Assessing the Risk of Natural Disaster-Induced Losses to Tunnel-Construction Projects Using Empirical Financial-Loss Data from South Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
First, thank You very much for giving me the honor to review the paper: “ A risk analysis method of predicting natural-disaster impacts on tunnel constructions using empirical financial-loss data from South Korea
by the authors: Sang-Guk Yum, Sungjin Ahn, Junseo Bae and Ji-Myong Kim.
The topic of the paper is interesting for wider audience, but these is some significant concerns about the paper. Although, I am not the economical expert, some things I would like to be more detail explained, added, and fixed
- Fig 1 and 2 does not have the same range on X axis (it is not explained in the text is this result of the statistical method or something else).
- Results are very thin. The only "significant" result is that wind have the largest impact on the disaster cost. I don’t see how these impacts are quantified. There is no any expression or formula or values of parameters to some other expression as a result of how much these variables impact the total price...
- With that in mind, Results, Discussion and Conclusions need to be significantly improved.
- English language is understandable but for journal of this level should be on the higher level.
Overall paper is interesting but needs some critical improvements so in a good faith I recommend Major Revision!
Best regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please provide comparison with previous research in the Discussion, and how can hereby proposed methodology be applied on other (more complex) case scenarios?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript details an interesting study which seeks to propose and develop a risk-analysis method for predicting natural-disaster impacts on tunnel construction relying on financial-loss data. This study is considered topical considering the debilitating impact of natural disasters on infrastructure project delivery performance, especially as it concerns financial losses.
The study's niche lies in the investigation of the correlations among the actual financial losses and the multiple specific causes of damage associated with specific types of disaster. The study holds salient implications for various stakeholders within the construction industry.
However, the title appears to be misleading as it implies that a model for predicting the impact of natural disasters on tunnel construction performance was going to be developed within the context of the study. But this was not the case.
Also, the use of the only insurance company payout data for the study may prove to be a limitation when trying to generalize the study's findings or the emergent methodology. How about considerations for the indirect losses borne by contractors?
There is need for the authors to revisit these two salient points and consider inserting a section which elucidates the methodology for predicting the impact of natural disasters on tunnel construction projects from a financial loss perspective.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
First, I am honored to review Your paper: A risk analysis method of predicting natural-disaster impacts on tunnel constructions using empirical financial-loss data from South Korea by the authors: Sang-Guk Yum, Sungjin Ahn, Junseo Bae and Ji-Myong Kim. After full review, my recommendation is to accept paper after English language editing, there is still many errors in the text (I only mark few of them at the beginning). Overall paper is improved significantly!
Best regards!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript as buttressed in the revised version. The modification to the title engenders an apt alignment with the study being reported in the manuscript. The research methodology has been improved with robust justifications whilst the implications of the study's findings have been explicitly articulated in the revised manuscript. Also, the conclusions have been articulated succinctly as requested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
