the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
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 05 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
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
96 | 34 | 8 | 138 | 6 | 7 |
- HTML: 96
- PDF: 34
- XML: 8
- Total: 138
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1