the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 31 May 2024
Sensitive infrastructures and people with disabilities – Key issues when strengthening resilience in reconstruction
Abstract. The flood disaster of July 2021 claimed the lives of more than 220 people in Western and Central Europe – particularly severely affected was the Ahr Valley in Germany, where the floods caused at least 135 fatalities, damaged and destroyed more than 9,000 buildings, and caused billions of euros in damage. To prevent such a disaster from happening again, it is crucial not to simply rebuild, but to build up in a way that strengthens resilience to future events. Since time and money are often critical issues in the reconstruction process, it is important to focus on most vulnerable groups as well as critical and sensitive infrastructures, as these need particular attention and support for risk reduction and resilience building within the recovery process. The paper systematizes how critical and sensitive infrastructures are defined. It explores – based on the Ahr Valley flood disaster – how sensitive infrastructures can be identified and how they are treated and discussed in the recovery process. In addition, an easy-to-use framework for risk assessment and the subsequent selection of necessary measures is being developed. A detailed application of the framework assessment is carried out with regard to a school for children with disabilities that is located directly at the river Ahr.
- Preprint
(1393 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1607', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Aug 2024
Dear authors,
Firstly, thank you very much for your submission of your paper to the NHESS journal. The paper addresses a very interesting and important topic, which warrants further in-depth consideration within the field of vulnerability research. I have some general comments, which I would like to address below:
Overall, I would like to ask you to reconsider four core issues:
- a) The current version lacks a strong theoretical framework. Section 3 tries to initiate a debate on why we need to rethink the current critical infrastructure literature. I suggest shifting some parts of section 3 to section 1, or creating a new section, where you provide a broader theoretical discourse.
- b) The lack of a broader theoretical discussion also affects your discussion section, which does not read like a discussion. You need to show how your results/paper link to the ongoing literature and what your new theoretical contribution is.
- c) The research questions need to be reconsidered. Provide a more in-depth explanation of why these questions are important and what the new and innovative contribution of the paper is.
- d) The method section needs to be reconsidered. The literature review in your paper does not need to be mentioned, as it does not employ a proper scientific meta-analysis or systematic literature review. Furthermore, regarding the household survey, I am unsure of its added value. Clarify what you aim to answer with the survey. It might be beneficial to rethink which methods and data you can include in the paper to address your research questions and the gap in the literature.
A minor aspect: Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are interesting but feel somewhat misplaced in the paper. While I see the value of both sections, they might need to be relocated to different parts of the paper. Regarding Section 5.2.5: first, I am not sure if the title is appropriate, and second, it currently only uses descriptive statistics. More analysis is needed to justify the inclusion of this data in your paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1607-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alessa Truedinger, 14 Nov 2024
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for the kind and very helpful review!
To a) Thank you, that is an important point. We will reconsider shifting some parts from section 3 to section 1. Moreover, we will definitely add some more theoretical background, especially with regard to the risk framework of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to the components that risk is made up of within this risk concept, since it is on this theoretical basis (exposure and vulnerability, including coping and adaptive capacity) that our framework for risk assessment for sensitive infrastructure has been developed. We will also refer to further publications that have dealt with specific indicators for risk assessment.
To b) Thank you. We would be happy to revise this as well, particularly with regard to the additions to the theoretical background already mentioned under a). Our new contribution here is the concrete application of the theoretical, established risk framework to sensitive infrastructures and their user groups and the comprehensible and easy applicability.
To c) Thank you. We will also reconsider the research questions and elaborate the questions more specifically in relation to the content of our paper and the new findings - an easy-to-use framework for assessing the risk of sensitive infrastructure and the resulting implications.
To d) Thank you. We will remove the literature review as it hasn’t been a systematic literature review. Moreover, we will look into our household survey data to see to what extent the survey data can generate added value for our paper and how the survey results can meaningfully underline the content.
To the minor aspects: Thank you. We will try to relocate those both sections (3.2 and 3.3), but we would not want to delete them, as they are important for the context of the paper. The title of section 5.2.5 is a bit misleading, since it is not exclusively about a conclusion regarding the Levana School, but also considers other aspects – we are therefore happy to adjust the title.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1607', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Oct 2024
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript and the extensive work it represents. Your research offers a valuable contribution to understanding the role of sensitive infrastructures, particularly those serving vulnerable populations. The focus on disabled communities and sensitive infrastructures is timely and highlights an often-underexplored area in disaster risk management.
Some clarification is needed on the following key points:
- The paper currently positions itself as a mixed-methods study, but the primary approach is qualitative, with reliance on interviews and document analysis. To ensure clarity and methodological coherence, it would be more accurate to frame the study as qualitative. If quantitative elements are present, they should be better integrated and explicitly discussed throughout the manuscript. I don’t see the integration of the household survey, or its benefit for the current manuscript.
- The paper mentions the use of expert interviews and workshops as part of the research, but the details of these qualitative methods are underdeveloped. To strengthen the methodological rigor, it would be helpful to provide more information on how the interviews and workshops were conducted (e.g., participant selection, structure of interviews or workshops, the specific data analysis techniques). Additionally, it is important to address any potential biases in the data collection process, and how these were mitigated. A description of how the qualitative data were evaluated, whether through thematic analysis, coding, or another method, would also be valuable.
- There is strong emphasis on regulations and their implementation, but the theoretical foundations related to vulnerability, resilience, disaster risk management, coping, and adaptation could be more clearly articulated. Currently, these concepts appear in the text, but they are used somewhat interchangeably. A more distinct differentiation of these concepts would provide greater clarity and coherence. Additionally, the literature review is not well defined and currently not supported.
- While the paper rightly focuses on people with disabilities, their voices seem absent from the data. Were individuals with disabilities, or their representatives, included in the interviews or consultation processes? Including these perspectives directly would add depth to the findings and make the research more inclusive.
- The paper uses exposure as the primary criterion within its novel framework, but this focus might be too narrow. The manuscript acknowledges limitations such as data issues, high uncertainty, and climate change, challenging hazard maps. Since hazard maps may not fully reflect current or future risks, particularly given the Ahrtal flood example, is the focus on physical exposure alone justified? The concept of the "levee effect" could further challenge this focus. Additionally, while the second decision level introduces vulnerability and coping, these concepts are not clearly defined or supported with sufficient theoretical discussion, leaving their role in the framework unclear.
- The method and results sections feel somewhat disconnected, and the flow between them could be improved. Furthermore, the discussion introduces new perspectives that do not always clearly link back to the research questions, methods, or results. Reworking the structure to ensure that the findings align with the initial research questions would improve coherence.
Minor points for clarification:
- The maps provided are important, but their readability could be improved. Specifically, the resolution and color schemes may not be suitable for readers with color vision deficiencies. Ensuring that maps are color-blind friendly and enhancing the visibility of key features like roads and schools, and complete legends would be beneficial.
- The manuscript is somewhat lengthy and sometimes lacks a clear focus. Tightening the narrative and ensuring smoother transitions between sections would enhance readability. Guiding the reader more explicitly through the structure of the paper would help maintain engagement and improve clarity.
- Improving the clarity of the terms used, especially when discussing theoretical concepts like vulnerability and resilience, would help avoid confusion and increase the precision of the argument.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1607-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alessa Truedinger, 14 Nov 2024
Dear Reviewer 2,
thank you so much for your valuable and constructive review.
Since it is probably easier to understand our responses when they are in the context of your review comments, we have written them in red in the attached document, corresponding to your comments.
Best regards on behalf of the author team.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1607', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Aug 2024
Dear authors,
Firstly, thank you very much for your submission of your paper to the NHESS journal. The paper addresses a very interesting and important topic, which warrants further in-depth consideration within the field of vulnerability research. I have some general comments, which I would like to address below:
Overall, I would like to ask you to reconsider four core issues:
- a) The current version lacks a strong theoretical framework. Section 3 tries to initiate a debate on why we need to rethink the current critical infrastructure literature. I suggest shifting some parts of section 3 to section 1, or creating a new section, where you provide a broader theoretical discourse.
- b) The lack of a broader theoretical discussion also affects your discussion section, which does not read like a discussion. You need to show how your results/paper link to the ongoing literature and what your new theoretical contribution is.
- c) The research questions need to be reconsidered. Provide a more in-depth explanation of why these questions are important and what the new and innovative contribution of the paper is.
- d) The method section needs to be reconsidered. The literature review in your paper does not need to be mentioned, as it does not employ a proper scientific meta-analysis or systematic literature review. Furthermore, regarding the household survey, I am unsure of its added value. Clarify what you aim to answer with the survey. It might be beneficial to rethink which methods and data you can include in the paper to address your research questions and the gap in the literature.
A minor aspect: Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are interesting but feel somewhat misplaced in the paper. While I see the value of both sections, they might need to be relocated to different parts of the paper. Regarding Section 5.2.5: first, I am not sure if the title is appropriate, and second, it currently only uses descriptive statistics. More analysis is needed to justify the inclusion of this data in your paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1607-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alessa Truedinger, 14 Nov 2024
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for the kind and very helpful review!
To a) Thank you, that is an important point. We will reconsider shifting some parts from section 3 to section 1. Moreover, we will definitely add some more theoretical background, especially with regard to the risk framework of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to the components that risk is made up of within this risk concept, since it is on this theoretical basis (exposure and vulnerability, including coping and adaptive capacity) that our framework for risk assessment for sensitive infrastructure has been developed. We will also refer to further publications that have dealt with specific indicators for risk assessment.
To b) Thank you. We would be happy to revise this as well, particularly with regard to the additions to the theoretical background already mentioned under a). Our new contribution here is the concrete application of the theoretical, established risk framework to sensitive infrastructures and their user groups and the comprehensible and easy applicability.
To c) Thank you. We will also reconsider the research questions and elaborate the questions more specifically in relation to the content of our paper and the new findings - an easy-to-use framework for assessing the risk of sensitive infrastructure and the resulting implications.
To d) Thank you. We will remove the literature review as it hasn’t been a systematic literature review. Moreover, we will look into our household survey data to see to what extent the survey data can generate added value for our paper and how the survey results can meaningfully underline the content.
To the minor aspects: Thank you. We will try to relocate those both sections (3.2 and 3.3), but we would not want to delete them, as they are important for the context of the paper. The title of section 5.2.5 is a bit misleading, since it is not exclusively about a conclusion regarding the Levana School, but also considers other aspects – we are therefore happy to adjust the title.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1607', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Oct 2024
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript and the extensive work it represents. Your research offers a valuable contribution to understanding the role of sensitive infrastructures, particularly those serving vulnerable populations. The focus on disabled communities and sensitive infrastructures is timely and highlights an often-underexplored area in disaster risk management.
Some clarification is needed on the following key points:
- The paper currently positions itself as a mixed-methods study, but the primary approach is qualitative, with reliance on interviews and document analysis. To ensure clarity and methodological coherence, it would be more accurate to frame the study as qualitative. If quantitative elements are present, they should be better integrated and explicitly discussed throughout the manuscript. I don’t see the integration of the household survey, or its benefit for the current manuscript.
- The paper mentions the use of expert interviews and workshops as part of the research, but the details of these qualitative methods are underdeveloped. To strengthen the methodological rigor, it would be helpful to provide more information on how the interviews and workshops were conducted (e.g., participant selection, structure of interviews or workshops, the specific data analysis techniques). Additionally, it is important to address any potential biases in the data collection process, and how these were mitigated. A description of how the qualitative data were evaluated, whether through thematic analysis, coding, or another method, would also be valuable.
- There is strong emphasis on regulations and their implementation, but the theoretical foundations related to vulnerability, resilience, disaster risk management, coping, and adaptation could be more clearly articulated. Currently, these concepts appear in the text, but they are used somewhat interchangeably. A more distinct differentiation of these concepts would provide greater clarity and coherence. Additionally, the literature review is not well defined and currently not supported.
- While the paper rightly focuses on people with disabilities, their voices seem absent from the data. Were individuals with disabilities, or their representatives, included in the interviews or consultation processes? Including these perspectives directly would add depth to the findings and make the research more inclusive.
- The paper uses exposure as the primary criterion within its novel framework, but this focus might be too narrow. The manuscript acknowledges limitations such as data issues, high uncertainty, and climate change, challenging hazard maps. Since hazard maps may not fully reflect current or future risks, particularly given the Ahrtal flood example, is the focus on physical exposure alone justified? The concept of the "levee effect" could further challenge this focus. Additionally, while the second decision level introduces vulnerability and coping, these concepts are not clearly defined or supported with sufficient theoretical discussion, leaving their role in the framework unclear.
- The method and results sections feel somewhat disconnected, and the flow between them could be improved. Furthermore, the discussion introduces new perspectives that do not always clearly link back to the research questions, methods, or results. Reworking the structure to ensure that the findings align with the initial research questions would improve coherence.
Minor points for clarification:
- The maps provided are important, but their readability could be improved. Specifically, the resolution and color schemes may not be suitable for readers with color vision deficiencies. Ensuring that maps are color-blind friendly and enhancing the visibility of key features like roads and schools, and complete legends would be beneficial.
- The manuscript is somewhat lengthy and sometimes lacks a clear focus. Tightening the narrative and ensuring smoother transitions between sections would enhance readability. Guiding the reader more explicitly through the structure of the paper would help maintain engagement and improve clarity.
- Improving the clarity of the terms used, especially when discussing theoretical concepts like vulnerability and resilience, would help avoid confusion and increase the precision of the argument.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1607-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alessa Truedinger, 14 Nov 2024
Dear Reviewer 2,
thank you so much for your valuable and constructive review.
Since it is probably easier to understand our responses when they are in the context of your review comments, we have written them in red in the attached document, corresponding to your comments.
Best regards on behalf of the author team.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 308 | 138 | 152 | 598 | 28 | 26 |
- HTML: 308
- PDF: 138
- XML: 152
- Total: 598
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 218 | 37 |
| Germany | 2 | 96 | 16 |
| China | 3 | 46 | 7 |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 18 | 3 |
| Romania | 5 | 18 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 218