the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review article: current approaches and critical issues in multi-risk recovery planning of urban areas exposed to natural hazards
Soheil Mohammadi
Silvia De Angeli
Giorgio Boni
Francesca Pirlone
Serena Cattari
Abstract. Natural hazard disasters recovery has been addressed in the literature by different sectoral perspectives and scientific communities. Nevertheless, studies providing holistic approaches to recovery, integrating reconstruction procedures and socio-economic impacts, are still lacking. Furthermore, recovery has been only marginally explored from a pre-disaster perspective, in terms of planning and actions for better recovery before disasters occur.
This paper provides a critical review of existing literature and guidelines on disaster recovery with the twofold aim of identifying current gaps and providing the layout to address multi-hazard recovery planning tools for decision-making. Disaster recovery literature is investigated in the paper by focusing on: the definition of the recovery phase and its separation or overlapping with other disaster risk management phases; the different destinations and goals that an urban system follows through recovery pathways; the requirements to implement a holistic resilience-based recovery roadmap; the challenges for shifting from single hazard to multi-hazard recovery approaches; the available recovery planning tools for optimal investment decision-making to increase physical assets resilience. Finally, the current challenges in multi-risk recovery planning are discussed.
This review can be a ground basis for new research directions to help stakeholders in decision-making and optimise their pre-disaster investments to improve the urban system's recoverability.
- Preprint
(1164 KB) -
Supplement
(48 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Soheil Mohammadi et al.
Status: open (until 17 Jun 2023)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-504', Carolina Ojeda, 19 May 2023
reply
This article deals with the sensitive topic of recovery after disasters in urban systems. Through a carefully done literature review, they presented a critical approach to the differences and contradictions between each author.
My only commentary is about the English language, it was hard to read in various paragraphs. Please, review the coherence and clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-504-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Soheil Mohammadi, 24 May 2023
reply
Dear Olga,
Thank you very much for your feedback. We appreciate your input and believe that this review will be beneficial for the scientific community and the stakeholders involved in urban recovery planning.
With regards to the language, we will revise the manuscript as per your suggestion to enhance its readability. If there are any specific paragraphs that you found particularly challenging to read, please feel free to indicate the line numbers.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-504-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Soheil Mohammadi, 24 May 2023
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-504', Marleen de Ruiter, 06 Jun 2023
reply
I would like to congratulate the authors on a great and very valuable paper! They have conducted a very timely, valuable and thorough study, and they can feel very proud of their work. The topic of multi-risk recovery of urban areas is very important but currently very much understudied in our field. I hope the following suggestions can be used to further strengthen the paper and further heighten its value for our community. My main suggestion would be to strengthen the focus of the analysis specifically to recovery in the context of multi-risk and urban areas. While bellow the authors will find a long list of suggestions, they are not meant to discourage the authors. In contrary, I believe the authors conducted a great and very valuable study.
General comments
- I think the paper could benefit from some restructuring.
- There are many 1-3 sentence paragraphs, which seem to interrupt the flow of the paper and at times cause some confusion. Examples include, but are not limited to:
- 90 onwards: this seems to still be about the methods (critical lit review) so should this paragraph be part of the previous paragraph (L. 86-83), which is also on the critical lit review?
- 147-151: should this paragraph maybe be part of the previous and/or next paragraph?
- To me it seems that paragraphs L.46 – 54, L. 55-62, and L. 67-78 discuss definitions of / changes in thinking about resilience and recovery while in between those, L.63-66 seem to introduce the urgency to adopt a multi-risk perspective.
- The authors could consider moving the method description (second half of the intro) to a separate method section (basically, including a section header at the start of the description of the approach).
- There are many 1-3 sentence paragraphs, which seem to interrupt the flow of the paper and at times cause some confusion. Examples include, but are not limited to:
- I think the multi-risk aspect of the paper is an important novelty and strength of the paper. I would encourage the authors to strengthen this in their introduction. In the paragraph at L. 63-65 the multi-risk aspect seems to almost appear as an afterthought. I encourage the authors to strengthen this particular element of the paper in the introduction, including a more elaborate explanation of those “additional challenges in decision-making”. In restricting the intro (see previous point), this particular element could maybe be described more prominently and extensively. I can imagine something more general on multi-risk recovery challenges and those specifically within an urban setting.
- 81: “inadequacies” in terms of how we define post-disaster recovery or how we manage post-disaster recovery?
- 113-114: how were these particular key words selected?
- Reading L. 132-133, it is unclear to me how this is different from what will be addressed in Issue 2.
- Table 1 is a great way to demonstrate the evolution of our understanding of “recovery” over time. Very nice!
- 169: it may be helpful to include a definition of build back better. This may for example help to understand L. 176. In addition, I found the paragraph of which it is part (L.165 – 179) a bit difficult to follow (for example, what do the authors mean by the “subjective functions” and “objects”).
- 261: I think it is very nice that the authors mention an example that shows the fuzziness of the boundaries between stages. Maybe they can describe this in a bit more detail to demonstrate the fuzziness more clearly to people who are less familiar with the aftermath of this particular disaster?
- At the start of section 2.2, it may be nice to remind the reader of the phases of the DRM cycle.
- Since some sections are lengthy and contain a lot of information, the authors could consider adding a couple of sentences at the end of each issue bringing it together.
- Since section 5 aims to focus on challenges specific to multi-risk planning (in urban areas?), I wonder if it would be possible to focus that section and the identified challenges specific to multi-risk (in urban areas?). As I understand it now, some of these challenges are not unique to multi-risk recovery but rather recovery in general. This is maybe something the authors could also reflect on in the earlier sections; whether these sections can be tailored more to multi-risk?
Minor comments
- Some writing issues. E.g. the first sentence of the abstract: there is a strong push within the field to move away from using “natural disasters”. Here I think it could be easily avoided by writing “Post-disaster recovery…”.
- In the third sentence of the abstract: do the authors mean planning (that takes place before a disaster) of recovery-related actions (e.g., getting a contract for debris cleaning) or do they mean preparedness actions (e.g. to mitigate the potential impacts of a disaster).
- 26: I assume the time stamp here is a typo?
- 28 “dates” back to?
- 31: it is a bit unclear what is meant here with “complex system”. In general, the authors use many different disaster related terms (e.g., natural hazard event, extreme event, disturbances, etc); this can create some confusion. The authors could consider adding a box or table defining some of the key terminology used in their paper.
- 37-38: I am not sure I understand the second half of the sentence; it is not clear to me how the previous statement (or definition) supports the claim in this sentence that resilience is linked to DRM.
- 47: I believe that with a quote, the citation also need to include a page number – but I may be wrong there.
- 63: “a variety of sorts and categories” -> not sure what the authors mean here. Could they be more explicit?
- 85: maybe include a “(e.g., XXXX)” to explain what you mean by physical elements (buildings, infrastructure,…?)
- 130-131: maybe for legibility, the authors could consider adding this info to the issue 1 -3 description in L.125-129 instead of having a separate sentence on this.
- 140-142: “recognizable activities” and “evolutionary notions” not sure what the authors mean.
- 208-211: I wonder if there is any literature to support these statements.
- 219: what is meant by “diverse groups”?
- Figure 2: looks great, very useful. Maybe the authors can add BBB to the legend or description and explain its meaning (in relation to Point F). Maybe the font size of the x and y-axis labels could be decreased a little.
- 485-489: the use of both multi-risk and multi-hazard may cause some confusion.
- Figure 4 is again; I was just a bit confused by the use of different DRM phases compared to those presented in figure 2. It may be helpful to the reader to add the meaning of ABC to the figure caption.
In general, and as pointed out by the other reviewer, the paper could benefit from an English language check (sentence structure, word use, missing words, etc). I highlight some things but these are just some examples:
- 28 “dates” back to?
- 57: “DRM cycle phases one on another” -> “on one another”
- 75: “recovering from them” -> from disasters?
- Incorrect use of “the” (e.g., L. 93: ‘the recovery” -> recovery; L. 111 “the google scholar” -> google scholar)
- 194: “However, this would not be possible.” -> this is never possible or this is challenging?
- 197: “because socioeconomic recovery is dependent on physical structure” -> is dependent on the recovery of physical structures (?)
- 208: “in a disaster community” -> in a disaster-struck community (?)
- 214: “evaluating quantitatively recovery plans” -> “quantitatively evaluating recovery plans”
- 242: “quick interventions like financial support or food for reconstruction” -> “quick interventions such as financial support for reconstruction or food”
- 275: “Fig.” -> Figure
- 346: “while” -> during
Best of luck!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-504-RC1 - I think the paper could benefit from some restructuring.
Soheil Mohammadi et al.
Soheil Mohammadi et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 247 | 71 | 8 | 326 | 13 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 247
- PDF: 71
- XML: 8
- Total: 326
- Supplement: 13
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1