of integration or analysis of their potential interactions. For the database to be considered truly “multi-hazard,” the authors should explain whether and how different hazard datasets are compared, overlaid, or analysed together - for example, through spatial correlation, cascading event identification, shared exposure layers, or temporal overlaps. This clarification would significantly strengthen the paper’s contribution.
This issue also ties into the lack of a clear definition of “multi-hazard.” The manuscript uses terms like “multi-hazard” and “multi-risk” interchangeably, and at times reverts to simply “natural hazards.” It would be helpful to clearly define the scope of the database early on: Are these hazards considered individually or in terms of interrelationships? If they are treated separately, as seems to be the case, the term “multi-hazard” may need to be refined to reflect that - perhaps described instead as a “multiple single-hazard” dataset - and more justification should be given regarding how this contributes to future integrated risk analysis.
In the following, I outline the major points of this research:
1) Title
- The title feels somewhat broad and could benefit from more specificity. Terms like "methodological approach" and "multi-hazard analysis" are quite generic. It would be helpful to clarify the type of methodology used and the paper’s main contribution or novelty.
2) Abstract
- As noted in the general comments, the abstract claims to introduce a methodology for the creation of a multi-hazard database, but the terminology shifts inconsistently throughout, alternating between multi-risk, natural hazard database, and multi-hazard. This inconsistency should be addressed.
- The abstract would benefit from a clearer structure. It should briefly:
- Explain the importance of multi-hazard assessments,
- Summarise the data sources and methodology,
- Present the key findings, and
- Emphasise the broader significance of the work.
3) Introduction
- The contribution (state of the art) is not clear. Since the paper is about multi-hazard data collection, it is expected that the introduction discuss more about the importance of data collecting and the relevant existing literature both locally/nationally and globally. According to the paper, it is the first attempt of collecting this data in the region, but the readers also would like to know other attempts either nationally or globally. The state of the art needs to be strongly supported by literature. Therefore, this manuscript lacks the scientific backup.
- The introduction outlines an important initiative, but several key claims would benefit from further clarification or supporting evidence. For example, the claim that this is the first multi-risk database for the Garrotxa region should be supported by a brief overview of existing datasets and what sets this work apart. Additionally, terms like “intrinsic, extrinsic, and evolutionary variables” are not defined and may be unfamiliar to readers. Finally, while the broader benefits of the database are valuable, they could be more directly linked to specific features or applications.
4) The entire section 3 “Natural hazards in the Garrotxa region”, lacks citations. Given the descriptive detail, it is important to support this information with references to scientific studies, local hazard reports, or official datasets. This will strengthen the credibility of the section and allow readers to verify the information presented.
5) Methodology
1) For a paper centered on a data product, it lacks detail on how the data were processed, structured, validated, and made usable. The structure of the database is not deeply described or visualised. The methodology would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how heterogeneous datasets were standardised and cleaned. For example, how were missing values addressed, or duplicate/conflicting reports reconciled?
2) The mention of citizen science workshops is a valuable component of the methodology. However, the description is too brief to evaluate the scientific validity of this approach. I recommend providing more detail on the workshop structure, the nature of the participation, the type of data collected, and how this information was validated and integrated into the database. As this is a peer-reviewed paper, reproducibility and transparency are essential.
I would like to emphasise that for a paper centered on developing a database, there is surprisingly little about: The data model or structure. There is lack of clarity on data accessibility. The paper mentions several data sources - institutional databases, press archives, citizen science input - but it does not explain how accessible these are. Are the datasets open-access? Can others replicate this approach in another region? Were any data restricted or available only by request?
To improve transparency and reproducibility, I recommend expanding on the workflow used to compile and validate the data, including how the data was structured, what tools or software were used, and which sources are publicly accessible. Additionally, including a schematic or diagram of the database architecture would make it easier for other researchers to apply this approach to other regions.
3) The manuscript references several institutions and data sources (e.g., ICGC, AEMET, METEOCAT) without providing background or context for the reader. For an international audience unfamiliar with Catalonian or Spanish institutions, it would be helpful to briefly introduce each one at first mention - including its role, type (e.g., national agency, academic unit), and why it was relevant for the data used. This would improve clarity and accessibility of the paper.
4) The manuscript states that ground subsidence data were obtained through direct contact with researchers who had previously studied the phenomenon. While collaborative data sharing can enrich a study, from a scientific perspective, it raises concerns about the validity, traceability, and reproducibility of the database. For future improvement, it would be important to clearly describe how such data were validated, whether they are documented in peer-reviewed sources, and if they are accessible to other researchers. Ensuring that all data sources are verifiable and citable is essential to strengthen the credibility and scientific rigour of the database.
6) Discussion and challenges
1) There is a clear structural issue between the “Discussion” and “Challenges and Future Steps” sections. Many of the key challenges are currently placed in the Discussion, while the dedicated “Challenges” section focuses almost entirely on future plans. This creates confusion for the reader.
2) The Discussion does not fully engage in critical interpretation of the findings. A stronger discussion would:
- Reflect on the implications of the database for multi-hazard risk analysis,
- Compare the work to similar efforts in other regions,
- And consider its potential value for scientific and policy communities.
As much of the current content is descriptive, the paper would benefit from a more analytical tone and a clearer articulation of its broader relevance.
Minor comments
I have not included minor comments, as the issues outlined above affect the overall framing, methodology, and scientific positioning of the paper. In my view, substantial restructuring and clarification would be needed for the manuscript to meet publication standards.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1226-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 92 | 24 | 5 | 121 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 92
- PDF: 24
- XML: 5
- Total: 121
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1