Comparative Resilience Evaluation—Case Study for Six Cities in China, Europe, and the Americas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article 'Comparative Resilience Evaluation - Case Study for 6 Cities in China, Europe, and the Americas' presents a study aimed at creating a Comparative Urban Resilience Index (CURI) and applying it to 6 cities (Malmoe, Beijing, São Paulo, Vienna, Shanghai, Baltimore) with reference to the years 2000 and 2020.

The text presents a literature review on the topic of resilience and its measurement, as well as on the topic of identity. The latter is intended to justify the inclusion of an identity/culture dimension in the CURI index; in fact, this choice represents an innovative contribution of the paper's authors to the literature already present. Next, the materials and method of construction of the indicator and its application to the cities chosen for the comparative analysis are presented. Subsequently, the results of the research are reported and discussed and a brief conclusion is drawn. 

The paper is well structured and clearly and comprehensively presented. One of its strengths is the timely explication of the advantages and weaknesses of the methodology adopted. The bibliography is extensive and covers the various aspects of the analysis. I believe, however, that it would be opportune, in the final version of the text, to better articulate the introductory part (§ 1), distinguishing between an initial part dedicated to the explication of the aims of the paper from that aimed at reviewing the literature on the measurement of urban resilience (which could become a point 1.1) and that on identity and culture (1.2). Furthermore, this last point could be slightly expanded to better clarify the reasons why the concept of identity-as-culture was chosen. As is pointed out by the authors of the article, the concept of identity is not only difficult to quantify with indicators, but has also recently been subjected to numerous criticisms, especially with reference to rapidly changing entities such as urban systems. A mention of these criticisms and a justification of the choices made would therefore be appropriate.

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the article fits the interdisciplinary profile of the journal Land. Research into categories related to the quality of cities is important because of the directions of their further development. The examples of very different world agglomerations cited in the article are an interesting comparison of various cultural and social mechanisms related to identification and protection applied in distant parts of the world, but the study itself has several gaps that require correction.

The introduction is too poor. It would be advisable to extend the chapter with global and local guidelines in relation to the described cities related to legal regulations regarding modern urban planning.

Figure 2 and Table 1 require more commentary. Currently, their pronunciation is hardly legible. Why were these specific indicators chosen? This should be explained. The criteria need to be clarified

The formula used in Section 2.3 is very simplified. Such a synthetic notation cannot explain the complex relationships related to the development of cities.

The results are very simplistic and too general shown. In addition to statistics, a broader commentary would be required, pointing to specific elements related to the topic.

The presented study requires a thorough discussion. There are a lot of studies on the subject with which the authors can argue. It would be worth referring to.

The conclusions are too cursory and need to be clarified. Some recommendations related to the results of the research would be indicated.

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the currently uploaded article you can see the work done by the authors. At the moment, the text is more coherent and better developed. The introduction and conclusions have been satisfactorily improved. The recommendations made are sufficient. Comments to Figures have been supplemented and do not raise earlier doubts.