Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Ca- 2 pacity preliminary characterization in a ‘multi-hazard’ resili- 3 ence perspective: the Soccavo district case study (City of Na- 4 ples, Italy)

 

Comments:

Abstract:

·         It is better to have abstract in only one paragraph. Although abstract is well written and convey information in organized manner.

·         Consider revising the sentence in lines 27-28 for improved clarity.

·         In line 24, "qualitative tools" and "quantitative tools" can be specified to provide more clarity.

Keywords:

·         resilience rewrite it as Resilience. First alphabet of first keyword must be capital.

·         Provide a list of 3 to 6 keywords that accurately represent the main topics or themes covered in the paper.

Introduction:

·         Starting the introduction from the provided paragraph can be an effective way to highlight the key factors contributing to the exacerbation of disaster risks in cities. However, it would be helpful to provide a brief context or background information before diving into these impacts.

·         Lack of background.

·         What does IPCC stand for?. Can you please provide abbreviation for it?

·         Use hyperlink for citation, reference of figures, and table. E.g [1] , Figure and Table 1.

·          Line 58 please remove author name “Sainz de Murieta et al”.

·         Text inside Figure 2 is not visible. Kindly increase its font size. Quality is also not good.

Rest of the Paper:

·         Line 162 remove author name.

·         Line 170 not need to have text in citation bracket as it is not good practice. Rewrite it as [34, 35, 20, 3, 36, 23]. Do same for other as well.

·         As table 1 and table 2 is so much confusing. Try to use better format.

·         Line 287 “[45; 47]” ; or , .Chose one for all. It is inappropriate to use different styles in single paper.

·         If Figure 3 and 4 are in parallel with each other so reduce its size and adjust it as they seems relative to each other. And of course empty space on page 9 will be also remove.

·         Where is figure 5d? in line 474.

·         Figures are very large in size which effects its actual quality. Please reduce its size.

·         As in figure 6 legends are not visible through naked eyes.

·         (76) as interacting risks (77, 78, 79). Line 563. As I already mentioned it is inappropriate formatting having different citation methods. How you can justify it?

·         Same problem for figure 7.

Final Recommendations:

·          But typesetting is not good as material.

·         Kindly make sure comments above and focus on typesetting.

 

Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Ca- 2 pacity preliminary characterization in a ‘multi-hazard’ resili- 3 ence perspective: the Soccavo district case study (City of Na- 4 ples, Italy)

 

Comments:

Abstract:

·         It is better to have abstract in only one paragraph. Although abstract is well written and convey information in organized manner.

·         Consider revising the sentence in lines 27-28 for improved clarity.

·         In line 24, "qualitative tools" and "quantitative tools" can be specified to provide more clarity.

Keywords:

·         resilience rewrite it as Resilience. First alphabet of first keyword must be capital.

·         Provide a list of 3 to 6 keywords that accurately represent the main topics or themes covered in the paper.

Introduction:

·         Starting the introduction from the provided paragraph can be an effective way to highlight the key factors contributing to the exacerbation of disaster risks in cities. However, it would be helpful to provide a brief context or background information before diving into these impacts.

·         Lack of background.

·         What does IPCC stand for?. Can you please provide abbreviation for it?

·         Use hyperlink for citation, reference of figures, and table. E.g [1] , Figure and Table 1.

·          Line 58 please remove author name “Sainz de Murieta et al”.

·         Text inside Figure 2 is not visible. Kindly increase its font size. Quality is also not good.

Rest of the Paper:

·         Line 162 remove author name.

·         Line 170 not need to have text in citation bracket as it is not good practice. Rewrite it as [34, 35, 20, 3, 36, 23]. Do same for other as well.

·         As table 1 and table 2 is so much confusing. Try to use better format.

·         Line 287 “[45; 47]” ; or , .Chose one for all. It is inappropriate to use different styles in single paper.

·         If Figure 3 and 4 are in parallel with each other so reduce its size and adjust it as they seems relative to each other. And of course empty space on page 9 will be also remove.

·         Where is figure 5d? in line 474.

·         Figures are very large in size which effects its actual quality. Please reduce its size.

·         As in figure 6 legends are not visible through naked eyes.

·         (76) as interacting risks (77, 78, 79). Line 563. As I already mentioned it is inappropriate formatting having different citation methods. How you can justify it?

·         Same problem for figure 7.

Final Recommendations:

·          But typesetting is not good as material.

·         Kindly make sure comments above and focus on typesetting.

 

Author Response

Authors: Thanks to the reviewer for his valuable comments, without which we could not have improved the manuscript. We allow ourselves to make some notes, as follows.

 

Abstract

• It is better to have abstract in only one paragraph. Although abstract is well written and convey information in organized manner.

Author: Done. 

• Consider revising the sentence in lines 27-28 for improved clarity.

Author: Done. 

• In line 24, "qualitative tools" and "quantitative tools" can be specified to provide more clarity.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, the abstract length limits do not allow further specifications to be introduced in the text.

 

Keywords

• Rewrite resilience as “Resilience”. The first alphabet of the first keyword must be capital.

Author: Done. 

• Provide a list of 3 to 6 keywords that accurately represent the main topics or themes covered in the paper.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. According to the instruction within the Sustainability journal template, We should “list three to ten pertinent keywords specific to the article yet reasonably common within the subject discipline”. The keywords already reported in the article represent the main topics covered in the papers.

 

Introduction

• Starting the introduction from the provided paragraph can be an effective way to highlight the key factors contributing to the exacerbation of disaster risks in cities. However, it would be helpful to provide a brief context or background information before diving into these impacts.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We believe it is needful to start from the general context instead of the specific one, in order to appreciate the general value of this work. Moreover, the background is extensively covered in a dedicated paragraph (2.2 Test site overview). 

• Lack of background.

Author: Thank you for your comment. The background is extensively covered in a dedicated paragraph (2.2 Test site overview). 

• What does IPCC stand for? Can you please provide an abbreviation for it?

Author: Done. 

• Use hyperlink for citation, reference of figures, and table. E.g [1], Figure and Table 1.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. Formatting is a specific task of the journal, which will take care of it during publication. 

• Line 58 please remove the author’s name “Sainz de Murieta et al.”

Author: Done. 

• Text inside Figure 2 is not visible. Kindly increase its font size. Quality is also not good.

Author: Done.

 

Rest of the paper

• Line 162 remove author name.

Author: Done. 

• Line 170 not need to have text in citation bracket as it is not good practice. Rewrite it as [34, 35, 20, 3, 36, 23]. Do same for other as well.

Author: Done. 

• Table 1 and table 2 are so much confusing. Try to use a better format.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We followed the magazine template for table formatting. 

• Line 287 “[45; 47]”; or , .Chose one for all. It is inappropriate to use different styles in single paper.

Author: Done. 

• If Figure 3 and 4 are in parallel with each other so reduce its size and adjust it as they seems relative to each other. And of course, the empty space on page 9 will be also remove.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We decided to separate the two figures because they have different meanings: the first figure represents the geographical location of Soccavo district, within the Campi Flegrei caldera; the second one is a graphic elaboration of the case study area (i.g. Soccavo district) showing main components of the built environment (i.e., land use, traffic networks, and other relevant elements), useful for understanding the proposed work (i.e., results, and discussion mainly). Furthermore, placing the images side by side would not allow the contents to be seen well.

The empty space on page 9 will be solved by the Editorial Office before the publication. 

• Where is figure 5d? in line 474.

Author: Thank you for your comment. Figure 5d refers to the survey, realized in Soccavo. Therefore, the citation in line 474 is correct and useful for the comprehension of the text. 

• Figures are very large in size which effects its actual quality. Please reduce its size.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We followed the editorial instructions provided by the journal. 

• As in figure 6 legends are not visible through naked eyes.

Author: Done. 

• (76) as interacting risks (77, 78, 79). Line 563. As I already mentioned it is inappropriate formatting having different citation methods. How can you justify it?

Author: Done. 

• Same problem for figure 7.

Author: Done.

 

Final recommendation

• But typesetting is not good as material.

Author: Thank you for your comment. Typesetting is a specific task of the journal, which will take care of it during publication.

• Kindly make sure the comments above and focus on typesetting.

Author: Thank you for your comment. Typesetting is a specific task of the journal, which will take care of it during publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a good study on the preliminary study for multi-hazard resilience. It also include a case study. However, We suggest some revisions on the text as following below:

Its title is long it can be such as “Coping, Adaptive and Transformative Capacities for Preliminary Characterization in a ‘Multi-Hazard’ Resilience Perspective and a Case Study, Italy”

 What is the scientific conclusion of this study? It would be necessary to explain it with one sentence in abstract.

 In Introduction, I think it would be better this section to be started with risk definition. It should include what means risk management is.

 Some short terms such as  DRR/CCA , PLINIVS-LUPT, CLARITY etc. should defined in where they are stated firstly.

 This title can be changed as "Analyses and Results.

 Figure 6 (The collaborative map produced by the inhabitants of Soccavo during the workshop) is not clear.  There is a difficulty to read some statements, especially on symbol definition on left side.

 On Figure 7 (The “brainstorming sheet” produced by the inhabitants of Soccavo during the workshop), there is also a problem in clearness and brightness as figure 6. It character size should increase for both figures.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I think minor editing of English language can be required.

Author Response

Authors: Thanks to the reviewer for his valuable comments, without which we could not have improved the manuscript. We allow ourselves to make some notes, as follows.

 

It is a good study on preliminary study for multi-hazard resilience. It also includes a case study. However, we suggest some revisions to the text as following below:

• Its title is long it can be such as “Coping, Adaptive and Transformative Capacities for Preliminary Characterization in a ‘Multi-Hazard’ Resilience Perspective and a Case Study, Italy”.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We decided to use "Capacity" three times in the title in order to highlight the three resilience determinants. If the paper were published, this would make it easy to find it in relation to specific keywords concerning each resilient determinant.

• What is the scientific conclusion of this study? It would be necessary to explain it with one sentence in the abstract.

Author: Done. The abstract was modified according to suggestions.

• In the Introduction, I think it would be better this section to be started with risk definition. It should include what means risk management is.

Author: Thank you for your suggestion. We believe that the Risk definition (according to the eq. R=HxVxE) is now a consolidated concept at least for readers of the Sustainability journal.

• Some short terms such as DRR/CCA, PLINIVS-LUPT, CLARITY etc. should defined in where they are stated firstly.

Author: Done for DRR and CCA. PLINIVS-LUPT is the name of the Study Centre directly involved in the research while CLARITY is the name of a Horizon Europe project.

• Materials and Methods: this section is too long. It can be shortened as well as possible.

Author: thanks for the suggestion. During the writing phase, we tried to shorten it as much as possible. We believe further cuts would impair understanding of the whole methodology. 

• Result section: this title can be changed to "Analyses and Result”.

Author: thanks for the suggestion. We followed the editorial instructions provided by the journal. 

• Figure 6 (The collaborative map produced by the inhabitants of Soccavo during the workshop) is not clear. There is a difficulty to read some statements, especially on symbol definition on the left side.

Author: Done. 

• In Figure 7 (The “brainstorming sheet” produced by the inhabitants of Soccavo during the workshop), there is also a problem with clearness and brightness as in Figure 6. Its character size should increase for both figures.

Author: Done.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very interesting and well written, contributing to the development of research in the field.

There are small details that need to be addressed before publication:

1. please insert the source of the figures

2. explain why community building (line 384) consists only of an initial interaction. This is probably a wording mistake

3. what is the number of inhabitants who participated in the multi-risk survey: 22 inhabitants (line 589) or 30 (line 731). Please explain what percentage it represents of the total population. 

4. in my opinion the results and discussions can be merged into one section. I would also suggest including some of the lines under conclusions (e.g. lines 628-696 seem to be conclusions but could also be included under Results).

5. please highlight future research.

Good luck!

Author Response

Authors: Thanks to the reviewer for his valuable comments, without which we could not have improved the manuscript. We allow ourselves to make some notes, as follows.

 

The paper is very interesting and well-written, contributing to the development of research in the field. There are small details that need to be addressed before publication:

• Please insert the source of the figures.

Authors: Done for the Figure 1. The other figures were elaborated by the authors.

• Explain why community building (line 384) consists only of an initial interaction. This is probably a wording mistake.

Authors: Done. The paragraph was modified according to suggestions.

• What is the number of inhabitants who participated in the multi-risk survey: 22 inhabitants (line 589) or 30 (line 731)? Please explain what percentage it represents of the total population.

Authors: Done.

• In my opinion the results and discussions can be merged into one section. I would also suggest including some of the lines under conclusions (e.g. lines 628-696 seem to be conclusions but could also be included under Results).

Authors: Thank you for your comment. We decided to separate Results and Discussion following the indication of the journal.

Lines 628-696 are the result of crossing surveys data, community mapping and co-design processes data, completed by a broader reflection on the context involved.

• please highlight future research.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. Future possible research is anticipated at the end of the discussion: “ Applying the methodology to the Soccavo district was crucial for evaluating the whole procedure in terms of reliability, timing needed, and thus quality and quantity of data collected. If adequately modified and harmonized, the procedure can be applied to other case studies likewise affected by one or more geo-environmental hazards”.