Exploring the Resilience Park Index from the Perspective of Flood and Wind Disasters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments on the paper entitled on ”Exploring the resilience park index from the perspective of flood and wind disaster” submitted to ‘Sustainability”
The authors have made good attempt to explore the resilience park index from the perspectives of flood and wind disaster. But, currently the paper has many flaws and authors need to be addressed all the issues carefully. My major concerns are:
- Abstract section is poorly written. Objectives, method and research findings were not mentioned properly.
- Introduction sections lack literature supports [for example first paragraph of the introduction].
- Section 2.1 should be before section 2
- What is the relationship of resilience park index with flood and wind disaster? It is not clear. It should be presented properly.
- Discussion lacks literature supports. It should be supported from the findings of the study.
- How this study can be implemented for policy implications? It should be addressed.
- Conclusions need to be revised. It should include findings and limitations of the study [to some extent].
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- In section 1.1, it can supplement the relevant literature of tenacity park.
- Where are the advantages of Fuzzy Delphi method compared with other methods?
- The conclusion can supplement the possible expanded application of this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While I believe the topic (as suggested by the title) is an important one, I am not sure if the author has adequately/accurately addressed the study aims according to the study title.
There were many English sentences that were difficult to understand, such as lines 56-57. Please check the logic and ask a professional proofreader to edit it appropriately. I strongly urge the authors to seek the professional English editing service to modify the academic writing.
Firstly, the introduction of background in this manuscript is insufficient, most of the literature are old. Authors should discuss relate works from journal articles in the last five years.
Logic sentencing is too low, a lot of unclear sentences were not clarified, for example, “Listen to the views of the poor and vulnerable groups and help them solve their difficulties[3]”, This sentence is particularly abrupt based on the contextual logic. The authors also mentioned “According to the literature review of ‘resilient city’, it involves a wide range of aspects. Because its lowest level is the community, it is currently at a lower level than the community. Therefore, this study attempts to narrow the scale to the park level and study in the direction of resilient park. Think about whether the resilience park can solve or alleviate the damage of flood and wind disasters to the city.” The discussions of narrowing down the research scope seemed to be far-fetched.
As to research question, “the concept of ‘resilience park’ is not clear so far, and there is no index, evaluation system and other data”. How did you arrive at the question？Is it the real situation, or is it because the authors did not give a comprehensive review? Authors should add some references to state “not clear”. If few research has discussed the resilience park before, it should be clear why this issue should be discussed in this research. If there is no index, evaluation system, how were potential variables picked out？And the robustness of the methodology slightly hinders the reliability and representativeness of the model.
There is no detailed description of the step and result of ANP, which may raise questions about whether the methods have been properly applied. Why is there no influence relation map drawn in the description of the results of ANP?
What is the difference when you mention the “indicator” and “index”?
This manuscript was not written in accordance to a typical journal format. Why the Research limitations were arranged on the Section 1.2？
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The introduction and definitions are confusing and unclear. need rewriting.
The study is llimited. Lack of simple and basic equi[ment to measure wind or soil water cannot be an excuse not to relate to it in the index.
Not clear what is the rationale in combining flood and wind factors in one index?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments extensively. Now the manuscript can be accepted for publication to 'Sustainability'.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
As to the point 1 and point 2, most of introduction focus on providing more open space is important to urban resilience, rather than improving the resilience of the park is important to urban resilience. Without a clear and precisely formulated goal, discussing the issue you want to research, a well-built literature database, you won't write a good article.
In my opinion, ANP is significantly flawed at the methodological level. Gölcük and BaykasoÄŸlu (2016) commented that the form of pairwise comparisons questions in ANP might cause misunderstanding. A major concern of ANP is the relationships between clusters being assumed to be the same (OuYang et al., 2008). In the process of getting the weighted supermatrix, each element in a column of an unweighted supermatrix is divided by the number of clusters, in order to transform each column to sum exactly to unity (1.00) (OuYang et al., 2008). It is irrational to assume that using this normalization method implies each cluster has the same weight because the relationships between clusters are generally not considered.
Gölcük, Ä°., & BaykasoÄŸlu, A. (2016). An analysis of DEMATEL approaches for criteria interaction handling within ANP. Expert Systems with Applications, 46, 346-366.
OuYang, Y. P., Shieh, H. M., Leu, J. D., & Tzeng, G. H. (2008). A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International journal of operations research, 5(3), 160-168.
The above problems are fatal ones indeed. It cannot be corrected because the research has already been executed in an invalid manner.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Much of my comments were met in the new version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
