the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Oct 2024
Brief communication: Comprehensive Resilience to Typhoon Disasters: An Urban Assessment of 27 Cities in Seven Major River Basin, China
Abstract. The urban resilience based on typhoon disasters are often not assessed. In this communication, we reflect on this issue by analyzing 27 cities around seven major river basin in mainland China. In specific, we build a comprehensive indicator-based model, and adopted the entropy-weighting TOPSIS method. Results show that the Hai River Basin and the provincial capitals had a higher resilience to typhoon than others, while cities of the Pearl River Basin are weaker. In some regions with weaker economy, however, the resilience was relatively higher partly attributing to infrastructure, water conservation projects, and level of information disclosure. The analysis is helpful for agencies and professionals to enhance urban capability of resilience, and provides a realistic reference in response to typhoon threats.
- Preprint
(1878 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2343', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Oct 2024
reply
This brief communication article offers great insights into the spatial-temporal variation in China’s urban resilience to typhoons using a resilience index score for assessment. The scope and depth of indicators used to measure resilience under four dimensions (economic, social, environmental, and institutional) is noteworthy for the advancement of understanding the multi-dimensionality of urban resilience. Nevertheless, the paper suffers from major limitations conceptually and in terms of its clarity and language. The latter can be solved easily, but I am not sure the former can be improved easily unless a different central topic other than resilience (perhaps, urban risk management or response capacity as reviewed in Section 2) is used or better elaborated.
Given the notoriously contentious and multifaceted nature of resilience, the paper misses a crucial opportunity to delve into the ongoing scholarly debate. Instead of exploring the various interpretations and challenges associated with the term to inform the indicators for the resilience index, especially considering typhoons, the researchers present a limited definition using two references (Bruneau, 2003 and Cutter, 2014) without critical reasoning. Specifically, the paper is weakened by a lack of adequate referencing, especially when making critical statements. For instance, the authors' assertions about the use and existence of resilience indexes in the literature are not properly supported by citations (lines 62~79).
Additionally, it is largely unclear why and how typhoon’s impacts are not considered in the resilience indicators – noting Line 115 “For this reason, we failed to classify the typhoon into subcategories by the magnitude.”
Regarding language and clarity, please review the following:
Line 63: “In specific” revise to specifically or in particular
Line 64: “Usually struck by typhoon” - awkward language
Not sure what is meant by:
Line 70: “less victimized.”
Line 77: “urban lifeline project construction”
Line 85: “This categorization approach intuitively mirrored..”
Table 1 would benefit from sub-lines that differentiate the indicators by dimension category.
It is confusing why “section 3.4 temporal variation..” does not follow section 3.1 since the text is referring to Figure 1.
Figure 2 is difficult to read, especially to note the different basins and the variation in resilience score within each basin
Line 221: “laggard” needs revision
Line 224: “erupt” also awkward
Line 229: not sure what is meant by “model communities”
Line 253, 256: “coaster” -> coastal?
Line 262: “community construction” -> infrastructure development or planning? Unclear
Line 263: “Besides” is not appropriate as academic language
The final paragraph needs major English revision.
Overall, the paper contains very useful information on how we can consider the spatial-temporal differences in resilience (or response capacity) as another dimension of the dynamics that contribute to understanding and utilizing resilience assessment and measurement in influencing decision-making.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2343-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', zezhao Liu, 20 Nov 2024
reply
Dear reviewer(s),
we appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions, which are helpful for the paper enhancement. We have studied the comments carefully and redraft the manuscript. For word length limit of submission type of short communication, we omitted some texts and references, and we supplement in the new revised version. Specifically, the response to the reviewer’s comments are as follows.
Reviewer #1:
Comment 1: Given the notoriously contentious and multifaceted nature of resilience, the paper misses a crucial opportunity to delve into the ongoing scholarly debate. Instead of exploring the various interpretations and challenges associated with the term to inform the indicators for the resilience index, especially considering typhoons, the researchers present a limited definition using two references (Bruneau, 2003 and Cutter, 2014) without critical reasoning. Specifically, the paper is weakened by a lack of adequate referencing, especially when making critical statements.
Response:
Resilience, a multi-disciplinary concept, has sparked heated discussion in the academia , and scholars designed various framework for its assessment. Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic risks have captured the attention of academics and decision makers across disciplines. Academic research on resilience has broadened from an analytical word to a comprehensive discussion of multilevel and multi-scale systems. In view of the complexity and dynamics of disasters, resilience governance aims to enhance the adapatability by means of policy planning, management strategies and reduce the risk exposure under external pressure. By reference to the baseline resilience of communities, scholars around the globe investigated the resilience to disasters under multiple dimensions commonly covering economy, society, institution, infrastructure and environment (Labarda, 2017; Dasgupta, 2020; Ni, 2021). In this short communication, we did not intend to delve into the scholarly debate, but generally hold a positive view in terms of disaster reduction capability within China’s political context.
Regarding the resilience index, on the one hand, this paper select indicators frequently used by scholars. Considering the impact of national policies on urban governance, this paper selected the disaster reduction measures highlighted in China’s "14th Five-Year Plan" National Comprehensive Disaster Reduction Plan, and screened suitable indicators. Based on previous studies in disaster resilience index (Scherzer,2019; Liu, 2020; Rezvani,2024), we construct assessment framework from four dimensions as economic, social, environmental and managerial aspect, and select 19 indicators to measure urban resilience to typhoon (see Table1). Compared with other types of disasters, typhoon usually lead to floods which face challenges by the inability of the city’s infrastructure to handle the excess water. Common human-made hydraulic measures, like levees and dams, can act as a barrier or drainage system to defend against floods. If levees are constructed without effective dredging, the area’s capacity to discharge the flood will be weakened. For these reasons, this paper mainly selected dimensions of related indicators to measure the response capacity to floods induced by typhoon.（For instance, annual surface runoff (100 million cum) 、density of drainage pipelines (km/sq.km)、area of paved roads (sq.m)、density of green space in built-up areas (%)、capacity of large reservoirs）, to reflect the characteristics of typhoon effects.
As for the word length of short communication for egusphere ,we could supplement critical references for reasoning in the revised paper. See it as follows：
Ref.
Meerow S, Newell J P, Stults M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and urban planning, 2016, 147: 38-49.
Liu W, Song Z. Review of studies on the resilience of urban critical infrastructure networks.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 193:106617
Song, J. , Huang, B. , & Li, R. . (2018). Assessing local resilience to typhoon disasters: a case study in Nansha, Guangzhou. Plos One, 13(3) .
Dasgupta, R. , Basu, M. , Kumar, P. , et al. . (2020). A rapid indicator-based assessment of foreign resident preparedness in Japan during typhoon hagibis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51(1).
Labarda, C. , Labarda, MDP. , Lamberte, E. E. , et al. (2017). Hospital resilience in the aftermath of typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Disaster Prevention & Management, 26（4）424-436.
Nie, J. , Zhang, X. , Xu, C. , et al. 2021 The impact of super typhoon Lekima on the house collapse rate and quantification of the interactive impacts of natural and socioeconomic factors. Geomatics Natural Hazards & Risk 12 (1) , 1385-1400.
Kim, J. M. , Son, K. , & Kim, Y. J. . (2019). Assessing regional typhoon risk of disaster management by clustering typhoon paths. Environment Development And Sustainability 21 (5) , 2083-2096
Wang, T. , Yang, L. , Wu, S. , et al . (2020). Quantitative assessment of natural disaster coping capacity: an application for typhoons. Sustainability, 12.(5)
He, XR. (2018). Typhoon disaster assessment based on Dombi hesitant fuzzy information aggregation operators. Natural Hazards. 90 (3) .1153-1175
Marzi, S. , Mysiak, J. , Essenfelder, A. H. et al. (2019). Constructing a comprehensive disaster resilience index: the case of Italy. PLos ONE, 14(9)
Song, J. , Huang, B. , Li, R. , et al . (2020). Construction of the scale-specific resilience index to facilitate multiscale decision making in disaster management: a case study of the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Social Indicators Research, 148(1). 189-223
Scherzer, S. , Lujala, Päivi. (2019). A community resilience index for Norway: an adaptation of the baseline resilience indicators for communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 36. 10. 1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101107
Rezvani, SMHS. , Silva, M & De Almeida, NM. . (2024). Urban Resilience Index for Critical Infrastructure: A Scenario-Based Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction in Road Networks. Sustainability, 16(10), 1-41 10.3390/su16104143
Comment 2: The final paragraph needs major English revision.
Response: Thanks for this point. As requested, we rewrite the final paragraph to make it more readable. Particularly, although we evaluated urban resilience to typhoon in China’s geographical context and summarized suggestions, there are information gaps that need to be filled. More cities or regions of heterogeneity need to be investigated further for longer periods of time.
See the revised paper.
Comment 3: the paper suffers from major limitations in terms of its clarity and language.
Response: Thanks for the suggestions. All the errors or inaccuracies raised by the reviewer are corrected (see the revised manuscript later submitted). Besides, we carefully proof-read the paper to eliminate typographical, grammatical and bibliographical errors by word checking software.
Overall, as requested we tried our best to enhance the paper quality and made changes in this short communication. We appreciate the time and efforts that the editor/reviewer have earnestly engaged, hoping the revision will meet with your approval. The revised paper will be submitted through the egusphere system later on entrusted by the Administrative Editor (AE).
Best wishes!
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', zezhao Liu, 20 Nov 2024
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113 | 35 | 10 | 158 | 9 | 8 |
- HTML: 113
- PDF: 35
- XML: 10
- Total: 158
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1