Evaluation of Comprehensive Emergency Capacity to Urban Flood Disaster: An Example from Zhengzhou City in Henan Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors evaluated the comprehensive emergency response capacity to flood based on pre-disaster prevention capacity, during-disaster disposal capacity and post-disaster recovery capacity. Zhengzhou City in China was taken as a case study. The study may be helpful for urban flood management in Zhengzhou. But the authors need to further justify the innovation of the paper and the reasonability of results. Firstly, what is the innovation of the paper? Assessment methods or assessment indexes? The 15 CERCF indexes selected by the authors are very common in previous flood risk assessment studies, and the objective weighting methods have been also widely used in previous studies. Secondly, Are the assessment results reasonable? In the study, there is a lack of validation of the reasonableness of the results. In addition, there are some other problems in the paper, for example, there is only one figure in the paper, and I suggest the author to add pictures. How to determine the criteria for classifying the grades?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for the insightful and constructive comments. We have revised the paper to take into account these comments and incorporate your suggestions. And we pick out your questions according to the chapters and reply one by one. Authors’ response is shown in italics, and new text is highlighted in red. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript contributes to an analysis of disaster resistance capacity of Zhengzhou City, China under floods. The merits of the research would be the data analysis and discussions comparing the experiences of the city in July 2021. Based on this, I have several concerns as follows.
1. Transportation infrastructure is neglected which would be a lifeline system under flooding disaster. Although a city might have good performance of many indicators, it is hard to deliver the resources under flooding if transportation infrastructure system does not work well.
2. How the weight values in Table 1 are calculated and determined? Some of the index and corresponding meaning are strange. For example, the Proportion of population aged 15-59%, Urbanization rate, and so on. The parameters in equations 2,3,4 should be clearly and professionally introduced.
3. The methodology part should be ahead of the data analyses.
4. A city would demonstrate different capability against flood disasters. What kind of disasters or how did the authors identify the impacts of floods in this manuscript?
5. This is a data driven research, and it is important to present data information in detail.
6. How were the criteria in Table 3 made? Is there any theoretical or practical foundation?
7. Most of the Conclusions are results instead of conclusion, which should be re-written.
8. Discussion on comparison between the research results and real world situations of Zhengzhou in July 2021 would be necessary.
9. The literature review section is limited and less of in-depth analyses and discussion of the literature. There are many research efforts on flooding, vulnerability, and resilience in sustainable transportation which should be included in the literature review to show a full picture of researches in this field. For example,
Modeling network resilience of rail transit under operational incidents, Transportation Research Part A, 2018, 117, 227-237.
Modeling network vulnerability of urban rail transit under cascading failures: A Coupled Map Lattices approach, 2022, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2022, 221, 108320.
Identification and prioritization of critical transportation infrastructure: Case study of coastal flooding, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2015, 141 (3), 04014082.
10. There are too many abbreviations in the Abstract.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for the insightful and constructive comments. We have revised the paper to take into account these comments and incorporate your suggestions. And we pick out your questions according to the chapters and reply one by one. Authors’ response is shown in italics, and new text is highlighted in red. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made changes in response to my comments. But, the authors also need to further justify the innovation in the manuscript, assessment methods or assessment indexes? The 15 CERCF indexes selected by the authors are very common in previous flood risk assessment studies, and the objective weighting methods have been also widely used in previous studies.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for the insightful and constructive comments. We have revised the paper to take into account these comments and incorporate your suggestions. And we pick out your questions according to the chapters and reply one by one. Authors’ response is shown in italics, and new text is highlighted in red. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. Please see the attachment.
Xianghai LI, Mengjie LI, Kaikai CUI, Tao LU, Delin LIU
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the authors' efforts.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thanks for your suggestions and affirmation.
Xianghai LI, Mengjie LI, Kaikai CUI, Tao LU, Delin LIU
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the paper according to my comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer: We have revised the article according to your previous comments. Thanks for your affirmation and dedication. Xianghai LI, Mengjie LI, Kaikai CUI, Tao LU, Delin LIU