Urban Flood Resilience Assessment of Zhengzhou Considering Social Equity and Human Awareness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: The overall approach proposed in the article is promising, but there is significant room for improvement in the writing style. The structure of the article as a whole needs adjustment. Particularly, the calculation methods and steps for the various indices in the fourth section should be presented in the third section's methodology, separate from the results.

 

Point 2: Abstract: It is suggested to add a sentence briefly summarizing the methods used for data collection and analysis. This will provide more background information to help readers understand how the innovative 3D-UFRIS indexing system is implemented.

 

Point 3: Introduction: The introduction section needs to be streamlined and the link between the introduction and the research focus (i.e. the development of the 3D-UFRIS indexing system) strengthened. In addition, a concise explanation of resilience theory and its relevance to urban development could be considered.

 

Point 4: Line 176: Is its content not expressed in its entirety?

 

Point 5: Please explain and add the meanings of the various icons in Figure 6 and the significance of setting 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000m buffer zones in Figure 7.

 

Point 6: The content in Figure 18 is relatively simple and could be considered for removal. Regarding Figure 19, since its content is already represented in the preceding Figures 14, 15, 16, and 17, what is the purpose of Figure 19?

 

Point 7: Some details require your attention: (1) Some figures and their captions in the text are not centered, for example, Figure 2. (2) After subsection 3.2, it should be subsection 3.3 instead of what is labeled as subsection 3.4 in line 196. (3) Please ensure consistent formatting of subscripts and superscripts for mathematical.(4) Harmonize the base map of all GIS maps in the text; the text size in the map and the size of the legend.

 

Point 8: Results: The Results section lacks a comparison with the findings of other relevant researchers.

 

Point 9: Please describe how the RNN binary classification algorithm mentioned in lines 276 and 365 is implemented.

 

Point 10: There are several references in the text to the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Entropy Weighting Method (EWM) to calculate the index weights, please explain how the results of the calculations using this methodology are reflected in the results and conclusions section?

 

Point 11: The article contains 5 technical flowcharts. Are you considering merging or removing some content? For example, merging the content of Figure 2 and Figure 3, or considering the removal of some content from Figures 5, 9, and 12.

 

Point 12: Conclusion: To enhance its impact and relevance, it is suggested to briefly discuss the practical significance of the research findings. For example, how these conclusions can serve as a reference for urban planning and flood mitigation strategies in Zhengzhou and other cities facing similar challenges.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

It is a good paper with good direction of urban flood management. However, there many areas that need substantial changes. 

1. Revise the title of the paper. Make it systematic one.

2. Brief the abstract with concrete findings.

3. Study is very much regional in approach and need a global outlook.

4. Novelty and rational to be clearly stated. 

5. Global review of the works are needed.

6. There are too many figures(19). Reduce them to 10 and rest to placed in the supplementary.

7. Develop the discussion section adequately taking global literature.

8. Significance and future direction of research to be mentioned. 

References:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000037035.65105.95

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01310-6

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hyp.5852

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/097317410600200102

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need moderate refinement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting. And major and minor comments are listed below.

 

Major

1.          The authors listed the data used in this study in table, but why you choose those factors should be explained here. For example, hotel density and shop density are chosen as the factors, why?

2.          More detailed information is needed for equation 9. The authors stated “ It quantifies this perception by calculating the ratio of microblogs discussing rainstorms and floods within a specific administrative region to the total number of registered microblogs.”

First of all, “number Weibo checked in” =” total number of registered microblogs”?

Secondly, “number of flood- related Weibo” = “microblogs discussing rainstorms and floods within a specific administrative region”? It seems “-“ is not a subtraction sign but means “flood-related Weibo”

Does the internet and power are functioned? If so, some Weibo users can’t post at that time.

3.          Figure 6 shows the “distribution of flood-prone areas”, what is blue dot, common refers to? It’s hard to tell the Weibo reported flooding from the official ones. Using hollow circles for Weibo points maybe a solution.

4.          In Section 4.2. Disaster Causing Performance Assessment, the authors stated “The central city area exhibits the highest disaster-causing performance, primarily due to its relatively flat terrain.” How does this index compute? In addition, how does “Disaster Resistance Performance Assessment” perform?

5.          Discussion is too short; the authors should list what they found and compared them to others’. For example, which part is similar to someone’s findings. Or based on the study limitations, what can do better in the future study.

 

Minor

1.          Line 35, flooding dis-asters-> flooding disasters; Line 51, of-ten->often. Please check the whole script.

          2.         Figure 4. is of poor quality, please improve it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall is good, but check the hypened-words.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well revised. May be accepted for publication in the present form. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor edit is required.