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: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1226', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2025
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 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iris Schneider Pérez, 13 May 2025
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comment. We would like to take this opportunity to address some of your concerns. To begin with, we would like to clarify some overarching issues that are fundamental to the research presented in this paper:
The main objective of this paper is to present a database that serves as a foundational step towards a multi-hazard assessment. We understand the term "multi-hazard" as it is defined by UNDRR (2017): “the selection of multiple major hazards that the country faces, and the specific contexts where hazardous events may occur simultaneously, cascadingly or cumulatively over time, and taking into account the potential interrelated effects”. This definition is also broadly adopted by the Myriad-EU Project, despite some of the limitations it presents—such as the use of terms like “major” and “country” (Gill et al., 2022, p. 26).
It is true that our paper does not yet include an in-depth analysis of interactions between different natural hazards. Such analyses are planned for future stages of our research, using geospatial techniques, Bayesian statistics, and other advanced computational tools, all applied to the dataset we have compiled.
Nevertheless, the database has been designed with these future analyses in mind. The standardized template already incorporates variables specifically selected to support the study of spatial and temporal relationships between natural hazards—for example, geographical coordinates for each event, as well as precipitation and wind records for meteorologically driven hazards.
We chose the Garrotxa region as a case study due to its geological and socio-economic context. Being a mountainous area, it is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and the resulting natural hazards—especially meteorological ones. Additionally, this research supports the GarMultiRisk project, in which we are actively involved. One of the project’s main goals is the development of a Natural Risk Reduction and Management Plan targeted at technicians, first responders, and policymakers. For this reason, there is a strong practical interest in conducting this research in that region. It also allows us some flexibility to address not only data analysis but also practical improvements, such as enhancements to the monitoring network, which will help generate more relevant data for assessing hazard interrelationships.
We recognize that various methodological approaches to multi-hazard assessment exist in the current scientific literature. Our ongoing work aims to contribute to this field by offering one such approach and testing its implementation. We deeply value the opportunity for public discussion, as it provides valuable feedback and helps us improve our research.
With these general points outlined, we now respond to your specific comments in the same order as received. We hope our responses clarify our approach and demonstrate our willingness to incorporate improvements in how we communicate our work.
- Use of Terms: “Multi-hazard”, “Multi-risk”, “Natural hazards”
We understand your concerns regarding the use of these terms. There is indeed considerable ambiguity in the scientific literature concerning their definitions and application. Furthermore, one of the objectives of our previous research has been to help clarify these concepts (see López-Saavedra & Martí, 2023). Therefore we will carefully revise our manuscript to ensure consistent and accurate terminology throughout.
As noted earlier, the database presented in this paper is structured around different natural hazards. This structure was chosen to simplify data collection; however, the variables gathered for each event are specifically selected with future analysis of multi-hazard interrelationships in mind.
In our work, we use the term "multi-risk" with the understanding that multi-hazard assessment is a key component within the broader process of multi-risk assessment—which also includes the evaluation of exposure and vulnerability. In this context, our approach is aligned with the objectives of the GarMultiRisk project, where we aim to provide recommendations and strategies for multi-risk management, grounded in the outcomes of our multi-hazard assessments. As such, the multi-risk perspective represents a future step in the development of our research and is not yet included as a result in this paper.
- Title
Regarding the title, we chose "Methodological Approach to Multi-Hazard Analysis" as a broader title, as you correctly noted. We view the presented dataset as a foundational step within a wider methodological framework for multi-hazard assessment. Although this particular paper focuses primarily on the development of the database, we felt that the broader title reflects the context and future direction of our work. That said, we are currently considering alternative title formulations to better align with the content of the paper and to improve clarity.
- Abstract
We agree that the abstract would benefit from a more defined structure, with greater focus on the results obtained. As part of the final revision of our manuscript, we will revise the abstract accordingly to ensure it is clearer and more aligned with the content of the paper.
- Introduction
In the introduction, we felt it necessary to contextualize the need for a multi-risk perspective (with multi-hazard assessments being a component of it) by referencing various international frameworks, in alignment with the broader title of our manuscript. However, we agree that this section would benefit from additional scientific citations that specifically address methodological approaches to multi-hazard assessment and the development of datasets that can serve as foundational steps in this process. We are currently working on incorporating relevant literature into the revised version of the manuscript.
The same applies to the section in which we introduce the case of Garrotxa. We intend to include evidence showing that no similar databases currently exist for this region, which would further emphasize the originality and relevance of our work.
Additionally, we recognize the need to clarify our use of the terms extrinsic, intrinsic, and evolutionary variables. In our standardized database, different variables are selected for each natural hazard to support future analyses of their interrelationships. We define intrinsic variables as those inherent to the process itself, extrinsic variables as those external to the process but potentially influential, and evolutionary variables as those that affect the process once it has begun. Although data for some of these variables is currently limited, we believe our approach provides a strong foundation. Moreover, it allows us to offer practical recommendations to policymakers. For instance, if a relevant variable is identified but lacks adequate data, this finding can support the case for expanding or enhancing the monitoring network.
- Section 3 “Natural hazards in the Garrotxa region”, lacks citations
We agree with this point and will include additional scientific support with relevant citations. However, we would like to highlight that a central contribution of our research is addressing the lack of existing studies on natural hazards in the Garrotxa region. As a result, much of the information presented in this section of the paper is based on local knowledge provided by members of our team who are from the area, as well as by local government agencies and environmental organizations—stakeholders with whom we are working closely as part of the GarMultiRisk project, the broader framework within which this research is conducted.
We recognize that this may raise concerns within the scientific community, as some of the information cannot be easily cross-referenced with published literature. We also acknowledge that incorporating data from non-academic sources into scientific research can be challenging, and we will make a clear effort to define the scope and context of our work in the final version of the manuscript.
That said, and as noted at the beginning of this paragraph, we will thoroughly review the section and, where possible, include relevant literature to further substantiate our claims.
- Methodology
To improve transparency in data collection and validation, we are working on the following enhancements to this section:
- Including a summary table of the variables considered in the standardized template.
- Adding a summary table of the data sources and data validation workflow used to construct the multi-hazard database for the Garrotxa region.
- Providing a more detailed explanation of the citizen science workshops conducted, including how the data was collected and incorporated into the database.
- Including more scientific literature on ground subsidence data collection and expert elicitation methods.
Where appropriate, we are also open to adding further links or references to scientific literature.
In this regard, we would like to highlight that the paper already includes relevant information in section "4.2 Data Sources and Collection Strategy". This section outlines how information was retrieved from public institutions via formal requests, how geospatial techniques were applied to select wildfire events, and how historical press sources were consulted. We also encourage readers to refer to the "Discussion" section, where some of the challenges encountered during data collection are addressed.
Regarding the acronyms used (e.g., ICGC, AEMET), we believe that we have provided their full names when first mentioned in the text. That said, we will review this section to assess whether additional context would be helpful—such as links to their official websites, more detailed descriptions of their roles, or clarification of their institutional status. Our intention was to avoid excessive detail that might distract from the core content, and we initially considered acronym clarification to be sufficient.
6) Discussion and Challenges
Regarding the sections “Discussion” and “Challenges and Future Steps”, we are committed to reviewing the structure of these parts to ensure clearer distinctions and improve the organization of information. We will also consider the bullet points you mentioned to better highlight the key outcomes of our work.
7) Final comments
Thank you once again for your valuable insights. We look forward to continuing this discussion and improving how we communicate our research so that it can be more useful for the scientific community.
8) References
Gill, J.C., Duncan, M., Ciurean, R., Smale, L., Stuparu, D., Schlumberger, J, de Ruiter M., Tiggeloven, T., Torresan, S., Gottardo, S., Mysiak, J., Harris, R., Petrescu, E. C., Girard, T., Khazai, B., Claassen, J., Dai, R., Champion, A., Daloz, A. S., … Ward, P. (2022). MYRIAD-EU D1.2 Handbook of Multi-hazard, Multi-Risk Definitions and Concepts. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7135138
López-Saavedra, M. & Martí, J. (2023). Reviewing the multi-hazard concept. Application to volcanic islands. Earth-Science Reviews, 236, 104286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104286
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2017). The Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. "Hazard". Accessed 13 May 2025. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/hazard
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1226-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1226', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 May 2025
The manuscript “Methodological approach to multi-hazard analysis: the case of the Garrotxa region (Catalonia, Spain)” introduces a multi-hazard events database for the Garrotxa region. This contribution is certainly valuable in itself and supports the advancement of comprehensive risk assessments and improved preparedness and response strategies, aligning with the objectives of international initiatives such as the Sendai Framework.
Nevertheless, the presentation quality of the work requires significant improvement before publication. The three main issues are: (i) the lack of adequate references to support the reported information and findings, and (ii) the lack of a detailed explanation of the database design procedure and the database structure, (iii) the lack of a critical discussion on the applicability of the database to analyse hazard interactions and advance multi-hazard disaster risk management in general.
Please find my detailed comments below:
- The title does not reflect the content of the paper. Why is the keyword “database” not mentioned explicitly? I suggest providing a more suitable title for the work.
- The abstract does not follow a logical structure, and it is quite difficult to immediately capture the original contribution of the work to the state-of-the-art. I invite the authors to review the abstract to: i) state the problem or gap to adress; ii) clearly what the research seeks to address; iii) summarize the methodology, data, andanalysis techniques used; iv) highlight the key results or outcomes of the study; v) summarize the significance of the findings and their broader implications.
- At the end of the abstract (lines 23-24), the possibility of confronting “similar potential hazard scenarios” is mentioned. This statement is not clear. What does it mean? Moreover, what do you mean exactly by the expression “hazard scenarios”? This expression is not mentioned at all throughout the whole manuscript, except for two brief mentions in chapter 7.
- The expressions “multi-hazard” and “multirisk” (or “multi-risk”) are used interchangeably in the manuscript. Nevertheless, they refer to two different concepts. See e.g. the classification introduced by Zschau. (2017) or the definitions reported in the Disaster Risk Gateway - https://disasterriskgateway.net/index.php/Definitions). I invite the authors to check their use carefully. I think that in the majority of cases in the manuscript, the term “multi-hazard” would be more appropriate.
- Introduction, line 35: “In this context, scientific knowledge about the hazards that affect a region, both temporally and spatially, is crucial.” This sentence lacks references. There has been a significant amount of literature in the last fifteen years that has addressed the role of spatial and temporal overlapping of hazards. See e.g. Gill and Malamud (2014) or De Angeli et al. (2022), among others. Similarly, the sentence reported at lines 37-39 and 44-46 of the Introduction would benefit from the inclusion of additional references to those of López-Saavedra and Martí (2023).
- Introduction, lines 64-65: What does “intrinsic, extrinsic, and evolutionary variables” mean? These terms are not subsequently mentioned in the section (4.3) where the variables are supposed to be described.
- Section 3 (Natural hazards in the Garrotxa region) completely lacks references. I invite the authors to provide the sources of this information, even in the form of grey literature (e.g., technical reports, official websites) when peer-reviewed literature is not available.
- Section 4 (Methodology), lines 175-181: What has been the criterion for the selection of these hazards? This selection needs to be explained and supported better.
- Section 4 (Methodology), lines 185-188: Which is the source of this information?
- Section 4 (Methodology), lines 254-257: Which stakeholders have been involved? How have the workshops been organised? I invite the authors to provide more details.
- Section 4.3 (Data structuring and validation) is too poor. Please describe each of the key data fields and explain how they have been selected, e.g., did you take inspiration from existing databases? Moreover, please provide a more detailed description of the DB architecture.
- As a generic comment, Section 4 (Methodology) would benefit from the introduction of a scheme that depicts the database structure and how the different sources of information have been integrated.
- The discussion in Section 6 is almost uniquely a list of the challenges encountered in the creation and filling of the database. Why are these not instead reported in section 7, currently named Challenges and Future steps? Moreover, the discussion phase does not discuss in detail how the database can support a better understanding of multi-hazard dynamics and how it can be used to support the advancement of comprehensive risk assessments and improved preparedness and response strategies
- Related to the previous point, the authors mention several times in the manuscript that the database would enable “comprehensive analyses of [hazard] interactions,” but they never explain how these analyses would be performed, and which specific features of the database would facilitate these analyses.
References:
Zschau. (2017). Where are we with multihazards, multirisks assessment capacities? in: Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less, edited by: Poljansek, K., Marin Ferrer, M., De Groeve, T., and Clark, I., European Union, Brussels, Belgium.
Gill, J. C., & Malamud, B. D. (2014). Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards. Reviews of geophysics, 52(4), 680-722.
De Angeli, S., Malamud, B. D., Rossi, L., Taylor, F. E., Trasforini, E., & Rudari, R. (2022). A multi-hazard framework for spatial-temporal impact analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 73, 102829.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1226-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iris Schneider Pérez, 15 May 2025
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your extended and detailed review, and for allowing the discussion on our preprint to continue.
In general terms, we would like to emphasize that the construction of the database presented in our work is conceived as a first step towards multi-hazard assessment. This, in turn, is a key component of a broader multi-risk assessment, where exposure and vulnerability come into play.
It is true that our paper does not yet provide a complete workflow for the full implementation of a multi-hazard assessment framework. However, we would kindly invite you to refer to some of our previous work, particularly López-Saavedra & Martí (2023), in which we analyzed the concept of multi-hazard interactions and proposed a multi-risk management framework. While that earlier work was more theoretical in nature, we are now moving into a more practical phase, actively exploring and testing tools that can help us operationalize these ideas.
The current paper is intended to address this first step, by focusing on the construction of a standardized multi-hazard database, which can serve as a foundation for future analysis of spatial and temporal interrelationships between hazards. Our work is structured around two main contributions:
- To build a standardized database for each of the natural hazards considered in this study—landslides, ground subsidence, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, and rockfalls. To do so, we identified a set of key variables for each hazard type that would allow us, once the data were fully collected, to analyze spatial and temporal relationships.
- To apply this standardized database to the specific case of the Garrotxa region, by collecting all available data on natural hazard events that occurred there over a period of 123 years, in accordance with the variables previously defined.
We would like to highlight that we are already actively engaged in processing and analyzing the data collected for the Garrotxa region. This work employs techniques such as geospatial analysis, Bayesian networks, and graph theory to better understand the spatial and temporal patterns among different hazards. Our intention is to present these results in a second manuscript, which is currently in preparation.
We deliberately separated the development and structuring of the database into its own dedicated paper because we recognize that multiple analytical methods and applications may be used to explore hazard interrelationships. This separation allows us to emphasize the foundational importance of the database itself before addressing subsequent analytical steps in a follow-up publication.
We also acknowledge that the use of the terms "multi-hazard" and "multi-risk" may have caused some confusion in the context of our paper, as we do not explicitly state in the "Introduction" section that this research is part of the GarMultiRisk project. The ultimate aim of this project is to develop a Natural Risk Reduction and Management Plan for the Garrotxa Region, which will be delivered to local technicians, emergency services, and policymakers. At present, our approach to risk assessment remains qualitative, as our team does not yet include specialists in quantitative risk analysis.
That said, we will revise the manuscript carefully to ensure that the terms "multi-hazard" and "multi-risk" are used appropriately and consistently throughout the paper.
We would also like to clarify that our work is part of a broader effort to contribute to the ongoing discussions within the multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment community, particularly in the development of methodological frameworks for such assessments. In this regard, we appreciate the scientific literature you have shared with us. We are familiar with the referenced works and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional citations where appropriate.
With all this in mind, we now turn to address your specific comments point by point:
1) The title: We are currently exploring alternative title options that explicitly include the keyword "database". The title we originally chose was intended to reflect the future direction and broader objectives of our work.
2) The abstract: We agree that its structure can be improved to better highlight the main results and contributions of this specific paper. Once we complete the revisions to the manuscript, we will rewrite the abstract to provide a clearer and more detailed summary.
3) At the end of the abstract (lines 23-24), the possibility of confronting “similar potential hazard scenarios” is mentioned. This statement is not clear. What does it mean? Moreover, what do you mean exactly by the expression “hazard scenarios”? This expression is not mentioned at all throughout the whole manuscript, except for two brief mentions in chapter 7: We use the phrase “similar potential multi-hazard scenarios” to refer to the context of Garrotxa—a mountainous region that is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and therefore more likely to experience frequent and intense natural hazards, especially those related to meteorological phenomena. In our case, the six natural hazards identified as most relevant are: earthquakes, landslides, floods, wildfires, ground subsidences, and rockfalls. This is why we highlight that our standardised template may be most applicable to other regions with similar characteristics—namely, mountainous areas where these specific hazards are also prevalent—since the structure of our database has been tailored with these six natural hazards in mind.
Regarding the use of the term “scenarios” in Section 7, it refers to risk scenarios, as we begin to outline future steps in our research. In this context, risk scenarios involve assessing where and how natural hazard impacts might occur—for example, by identifying vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure. This type of information is essential for the development and application of targeted mitigation strategies (see line 399).
If the use of the term “scenarios” remains unclear after these explanations, we are fully open to improving the wording in the final revised version of the manuscript.
4) The expressions “multi-hazard” and “multi-risk”: We have already addressed this issue earlier, and we will conduct a thorough review of the manuscript to ensure the correct use of the terms multi-hazard and multi-risk throughout. For example, in line 53, we currently state: “lack of an integrated multirisk database,” and in line 63: “first multirisk database for the Garrotxa region.” The use of the term multi-risk in these instances is incorrect, as the database we present is a multi-hazard one—it does not yet integrate data on impacts to infrastructure, human lives, or other components required for a full risk assessment. We apologize for this oversight.
5) Introduction, line 35: “In this context, scientific knowledge about the hazards that affect a region, both temporally and spatially, is crucial.” This sentence lacks references: We agree that this sentence would benefit from additional scientific references, and we are familiar with the works of the authors you mention. As noted above, we will revise the manuscript with particular attention to where further citations can strengthen the text. This includes the specific sections you pointed out, such as lines 37–39 and 44–46.
6) Introduction, lines 64-65: What does “intrinsic, extrinsic, and evolutionary variables” mean? We acknowledge that these terms are not fully explained in the current version of the manuscript, and we agree that using alternative wording may have made their meaning clearer.
- By intrinsic variables, we were referring to internal and constitutive characteristics that describe the physical nature of the hazard itself. For example, in the case of an earthquake, the epicenter location.
- By extrinsic variables, we meant external or environmental factors that may influence the impact of the hazard. Continuing with the earthquake example, this could include the local stratigraphy of the area, which—depending on its geomechanical characteristics—can significantly increase the intensity of the ground shaking and associated damage.
- Finally, by evolutionary variables, we were referring to process-related, time-dependent characteristics. In the context of earthquakes, an example would be the distance traveled by the seismic wave, which evolves as the event unfolds.
We are fully willing to include a clearer explanation of these terms in the revised version of the manuscript, particularly in Section 4.3, as you suggested.
7) Section 3 (Natural hazards in the Garrotxa region) completely lacks references: We agree with this comment and will make a concerted effort to provide relevant background scientific literature to support the section. In this regard, we would also like to emphasize that one of the novel aspects of our work lies in the fact that very few studies or analyses related to natural hazards have been conducted in the Garrotxa region.
This section was primarily written based on the local knowledge of geologists and hydrogeologists who live in the area and collaborate with our research group. Although they have accumulated valuable insights through years of observation and photographic documentation, this topic does not fall within their primary research focus, and thus, they have not yet published their findings.
Thanks to the GarMultiRisk project—which has provided funding and broader access to regional experts, particularly those with a more technical background—we have been able to incorporate further observations about hazard dynamics in the Garrotxa region. However, we recognize that integrating such experiential and technical knowledge into a scientific paper poses challenges, especially when it lacks formal publication.
For this reason, we are considering restructuring the manuscript to include a dedicated section that explains how this type of information was gathered. This section could be relocated to the results part of the paper, as it represents a descriptive, non-database-based contribution that still offers valuable context for understanding the region.
That said, we will also make a dedicated effort to include additional references—potentially including grey literature, as you suggested—so that the scientific community can access and assess some of the foundational work carried out in this area.
8) Section 4 (Methodology), lines 175-181: What has been the criterion for the selection of these hazards? This selection needs to be explained and supported better: We understand your concerns. The selection of natural hazards in our study was primarily guided by those identified as major concerns by the Regional City Council, with whom we are closely collaborating within the framework of the GarMultiRisk Project. Initially, we also considered other hazards such as snow avalanches, snowstorms, tornadoes, and downbursts. However, these were ultimately excluded due to their rarity in the region and the practical need to establish clear boundaries for the scope of our study.
Regarding volcanic eruptions, none have occurred in the Garrotxa region within the last 123 years. As a result, it would be difficult to identify meaningful temporal correlations or patterns with the other hazards included in our database, given the disparity in temporal scale.
We are currently working on expanding the manuscript to include more detail on the selection criteria for the hazards considered. Additionally, we plan to include a new “Limitations” section that will clearly outline the scope and boundaries of our work, as well as areas where further research is needed.
9) Section 4 (Methodology), lines 185-188: Which is the source of this information?: As mentioned previously, much of the contextual information on natural hazard occurrences has been gathered through local knowledge and direct observations. In the paper, we also note that for certain hazards—such as landslides and ground subsidences—there was very limited formal data available. To address this, we consulted historical press archives and conducted a citizen science workshop, which helped us gather additional, otherwise unavailable information that has been incorporated into the study.
As stated earlier, we recognize the need to present this type of information more transparently. We will revise the manuscript to make the sources and limitations of this data clearer to the reader, particularly regarding the lack of available scientific literature and the alternative methods used to compensate for that gap.
10) Section 4 (Methodology), lines 254-257: Which stakeholders have been involved? How have the workshops been organised? I invite the authors to provide more details. Yes, we would be happy to include more information about the development of these workshops in the final revised version of the manuscript. The citizen science workshops were open to the entire Garrotxa population, inviting anyone willing to share their memories or experiences related to natural hazard events in the region.
The primary goal was not to collect large volumes of data, but rather to present the existing database—displayed as a map at that stage—and to see if participants could provide more precise or refined information. The workshops naturally evolved into open discussions about the dynamics of wildfires, floods, and other hazards.
Additionally, we invited specific individuals with direct experience or observational expertise, such as local forest rangers and amateur meteorologists who have been independently recording data. Their contributions significantly enriched the workshop outcomes.
11) General comments about “Methodology”: We acknowledge that our paper would benefit from greater transparency and clarification regarding the methodology employed. To address this, we propose the following enhancements:
- Provide a summary table listing the variables considered for each natural hazard in the standardized database template.
- Explain how the database architecture was developed.
- Add a summary table outlining the workflow and data collection process for the various natural hazard events of the Garrotxa region.
- Incorporate relevant references where appropriate to support the methodology.
12) “Discussion” and “Challenges and Future steps” sections: We agree that the current organization is somewhat confusing. Therefore, we propose the following changes:
- Integrate the challenges within the "Discussion" section.
- Restructure the "Discussion" section to follow the narrative you propose.
- Add a new “Limitations” section to clearly and accurately outline the various limitations of our approach.
- Develop a “Future Steps” section that details the upcoming objectives and methodologies planned for performing multi-hazard analyses based on the data we have gathered.
13) Final comments:
We believe we have carefully addressed all your concerns and would like to highlight that, based on your feedback, we are actively revising several sections to improve the clarity and accuracy of the paper’s narrative.
As a final comment, we consider our work valuable as it contributes to advancing in a trial-and-error process towards multi-hazard assessment—and, looking ahead, towards multi-risk assessment when viewed in the broader context. We also recognize that the communication of our work can be improved, and we are committed to making those enhancements based on your comments and those of previous reviewers.
We hope our responses have helped clarify the scientific aspects and methodology of our study. Once again, we thank you for your insightful comments and appreciate the opportunity to participate in this open discussion, which we believe enriches the peer-review process and fosters learning.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1226-AC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 May 2025
Dear authors,
Thank you for your reply and detailed explanation.The general explanation you provided at the beginning of your response clarifies many aspects of your work, and I suggest including it also in the manuscript.
I would just like to clarify a couple of points:
1) I already understood well that the aim of your paper is not to “provide a complete workflow for the full implementation of a multi-hazard assessment framework,” but rather to focus on the hazard component, developing a dedicated database for that.My suggestion is just to explain more clearly how this first step can support the next ones. As already mentioned in my previous comment, I recommend including a critical discussion on the applicability of this multi-hazard database to advance multi-hazard disaster risk assessment and management, since you mentioned it several times, but as a generic statement.
2) I understand your choice to develop a second paper to better analyse the data from a multi-hazard perspective, including the identification of hazard interrelationships. However, I encourage you to make this clearer in the manuscript, explicitly stating that the use of the database to identify hazard interrelationships will be addressed in future work. You might also anticipate how the database could support this aim. Moreover, since the focus of this work is more on the database itself, as you rightly stated, I believe it becomes even more important to clearly present its structure and development process.
3) Regarding the use of non-conventional sources and local knowledge to populate some sections of your work, I think it is important to highlight this aspect more clearly in the text. How was this local knowledge obtained and processed to produce Section 2 information? This deserves to be explained in more detail, as it represents a key element in populating the database and addressing the knowledge and data gaps in your study region.
I appreciate all your suggestions for improvement, and I look forward to seeing an updated version of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1226-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Iris Schneider Pérez, 19 May 2025
Dear Referee,
Thank you for your response. We are glad to hear that our more detailed explanations have helped clarify the scope of our research. We will revise the manuscript accordingly, taking into account the key points you highlighted in your latest response, the suggestions provided in the referee reports received thus far, and the remarks outlined in our previous replies.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1226-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Iris Schneider Pérez, 19 May 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 263 | 65 | 19 | 347 | 9 | 15 |
- HTML: 263
- PDF: 65
- XML: 19
- Total: 347
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1