Recovery of the Island of Saint Martin after Hurricane Irma: An Interdisciplinary Perspective
, Anaïs Ameline 3, Kelly Pasquon 1,4, Oscar Navarro 3, Chloé Tran Duc Minh 1, Abdel Halim Boudoukha 3, Marie-Aude Corbillé 5, Denis Crozier 1, Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi 3, Julien Gargani 6,7 and Paul Guéro 8Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your manuscript. This is a very interesting and important study, well done and well presented. It will have global readership interest, and I can see its applicability in other contexts. I have found no issues of concern in the article, and encourage its publication.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for these positive comments and his encouragement to publish this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper represents a comprehensive analysis of the recovery efforts in the island of Saint Martin following Hurricane Irma in September 2017. The analysis was based on three pillars: historical context, organization of local authorities and public perception of the situation. The work presented by the authors is sound, but it nonetheless has several shortcomings and requires several improvements.
The manuscript lacks motivation and it is not very clear the purpose or contribution of this paper, especially because the results of this case study are not replicable to other case studies. A clearer focus on what the authors intend to do with this case study and paper must be outlined.
The abstract does not include any scientific question to be addressed or hypothesis to be tested. Please include the objective of this study and the novelty in the abstract. The concept of “Black build better” is mentioned in the abstract and is considered keyword, but it is not explained within the rest of the paper, nor it is discussed. Therefore, a focus on what the authors intended to do with this concept must be emphasized.
It is not very clear what the result of the historical context was: the mentioned aerial photographs did not lead to any conclusion or discussion. Furthermore, the evolution of building construction part could be improved: how many buildings were affected by hurricane Irma and how many were reinforced or reconstructed afterwards?
The structure of the paper is logical; however, the methodology of research, results and discussion section should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting paper and topic.
In section 3.3.1, please provide examples of the voluntary organizations contacted to develop an interviewee list. Additionally, explain why this was the best way to develop a sample of respondents from the general public.
All of the subsections of 4.2 would benefit from quotes taken from the interviews with public officials. Currently, the narrative does not seem to reflect much of the interview data, which would add a richness to the analysis.
The discussion section of the paper could be enhanced by policy recommendations offered by the authors. Because they mention is experience of Irma is not a new one for the island, providing policy recommendations would be of benefit to the reader and recovery in the future.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved and my specific and technical comments have been addressed. My recommendation is to publish the paper.
