SiSMI Project–Technologies for the Improvement of Safety and the Reconstruction of Historic Centres in the Seismic Area of Central Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
GENERAL: This paper presents no scientific novelty for a journal publication. On the other hand it can be interesting for the readers of "Sustainability" MDPI journal if it appears e.g. as solicited review paper or in a similar way (project interim report?).
Detailed comment:
The abstract now represents part of introduction - in case of publication the abstract should be changed (and made shorter) to properly describe content of the paper so that the reader can decide to read or not to read the entire paper.
Author Response
thank you for your review.
we provide a shorter abstract
we also include more detailed data and scientific results ( in red in the word file) to highlith the scientific interest of the SiSMi project
Reviewer 2 Report
The present paper, in my opinion, can not be accepted in the present form.
The authors describe in general the project, but I think that before to accepted it, the whole paper must be improved.
Reduce abstract, in the present form is so long!
Introduction: please insert a state of art with an international scenario, in the paper misses international references about this important issue.
Regard the cultural heritage, the authors must put references about the parameters related to the stone materials, (degradation processes, state of conservation etc, useful and crucial in a seismic event!!!)
Reorganize, please Material and Methos, describe better some case study where the project will be applied!! Are there any data or simulation? Please adopt the same approach for the other indicators: are there data? On the contrary please provide to describe the scientific parameters that the "model" will use.
In my opinion, this is an excellent project but the paper in this form can not be published, I suggest you put some relation also with the Agenda 2030 goals because I think that your project can be useful to reach some goals.
Author Response
thank you for your review.
- we reduce abstract as you suggested
- we put references about stone materials, (degradation processes, state of conservation etc,) see line 81, 299, 429, 450
- we Reorganized Material and Methos, describing some case study where the project was applied with data and simultaion ( see red text on attached word file)
- Sismi project is effectively consistent with Targets of disaster risk reduction in goals of The 2030 Agenda for SustainableDevelopment (SDGs) , building and strengthening resilience and adaptive
capacity of the communities (line 334, 502,642) and reducing
their exposure and vulnerability to environmental shocks and disasters (see vulnerability reduction)
Reviewer 3 Report
The article portrays the “SiSMI project” with the subtitle “Technologies for the improvement of safety and the reconstruction of historic centers in the seismic area of central Italy”.
Contrary to the subtitle, the focus of this project is less on technology than on knowledge, methodologies and instruments (see line 515f), which pursue the goal of improvement of safety of historic centres. In addition, the strengthening of resilience appears to be weighted much higher in this project than the actual reconstruction process.
The analytical presentation of the current shortcomings in the reconstruction process of earthquake-destroyed cities is presented very concisely and conclusively (line 46 f) as well as the research needs derived from it (line 66f) - and thus the justification for the project.
The connection between science and business (line 71) is certainly important; however, the project focuses on the connection between science and authorities as well as society (line 501f).
The attractive graphic on line 139 about the dynamic risk reduction process should be discussed in more detail. It would be more helpful to place a graphic about the structure and methodology of the project here.
The transdisciplinary and multidimensional approach is very appropriate for the research goals (lines 140-184). The following (line 185f) mainly deals with the multidimensional structure of the project. A more detailed explanation of the aspects of the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary methodology would certainly be an enrichment.
The interrelation of the individual bubbles could be briefly explained in the graphic on line 209.
The individual dimensions of the project are described very conclusively. The relationships between the individual dimensions are shown later in the graphic on line 562. Perhaps the link between the individual project dimensions could already be discussed here.
The multitude of dimensions and the complexity of the individual project dimensions show that this is an extremely ambitious project. It would be interesting to learn how the high demands and challenges that the project poses are dealt with (quality assurance, project management, etc.).
The individual project results are presented in an understandable and conclusive manner. While the description of the methodology focuses on the humanities, social and economic sciences, this subchapter presents results from the natural and technical sciences in a much broader way. The contribution would become more consistent if the congruence between the description of the methodology and the results would be increased by more cross-references.
The order of chapters 3.1., 3.2., 3.3. and 3.4. does not appear entirely understandable by the disciplines. However, the individual chapters are coherently structured. Cross-references and the interrelationships between the individual project results would also increase the conclusiveness here.
The complexity in the implementation of the project results is worthy of praise. Due to the high complexity of the project, long-term cooperation between science, authorities and society seems very appropriate, as does long-term further development of the results.
The graphic on line 562 clearly shows the relationships between the political project dimensions.
The SiSMI project is a very valuable and socially effective contribution to a more differentiated analysis of the risks of historical centers in earthquake areas as well as increasing their resilience.
It would be very valuable to make a minor revision to this successful article.
Author Response
thank you for your review:
1. The attractive graphic on line 139 about the dynamic risk reduction process should be discussed in more detail. It would be more helpful to place a graphic about the structure and methodology of the project here.
a more detailed description of the dynamic risk reduction process is now on line 120
a text and a graphic about the structure and methodology of the project is now on line 170 , this shows also the cross references between different involved disciplines
2. The contribution would become more consistent if the congruence between the description of the methodology and the results would be increased by more cross-references.
new graphics , show the results connected to methodology (line 420; 459; 489)
Reviewer 4 Report
Manuscript: SiSMI Project . Technologies for the improvement of safety and the reconstruction of historic centres in the seismic area of central Italy
by Inbroglini et al.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The manuscript deals with the SISMI project within which was developed a research activity intended to provide new tools and transdisciplinary methods for seismic risk reduction and improvement of cultural heritage and inhabited centers.
I do not find serious flaws in the manuscript which I find interesting and quite well-written. I give some advices to improve the understanding of the manuscript and better place the research in the international context. In addition, further clues are provided to guide future research.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
- (Introduction, lines 93-96) I find the rationale of giving cultural heritage a primary role in the Project crucial. For example, the authors declare that “Cultural and historic heritage (assets, landscapes, traditions and culture, both tangible and intangible) are seen by all as a central resource for the sustainable development of inner areas”. This concept is well addressed in the Faro Convention (2005) to which I suggest the authors refer to strengthen their statement. Indeed, the Convention underlines the value and potential of cultural heritage as a resource for sustainable development and improvement of quality of life;
- (Materials and Methods). To allow the reader to better follow the innovations proposed by the Project, I recommend inserting a flow chart in which the overall methodology will be summarized, pointing out the innovative aspects of the approach;
- (Discussion, Developments in progress) I recommend the authors also including in their future research the analysis of the role of earthquake insurance as a suitable tool for both risk mitigation and recovery bearing in mind the growing interest of population on this issue, as shown by recent empirical works also on 2016 Central Italy earthquake (Gizzi et al., 2020);
- Conclusion [omitted]. The manuscript ends unexpectedly after the "Development in Progress" section. it is necessary to add the Conclusion paragraph, summarizing the key concepts of the Project and the outlooks of the research.
Bibliography suggested
Faro Convention (2005). Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Council of Europe. Treaty series. No. 199
Gizzi, F.T., Kam, J. & Porrini, D. Time windows of opportunities to fight earthquake under-insurance: evidence from Google Trends. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7, 61 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0532-2
Author Response
thank you for your review:
- (Introduction, lines 93-96) according to your suggestion we inserted the refernce to the Faro Convention (2005)- reference 22
- (Materials and Methods). To allow the reader to better follow the innovations proposed by the Project, we insert a flow chart in which the overall methodology will be summarized, pointing out the innovative aspects of the approach - see line 177 and following
- Conclusion [omitted]. we added the Conclusion paragraph, summarizing the key concepts of the Project and the outlooks of the research.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I see not much difference in this paper with respect to my concerns from my first review. This paper presents no scientific novelty for a journal publication. On the other hand it can be interesting for the readers of "Sustainability" MDPI journal if it appears e.g. as a solicited review paper (project interim report?) or in a similar way. As it is now it represents no new knowledge and should be rejected. Resubmission in form other than ordinary article is recommended by this reviewer.
This paper properly reports some research efforts regarding preservation of priceless Italian heritage. In the opinion of this reviewer actual approach as presented in the research program of SiSMI Project is in 70-80% waste of money and efforts. The update of seismic risk including topographical effects is important. But besides this Italian city centers with their pearls of architecture should undergo a program of serious seismic strengthening using cleverly hidden (where it is possible) braced steel structures. Even if the bracing structures can not be hidden they should be built into the buildings to avoid such situations like the fate of Assisi Basilica damage in 1997. It looks like a lesson from that tragic event was not learned. Two actions are needed: updated seismic risk including topographical effects, program historic building strengthening on a massive scale.
Author Response
Dear referee, thank you for your review
Our manuscript would like to communicate to a broader audience the results of a research projects financed with regional public funds. The SISMI project was in fact financed by the Lazio Region due to its interest in the prevention and management of risk and the emergency of post-seismic reconstruction. the research project was funded as the winner of a selective call and its results are currently guiding the process of reconstruction and revitalization of the areas hit by the 2016 earthquake to the great satisfaction of the Lazio region. the project was also selected as best practice and presented by the Italian General Consulate in San Francisco in the WG Earth Science and Cultural Heritage Meeting in San Francisco on December 12, 2019. The research group (made up of the 5 universities of Lazio and other research institutes) and the funding body do not believe that it is a waste of time and money but a substantial step towards improving the response to seismic risk with respect to cultural heritage .
The updating of the seismic risk including topographical effects is one of the main objectives of the SISMI project as described in paragraph 3.4. Hazard profiles- seismic amplifications (line 518 and following). the methodologies developed and applied on an experimental basis to the study area represent a significant step forward for risk assessment applicable to the whole national territory,in relation to new scientific acquisitions and innovative technologies not yet applied on a large scale.
Seismic reinforcement through cleverly hidden steel structures (where possible) is one of the many possible methods to reduce vulnerability that the SISMI project has carefully and concretely evaluated and tested (through surveys, experimental tests, simulations and modeling) At the base of the project, however, there is precisely the awareness that the richness of the Italian building tradition, the extreme variety of local materials and techniques, requires a plurality of technologies capable of combining tradition and innovation while respecting the historical and artistic value of the heritage. cultural centers and buildings
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted in the present form
Author Response
Thank you for your review
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript was improved. I recommend a final check of the English language. After that, the manuscript can be accepted to be published on Sustainability.
Author Response
thank you for your review
we will check the english language
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
What is the fast way to check if a submission to a journal contains novel material? To read the conclusions. After reading the conclusions of this submission this Reviewer did not find any information that was not possible to deduce about the seismic safety of historic centers in Italian cities without reading the proposed paper.
Suppose the paper has merit as a summarizing report of joint research of 5 universities.
Thus perhaps the conclusions should contain references to published, detailed papers and/or reports presenting the novel results of the specific research carried out within the SiSMI project by the parties involved in this project. In this case, this submission could be treated as a review paper and fulfill the requirements of a journal publication.
Advice: turn the conclusions so that it carefully reports references to the material published elsewhere by the partners of SiSMI project but with the NOVEL results obtained in the framework of this (SiSMI) project. If a paper written in the Italian language is quoted among references - provide English translation in parentheses. So far there are many references in this submission with titles written only in the Italian language.
Author Response
thank you for your review
we turned the conclusions so that it carefully reports references to the material published elsewhere by the partners of SiSMI project
