Evaluation and Optimization of Refuge Green Space in the Central Area of Tianjin for Geological Disasters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall comment: This study aims to calculate accessibility to three types of Refuge Green Space in Tianjin City. The authors chose Three Step Floating Catchment Area Method (3SFCA) as a methodology and identified High and Low Accessibility areas with Moran's I index. Although the visualized results are interesting, it was difficult to comprehend that the authors tried to identify accessibility to RGSs only or including storage capacity of RGSs. The formula contains "supply capacity (m2) (Sj)" , however, the results about storage capacity of RGSs is not indicated. Usually in case of disaster, evacuation spaces were filled with evacuees, and some of them found a space after two to three travels. The formula seems to lack such a shortage situation, therefore, assessment of RGS only on accessibility is not adequate as an assessment tool. Major comment: p.3, l.100, The authors wrote that "the RGS area per capita should be greater than 1m2 [41]." Is it appropriate for all three types of RGS? If Disaster Prevention Park Space functions as accommodation for evacuees, the required space should be greater than Emergency Sheltered Green Space. If this study looks at the supply capacity, how do you deal with the different functions among three RGSs? p.7 Figure 4 The maps show residential point (a) and the distribution of population (b), though the high densely populated area (dark brown in (b)) does not match in the map (a). The double check of consistency is strongly required. p.16 5.2 Future RGS Additional Proposal Accessibility is a perspective of assessment of RGS. The authors suggested additional RGS based on the accessibility, but the readers cannot identify present land use at the proposed areas. As a result, it is quite difficult to judge the feasibility of the proposal. A suggestion is that additional present land use analysis, and move to the analysis section, or remove this section. Minor comment 1. The legends in all figures are too small. Please adjust appropriately. 2. p.8 l.273, the formula number must be (3) because you are using (2) two times. As a result, the following formula numbers need change.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors classified the refuge greenspace into, “Emergency Sheltered Green Space and Temporary Sheltered Green Space, and Disaster Prevention Park Space” for earthquakes. Other than “total area”, are there any special features to decide the urban green space as RGS? The difference between RGS and urban green space need to be explained. Whether all UGC will act as RGS or any special features for RGS?
The capacity of the RGS were evaluated by calculating the accessibility at 5, 10, 15 and 30 15 minutes walking. The authors need to explain that this walking time is whether during the disaster event or a normal day? Because at the time of geological disasters, even the accessibility to the nearest place may get affected and it becomes difficult to reach within 5, 10 minutes.
Are these residential points are randomly fixed in the residential units? Or any specific location based
Figure 4: Heping district shows a greater number of points (residential units). But the population map represents low population in that district. Needs explanation.
Figure 5: The legend is not readable. Please modify.
Line No 498-500: “By installing Pocket Parks and Neighbourhood Parks around historic buildings, earthquakes and fires will be prevented, as well as population pressure in the central areas will be relieved” – How the earthquakes will be prevented by installing parks?
Grammar corrections
Line No: 129 “…and the Bivariate Evaluation Modle -- Index-Moran's I.”
Line 312 to 315: “The results are classified as Class I Unreachable (Vlaue: 0), Class II Low Accessibility (Vlaue: 0-0.1), Class III Relatively Low Accessibility (Vlaue: 0.1-0.5), Class IV Moderate Accessibility (Vlaue: 0.5-1.0), Class V Relatively High Accessibility (Vlaue: >2.0), and Class VI High Accessibility (Vlaue: >2.0) [82, 83]”.
In general, all figures need to be improved for their clarity and legends
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please avoid using "(1) Background:", "(2) Methods:", ... in the body of the abstract.
The logic and presentation of the abstract need to be revised. In the abstract, neither the aim nor the objective of the research are clearly stated.
The authors stated in the abstract that "Based on the conclusions, future additions and locations for the RGS are proposed." However, better implications should be provided in the abstract.
It is necessary to revise the keywords provided. In the keywords list, evacuation should at least be included.
Natural disasters are no longer used in disaster science research. Use natural hazards instead or just "disaster".
In line 33, please provide some examples.
In line 37 the authors stated, "Urban green spaces play a crucial role in enhancing urban resilience to natural disasters". Could this statement be elaborated and answered in more detail as to how it can contribute?
Revisions should be made to the introduction's structure. In the introduction, avoid using some subsections. Please divide this section into two parts, including the introduction and the literature review.
Discuss the type of evacuees. As an example, it is necessary to explain how evacuees with special needs can participate in the planning process. See: "Enhancing evacuation response to extreme weather disasters using public transportation systems: A novel simheuristic approach." Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 7.2 (2020): 195-210.
The factors should be summarized in a table with appropriate descriptions and references.
Examine how this study can be extended to other types of contexts, such as hospital evacuation and sheltering in place for evacuation patients, as well as considering hydrological natural hazards such as floods instead of geological disasters: see and use "Hospital evacuation modelling: A critical literature review on current knowledge and research gaps." International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 66 (2021): 102627. and "An integrated decision model for managing hospital evacuation in response to an extreme flood event: a case study of the Hawkesbury‐Nepean River, NSW, Australia." Safety science 155 (2022): 105867.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This article can enhance the existing body of knowledge. The modeling methodology presented in this paper can be helpful for planning safe cities with refuge capable of supporting the population during natural disasters. In the Introduction section, 2AFCA and 3AFCA can be defined a bit more elaborately. Additionally, what is the applicability of the modeling methodology on other cities?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript has been improved well. Just a few minor comments: 1. Some figures adequately put scales, though Fig.9-13 are missing. 2. Fig.4 (b) Although the legend has been updated, the unit is not clear. What does it mean 0.01, or 0.10? An explanation is required. 3. Typos Page.5, L.222; lack of a space between words Some other typos are observed in the manuscript.Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. The following revisions have been made to the article in response to the experts' comments.
1. Enlarged the legends in Figures 9 - 13 to make them more readable.
2. Units and calculations in Figure 4(b) have been explained, please see lines 345-346.
3. Spell-checked again using software and corrected spaces, misspellings and punctuation problems.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Corrections needed for Figure 4 B Population density
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions. Modifications have been made in Figure 4(b). Please see Figure 4(b) and Line 339, where the study area has been classified according to population density for the reader's understanding. In addition, the results for population density have been checked again to be correct.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
Author Response
Thank you very much for your patience and constructive comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewer thanks the authors for addressing the comments. No more comments.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your patience and constructive comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I'd like to show my comment again.
The first comment has not been improved. I understand the legends were enlarged and it is very good. My point was "Scale" which is still missing.
1. Some figures adequately put scales, though Fig.9-13 are missing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advice. The scale in Figure 9-13 has been added to the upper part of the image (0-3KM).
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for all your effort.
