Correlation between Building Damages and Losses with the Microzonation Map of Mataram—Case Study: Lombok Earthquake 2018, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates the correlation between damage and losses sustained in Mataram city following the 2018 Lombok earthquake with the microzonation map of the region, using the weighted overlay GIS method. From this analysis, a direct correlation was obtained between microzonation maps and the sustained damage/losses in a zone, thereby demonstrating the potential of this research for mapping earthquake threats in a given area.  

The paper is for the most part easy to follow, while the subject is also very interesting. However, several improvements are needed (particularly with respect to the clarity of the manuscript). Please see below:

General comments:

• The authors are encouraged to refer to previous studies that have adopted a similar methodology. If this has not been done before, then please highlight the novelty of this approach instead.
• Formatting of numbers and significant figures/precision – The authors are requested to please be consistent with how they present numbers. In some places the “.” symbol is used as a thousands separator and in other places “,” is used instead, which causes some confusion. This is the case both in the tables and the text. Additionally, the damages/losses in terms of USD are presented precise to the cent (i.e. to the 0.01 USD). I do not think there is any need for such a high degree of precision, instead it is recommended to either round it up to the nearest millionth (or thousandth) dollar. Also, in some places the authors present the currency in terms of XX USD and in other places they use US$ XX. Please be consistent.   
• Consistency of scales – The earthquake magnitude seems at different times to be expressed in Mb, M and the MMI scale. The authors are requested to pick one scale for the whole paper and to stick to it.
• Some of the tables are not presented in order. Notably Tables 2, 3 and 4 are referred to in the text before Table 1.

Specific questions/comments:

• Line 62: “with a magnitude of 6.9 M” – which scale is this measured in?
• Line 68: What does “URL 2” refer to?
• Line 145: Infrastructure damage of only $1,700 seems low compared to the damages from other sectors.
• Line 149: How did the authors determine that all other areas in Lombok had the highest damage in the residential sector? This is not very clear to me. Reference is made here to Figure 3, but this only seems to indicate the percentage of damaged buildings per district in Mataram, without really distinguishing between residential and non-residential buildings.
• Lines 150-151: $31 million (housing) vs $1.6 million (non-housing) still makes it seem that housing (residential structures) has higher damage/losses.
• Line 152: Reference is made here to Table 1, but I think this should be Table 2. Same comment for Tables 2 and 3 in Line 155 (should be Tables 3 and 4).
• Line 157: Damage/losses that occurred in the different districts are not shown in this order in Table 3(4). Please modify the text accordingly.
• Lines 178-179: Shouldn’t the description of the blue zone be in the previous paragraph?
• Line 200: Should this be Table 5?
• Figure 5: There seems to be a disconnect between what is shown in Figure 5 and what is stated in the text in lines 217-224. Namely in the text it is mentioned that the microzonation map and data on damage and losses in each district will be compared, as well as residential area data. However, in Figure 5 it seems that Geology and Morphology data will also be used. Could the authors please clarify? Additionally, could the authors also please clarify what the “Deformation” data refers to?
• Line 240: Seems to be a typo here – shouldn’t “a” be “∂”?
• Table 2: Do the ‘units’ of the Damage Data correspond to the number of damaged buildings?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is well written.

The main weak point is the limited presentation of similar works in other areas and a clear description of the new point of the present one.

Some more references that describe the global effort has to be added. We suggest

Sarris, C. Loupasakis, P. Soupios, V. Trigkas, F. Vallianatos, “Earthquake vulnerability and seismic risk assessment of urban areas in high seismic regions: Application to Chania City, Crete Island, Greece”, Natural Hazards 54(2), 395-412, 2010

M. Moisidi, F. Vallianatos, S. Kershaw, P. Collins, “Seismic site characterization of the Kastelli (Kissamos) Basin in northwest Crete (Greece): assessments using ambient noise recordings”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering , 13 (3),  725-753, 2015

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. we have included the journal "Sarris, C. Loupasakis, P. Soupios, V. Trigkas, F. Vallianatos, “Earthquake vulnerability and seismic risk assessment of urban areas in high seismic regions: Application to Chania City, Crete Island, Greece”, Natural Hazards 54(2), 395-412, 2010"  as one of the additional references in our journal.