A System Dynamics Model and Analytic Network Process: An Integrated Approach to Investigate Urban Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revisited the manuscript according to the previous comments and improved the quality of presentation.

However, there are still some errors:

• Figure 7 is double numbered at pg. 10 and 11. Therefore references to them should be revisited (e.g. in line 281, 282, 298, etc.);
• Table 3 is missing (in fact Table 4 should become Table 3 and so on);
• In Appendix A: Governance/Risk Reduction/Strategic Scenario 15 years has the value 80, while it has to be between 0 and 1.

Author Response

Turin, July 14 2020

Response letter Reviewer #1

We thank you so much for appreciating our efforts to improve our paper. Furthermore, we would thank you again for these comments and remarks. They were very useful to finalize our revision and to improve the quality of this work.
The revisions are highlighted in red colour.

The authors.

The authors revisited the manuscript according to the previous comments and improved the quality of presentation

The authors revisited the manuscript according to the previous comments and improved the quality of presentation.
Thank you for appreciating our efforts.

However, there are still some errors:
Figure 7 is double numbered at pg. 10 and 11. Therefore references to them should be revisited (e.g. in line 281, 282, 298, etc).
We thank you a lot for highlighting these errors. We corrected them.

Table 3 is missing (in fact Table 4 should become Table 3 and so on);

We thank you a lot for highlighting this remark. We corrected them.

In Appendix A: Governance/Risk Reduction/Strategic Scenario 15 years has the value 80, while it has to be between 0 and 1
Thank you for pointed out this mistake. We corrected it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Changes made have improved the article. I still suggest proofreading

Detailed comments:

Abstract: repetition line 17-18 and 20-21.

The present paper proposes an integrated approach based on System Dynamics Model

17 (SDM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP), with the aim of evaluating urban resilience

18 performance both at the current state and over time. The objective of this research is to describe the

19 method and to illustrate its application to the area called Basse di Stura, located in the city of Turin,

20 Italy. The method is applied to evaluate the possible impacts over time of two different urban

21 scenarios in terms of change of urban resilience performance. The final result is represented by an

22 index that describes urban resilience performance.

184 of the system will be identified, in order to the describe it in accurately;

Other:

382 in terms of urban resilience performance. To pursue this objective, it …?….necessary to analyse the current

516 is the integration between of this approach with GIS

Author Response

Turin, July 14 2020

Response letter Reviewer #2

We thank you so much for appreciating our efforts to improve our paper. Furthermore, we would thank you again for these comments and remarks. They were very useful to finalize our revision and to improve the quality of this work.
The revisions are highlighted in red colour.

The authors.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Changes made have improved the article. I still suggest proofreading

Detailed comments:
Abstract: repetition line 17-18 and 20-21.
The present paper proposes an integrated approach based on System Dynamics Model
17 (SDM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP), with the aim of evaluating urban resilience
18 performance both at the current state and over time. The objective of this research is to describe the
19 method and to illustrate its application to the area called Basse di Stura, located in the city of Turin,
20 Italy. The method is applied to evaluate the possible impacts over time of two different urban
21 scenarios in terms of change of urban resilience performance. The final result is represented by an
22 index that describes urban resilience performance.

Thank you a lot for underling these repetitions. We changed these paragraph. 184 of the system will be identified, in order to the describe it in accurately.

Thank you a lot for underling these mistake. We corrected it.

Other:
382 in terms of urban resilience performance. To pursue this objective, it ...?....necessary to analyse the current
516 is the integration between of this approach with GIS

Thank you for these remarks and suggestions. We very appreciated them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study objective is to evaluate the impact of two different urban scenarios in terms of changing the performance of urban resilience of the urban system. By integrating the System Dynamics Model and an Analytic Network Process to identify urban resilience on Basse di Stura - Torino, this study presented a synthetic index of urban resilience that combines all urban dimensions. In the current version, the authors have made some modifications, but the slight comments bellow may help to improve the manuscript clarity.

1. Proofread might help to improve manuscript writing
2. It does not matter if the authors have a different format in writing manuscript. However, it would be better if the authors can describe the contents of the manuscript by dividing it into clearer chapters such as methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.

In addition, the numbering of sub-chapters (i.e. line 101, 109, 124, and 139), is somewhat confused with the numbering of main chapters such as introduction, ... etc.

3. I suggest presenting the Tables on one page and not separately, if possible
4. Simplify the discussion in point 2.2. System Dynamics Model, might be considered.
5. I suggest that there is no need to provide "Authors processing" information on each result even though the authors own – Figure 14.
6. Where is section 4.5.1? why directly 4.5.2?
7. I think the conclusion is too complex, I suggest that the authors can improve it briefly and clearly. Moreover, I also suggest presenting the information with references to the results and discussion section, not in the conclusion.
8. Although this study does not have a significant difference from previous (Datola et al., 2019) - most of the methods and results presented in this manuscript have been shown in the previous manuscript, however, I really appreciate the author's efforts which have made some modifications and improvements compare than the previous version.

Author Response

Turin, July 14 2020

Response letter Reviewer #3

We thank you so much for appreciating our efforts to improve our paper. Furthermore, we would thank you again for these comments and remarks. They were very useful to finalize our revision and to improve the quality of this work.
The revisions are highlighted in red colour.

The authors.

The study objective is to evaluate the impact of two different urban scenarios in terms of changing the performance of urban resilience of the urban system. By integrating the System Dynamics Model and an Analytic Network Process to identify urban resilience on Basse di Stura - Torino, this study presented a synthetic index of urban resilience that combines all urban dimensions. In the current version, the authors have made some modifications, but the slight comments bellow may help to improve the manuscript clarity.

Proofread might help to improve manuscript writing.

Thank you a lot for this suggestion.

It does not matter if the authors have a different format in writing manuscript. However, it would be better if the authors can describe the contents of the manuscript by dividing it into clearer chapters such as methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.

Thank you a lot for this suggestion. We changed the previous paragraph “integrated approach” into “method” in order to better underline that the method we used is the proposed approach, that combine ANP and SDM. Moreover, also the parts “results”, “discussion” and “conclusion” are present in the structure of the paper. However, we added the section “case study” and “application” in order to divide these parts from the results, in order to make the description of the case study and the application of our method to it, more understandable, adding all the information needed.

In addition, the numbering of sub-chapters (i.e. line 101, 109, 124, and 139), is somewhat confused with the numbering of main chapters such as introduction, ... etc.

Thank you for underling these mistakes, we corrected them.

I suggest presenting the Tables on one page and not separately, if possible

Thank you for this suggestion. We tried to insert the table in a one page, but it is not possible, because they collect a lot of information.

Simplify the discussion in point 2.2. System Dynamics Model, might be considered.

Thank you for this suggestion. We noticed some repetition in explaining some concepts. We deleted them, in order to make this part easier.

I suggest that there is no need to provide "Authors processing" information on each result even though the authors own – Figure 14.

Thank you a lot for underling this mistake. We corrected it.

Where is section 4.5.1? why directly 4.5.2?

Thank you a lot for underling this mistake. We corrected it.

I think the conclusion is too complex, I suggest that the authors can improve it briefly and clearly. Moreover, I also suggest presenting the information with references to the results and discussion section, not in the conclusion.

Thank you for this suggestion, we very appreciate it. As you underlined the discussion are too complex. We reduced them, focusing only on the comments of the the strengths and the weaknesses of the proposed method. (we deleted one paragraph, which was more general).

However, we decided to maintain in the discussion part the dissertation about the choice of combining these two techniques, because it is very related to the strengths underlined in this section and also to sum up our reasoning and our perspective of research.

Although this study does not have a significant difference from previous (Datola et al., 2019) - most of the methods and results presented in this manuscript have been shown in the previous manuscript, however, I really appreciate the author's efforts which have made some modifications and improvements compare than the previous version.

Thank you for this comment. We very appreciate

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

All my comments on the previous version of the text have been considered and taken into account and I want to thank the authors for this.

However, I still have concerns that the authors might complicate the issue too much by using ANP insteadt of simply AHP method. The ANP/AHP method in this approach is used only to calculate the weights of each factor/indicator to get the final index then.

"We are conscious of the fact that we have a lot of zero. This is due also to the fact that we are analysing only a specific area of the city of Turin. Furthermore, our main purpose is trying to determine the suitability of the integration of SDM with ANP, to solve some evaluation problems, such as the non consideration of the mutual influences. It can be considered as the
first application in urban resilience measurement, so it is actually simplified" - I think that there should be not "specific" but "representative area" used in experiment to determine the suitability of integration of SDM and ANP to solve those problems. Or there should be two, three or more different "specific areas" to consider to get the issue covered. Especially when the major part of this approach was showed before, in other publication, and all new is the ANP integration. Ofcourse if there will be "more complex area" the ANP method will siut well.

Also there are some small remarks to consider:

1. Provide an explanation of variables for formula/equation (1) and (2).

2. There is an unexpected "f" in Fig. 7 label.

3. Table 6 is first defined as cluster matrix (line 365) and then as a final vector (line 370).

Regards.

Author Response

Turin, July 14 2020

Response letter Reviewer #4

We thank you so much for appreciating our efforts to improve our paper. Furthermore, we would thank you again for these comments and remarks. They were very useful to finalize our revision and to improve the quality of this work.
The revisions are highlighted in red colour.

The authors.

All my comments on the previous version of the text have been considered and taken into account and I want to thank the authors for this.
Thank you for appreciating our efforts done to improve our work.

However, I still have concerns that the authors might complicate the issue too much by using ANP instead of simply AHP method. The ANP/AHP method in this approach is used only to calculate the weights of each factor/indicator to get the final index then.
"We are conscious of the fact that we have a lot of zero. This is due also to the fact that we are analysing only a specific area of the city of Turin. Furthermore, our main purpose is trying to determine the suitability of the integration of SDM with ANP, to solve some evaluation problems, such as the non consideration of the mutual influences. It can be considered as the first application in urban resilience measurement, so it is actually simplified" - I think that there should be not "specific" but "representative area" used in experiment to determine the suitability of integration of SDM and ANP to solve those problems. Or there should be two, three or more different "specific areas" to consider to get the issue covered. Especially when the major part of this approach was showed before, in other publication, and all new is the ANP integration. Of course if there will be "more complex area" the ANP method will siut well.

Thank you for this comment and this interesting discussion about this point. We appreciate your interest in our research and your comments, that have been made to improve the quality of our research. We are totally agreeing with your comment about the “representative area”. In fact, we selected it because it is very problematic area of the city of Turin and so it needs to be analysed in multidimensional and complex perspective. Thus, this area has been selected to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed integration between ANP and SDM.

Also there are some small remarks to consider:
Provide an explanation of variables for formula/equation (1) and (2).
Thank you for this remark. Formula (1) is described as follow: “where A is the pairwise comparison matrix of the criteria, w is an eigenvector and λmax is the largest eigenvalue”. While for formula (2) we added this description: “where Wk is the supermatrix”

There is an unexpected "f" in Fig. 7 label.

Thank you for this remark.

Table 6 is first defined as cluster matrix (line 365) and then as a final vector (line 370).

Thank you for this specific remark. We corrected it. We named also in line 370 the matrix as “final vector priorities”, in order to make the description clearer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The combined use of the System Dynamic Modelling (SDM) and the Analytic Network Process (ANP) in assessing the urban resilience is an approach that overpass the lack of others models by taking into consideration the mutual interdependences between the different dimensions of the urban systems. The paper has a strong background and the proposed method is suitable in decision making concerning the urban resilience and other aspects of the urban planning.

But there are some aspects the authors should improve:

1. The strategic scenario has to be better defined, so to explain extensively the dynamic of the system.
2. The SDM does not provide sufficient details concerning the differential equations that characterise the system's evolution. Just a single equation (number 1) in line 426.
3. According to the previous mentioned equation, the soil consumption would increase, if the new constructions increased. But as Figure 11 shows, soil consumption has a slight increase in the strategic scenario, and a huge increase in the inertial scenario, which does not fit the equation and the scenarios inputs. Therefore some other aspects should have been considered, and thorough details in modelling the stocks and flows should be presented.
4. Figure 12 shows that the number of jobs is constant in the strategic scenario. But taking into consideration the dynamic of the system during the 15 years, the stakeholders decisions, the allocation of the funds in time, the generation fo the new businesses, the new constructions, an ascendent trend in number of jobs seems more plausible. 
5. Health and safety decision variable is quite vague defined. Just a percentage of the population seems too feeble. More details could be provided.
6. In ANP, the appendixes A and B seem to be identical. The unweighted super matrix is not multiplied by the cluster matrix. Also, please check all the values in the unweighted matrix. Cluster columns sums have to be 1. 
7. Line 349: The two considered scenarios are presented in Figures 4 and 5 instead of Figures 3 and 4.
8. Figure 10 is missing.
9. Double equation number (1) in line 141 and line 426.
10. Line 461: The loop diagram is Figure 7, not Figure 8.
11. Figure 14: The data on x axis do not distinguish well.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents an interesting proposal for combining ANP and SDM methods to assess the impact of development strategies based on the concept of urban resilience, taking into account the dynamics of change over time.

General comments:

Abstract is misleading because it indicates that the article covers the entire city of Turin and considers "all dimensions of the city". But in fact the case study is not on a city scale but on a neighborhood / district scale. "All dimensions of the city" is a brachylogy, I doubt it is possible at all to consider all city’s dimensions.

literature review should pay more attention to the term “urban resilience” and ways of its operationalization in relation to the scale of the case study undertaken.

Suggested literature:
Masnavi, M.R., Gharai, F., Hajibandeh, M., 2019. Exploring urban resilience thinking for its application in urban planning: a review of literature. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 16, 567-582.

What about Resilience indexes of Rockefeller Foundation; UN-Habitat; World Bank; C40, 100RC

Article could be better structured:

The goal of the article should be better emphasized and positioned between the literature review and methodology. Currently, it is located in two places: lines 65-80 and 247-260. Assumption of comparison of two different strategies appears in the text 3 times (line 70,77,258) before it is specified about which strategies are involved (lines 281-283). the same applies to the expression multi-dimensional perspective. I suggest avoiding repetition.

In table 2 it would be useful to answer the questions in relation to the study area

Detailed remarks:

Lack of the references to the (Datola et al, 2019) – Fig. 7,911-13

Mistakes in lines: 76, 115, 133

I suggest the proofreading.

Reviewer 3 Report

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the possible impact of two different urban scenarios in terms of changing the performance of urban resilience of the urban system. By integrating the System Dynamics Model and an Analytic Network Process approach to identify urban resilience on Basse di Stura - Torino, this study presented a synthetic index of urban resilience that combines all urban dimensions. After reviewing the entire manuscript, the comments below can be considered.

1. Proofread might help to improve manuscript writing
2. It does not matter if the authors have a different format in writing manuscript. However, it would be better if the authors can describe the contents of the manuscript by dividing it into clearer chapters such as methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.
3. Please improve the abstract, subjectively this is still general and does not show the point of interest in this study. Then, please describe the study area clearly like Basse di Stura - Torino.
4. I did not find a suitable concept between the title and the main objective. From the title, it can be underlined that the main purpose of this study as if is "identifying the conditions of prevailing urban resilience". However, in the abstract, it seems like the purpose of this study is "to evaluate the possible impact of an urban resilience management scenario". I think this is different, and I suggest that the authors can make a goal and topic more suitable.
5. Although the main emphasis of this study is an integrated approach in identifying urban resilience, it must be remembered that this study takes a case in the problem area (Basse di Stura). Thus, providing detailed information on the application of the urban resilience approach in the study area must also be discussed clearly - I get more concepts from ANP and SDM compared to their application in the study area.
6. I suggest to present the Tables on one page and not separately, if possible
7. Provide an explanation for each formula/equation (e.g. Line 426).
8. I suggest that there is no need to provide "Authors processing" information on each result even though the authors own.
9. Make font size, font style, or other writing techniques consistent.
10. Paragraph 2 in the introduction discusses many concepts and problems of urban resilience in general. I suggest adding information about potential factors that can affect urban resilience. Furthermore, discussing urban resilience conditions in the study area (Basse di Stura - Torino) can show the important points of this study.
11. Sub-chapter 2.2, too many concepts and theories. I think an important point is shown in Line 188-199.
12. The main scenarios applied such as inertial scenario and strategic scenario need to be mentioned at the beginning. I suggest giving a detailed explanation regarding these two scenarios
13. To present valid information from the study area, I suggest adding references (Line 224 - 226 and Line 232 - 241)
14. Figure 3, please add map legend and some basic spatial information such as scale and north arrow. Figure 4, using the term "boundary" in the legend is more suitable than "limit of ...".
15. Where is section 4.5? why directly 4.5.1?
16. Figure presentation and how to interpret it a bit confusing - the figure was explained in separate sections. For example, Fig. 8 was described in section 4.4 Structuring the ANP model, hereinafter referred to in chapter 4. Simulation and Final urban resilience Index also repeated in the conclusion section. In addition, some Figures have not been interpreted in detail such as Figure 14 and I also did not find Figure 10.
17. How to interpret the numbers of processing results presented in Table 4 and Table 5?
18. Appendix B has not been mentioned in the main manuscript
19. Is there a difference between resilient scenario and strategic scenario? referring to previous studies (Datola et al., 2019), axis information mentions the resilient scenario.
20. I think the conclusion is too complex, I suggest that the authors can improve it briefly and clearly. Moreover, I am confused about the information to be conveyed on Line 482 - 484 and also the meaning of some sentences with "red marks" Line 496 - 499. Additionally, I also suggest presenting the information with references to the results and discussion section, not in the conclusion.

In general, I have not found any significant difference in findings even though this study has considered ANP. This is because most of the methods and results presented have been shown in the previous manuscript. Furthermore, it might be a little strange if some information such as tables or figures were identified referring to previous studies (Datola et al., 2019) but this citation was not listed in 76 reference lists - Datola is not listed as the main author.

Reviewer 4 Report

Here are some comments, doubts and suggestions for authors:

1. Lines 67 and 68 - are the references well assigned?

2. Line 253 - it seems to me that there is no need to repeat the same references again.

3. Line 278 - are the references well assigned?

4. In section 2, the ANP method description is too comprehensive in comparison to shorter and more general description of the SDM method. At the same time, both methods are not described in sufficient detail to be able to see exactly how they were used in the described experiment. You may want to consider significantly shortening the description of these methods (as generally known and often and accurately described in the literature) and moving to section 1. Introduction as two additional subsections. In return, you can increase the detail of the description of the methods in application to this particular task.

5. Figure 4 - twice the name of the "artificial lake" at two different symbols in the figure legend, is this ok?

6. Figure 8 - There is a mistake in Society cluster: there should be Health and... instead of Building exposed....

7. The matrices in appendix A and B are difficult to examine because of lack of labels of indicators/variables.

8. Is the unweighted supermatrix properly calculated? First: you show the pairwise comparison between all Environment nodes in Table 5, then in the supermatrix there are only two values in Enwironment cluster box. Second: you stated that "all the relationships recognised in the causal loop have been also insert in the ANP network". Why, for example, there is only one value in Society cluster box if the figure 7 shows interaction between Population Composition and Mixite Index in both directions? Third: the columns in each cluster box should sum up to 1. There is the third column in Governance vs Built Environment that does not sum up to 1.

9. You have a lot of "zeros" in your matrix, that show indepedency of many considered factors. Even between factor in particular clusters. Is there a real need to divide factors into clusters? Or classical AHP method would be enough?

10. Why is the weighted supermatrix (appendix B) the same as unweighted supermatrix? The pairwise comparison of clusters is mentioned and shown in the text.

11. Line 410 - How exactly the urban resilience index was calculated?

12. Line 432 - shouldn't there be 4.7. Simulation....?

13. Figure 14 - illegible signatures under the posts. How was the new urban index calculated? How exactly was the final urban resilience index calculated "using the results obtained from simulations? And how was it calculated through the ANP support?

14. Line 495 - first two findings (a and b) seems to be known, as these are kind of features of described methods.