Resilience Assessment in Urban Water Infrastructure: A Critical Review of Approaches, Strategies and Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the abstract, it is not clear what the authors mean by Resilient urban water infrastructure (UWI), as there are many types of infrastructure in urban areas that have varying effects on the water balance of the area. Therefore, it is necessary to restructure the abstract in such a way that it is clear what types of infrastructures are referred to, what the problem is and how it is expected to be addressed. Line 15: What type of shocks and stresses are referred to and what is the interdependence of these components? It is necessary to be more precise. Line 18: what framework? The objective should be more precise, it is very broad and vague. In abstract, before layout of your purpose, try to add a sentence at the beginning with a brief background information description. There are too many simple conclusive statements in the abstract, which are well-known to people who are involved in this area. You should first layout a background information description. Second, point out what is the most important in the current field of research and what has not yet been solved. Third, explain your novel method in detail how you solve this problem. Last, a brief description of your own findings should be presented. If your methods and findings are novel and interesting to people involved in this area, they will continue to read your main text.

Line 53: references.

Figure 1 is not necessary, since it is obtained from a reference already cited in the text. The introduction should be improved, so that it is a single thread that leads from the more general to the more specific, as there are ideas that should go together, such as the gaps to be addressed indicated in lines 83-84 and 99-100. It is not clear what the scientific novelty of this review is with respect to others that have already been done and, many of them, cited in the manuscript. This is something that should be further described. 

Why has the community moved towards more applied research? For example, in urban areas of Latin America, they have moved from identification analyses to analyses of potential solutions, because society has been pushing for studies to be applied rather than simple diagnostic analyses that have been repeated for a long time. 

Line 211: What type of beam? Because depending on the location, amount of population and water supply processes, these hazards will vary. 

Line 268: so far it has been interesting, but it is necessary to include concrete methodologies that can be useful for people who have to carry out these actions. The manuscript is quite good, and as a final message I would only say that a section on limitations of methods and concrete actions that can be taken by the people in charge of water supply systems should be added. At the same time, it would be good to add a small paragraph on the dangers of groundwater contamination due to infiltration of pipes in urban areas, which are very common. 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing the paper and making constructive comments. Please note our responses below and the corresponding modifications highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comment #1: In the abstract, it is not clear what the authors mean by Resilient urban water infrastructure (UWI), as there are many types of infrastructure in urban areas that have varying effects on the water balance of the area. Therefore, it is necessary to restructure the abstract in such a way that it is clear what types of infrastructures are referred to, what the problem is and how it is expected to be addressed.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We revised the abstract by highlighting specific types of urban water infrastructure analysed in this manuscript. Please see the highlighted text of the abstract in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment #2: Line 15: What type of shocks and stresses are referred to and what is the interdependence of these components? It is necessary to be more precise. 

Reply: Thank you for raising this. It refers to structural and functional failures. More specifically, structural failures refers to pipe breakage and pump breakdown and functional failures refers to unmet water demand/quality, flooding and combined sewer overflows. This was clarified in the abstract and text of the revised manuscript.

 

Comment #3: Line 18: what framework? The objective should be more precise, it is very broad and vague.”.

Reply: Thank you for spotting this. We revised that sentence in the abstract as below:

This review includes examining bibliometric analysis, developed frameworks related to resilience assessment to help comprehend resilience concepts for the specified UWI systems in urban settings, strategies for improving resilience, resilience indicators and the common tools used for modelling resilience assessment in UWI.

Comment #4: In abstract, before layout of your purpose, try to add a sentence at the beginning with a brief background information description. There are too many simple conclusive statements in the abstract, which are well-known to people who are involved in this area. You should first layout a background information description. Second, point out what is the most important in the current field of research and what has not yet been solved. Third, explain your novel method in detail how you solve this problem. Last, a brief description of your own findings should be presented. If your methods and findings are novel and interesting to people involved in this area, they will continue to read your main text.

Reply: We appreciate your feedback on improving the structure and content of the abstract. The abstract has been modified to contain a brief background information description stressing the most significant components of urban water infrastructure study, a full explanation of our unique strategy for addressing the identified problem, and a concise summary of our findings. The background information sets the stage for the study by identifying current issues and gaps in the field. To highlight the distinctiveness and potential effect of our research, the novel method integrates system upgrade, decentralisation, digitalisation, and nature-based solutions to enhance UWI resilience. The key findings and recommendations are included, attracting readers' attention and enticing them to read the full text for a more comprehensive understanding. The problem statement emphasises the importance of our research and its relevance to the larger scientific community. Please see the highlighted text in the revised manuscript.

Comment #5: Line 53: references. Figure 1 is not necessary, since it is obtained from a reference already cited in the text. The introduction should be improved, so that it is a single thread that leads from the more general to the more specific, as there are ideas that should go together, such as the gaps to be addressed indicated in lines 83-84 and 99-100. It is not clear what the scientific novelty of this review is with respect to others that have already been done and, many of them, cited in the manuscript. This is something that should be further described. 

Why has the community moved towards more applied research? For example, in urban areas of Latin America, they have moved from identification analyses to analyses of potential solutions, because society has been pushing for studies to be applied rather than simple diagnostic analyses that have been repeated for a long time. 

Reply: Thank you for your comments. Although the figure is provided from the analysis of the data cited in the text as a reference, it can give a visual comparison between safety water supply and sewer systems and hence provide a more meaningful discussion in the field. Moreover, the gaps and importance of writing the present paper are discussed between lines 89 and 116. This paper is specifically comparing various resilience assessment approaches, resilience-enhancing strategies indicators and indicators. The ideas, techniques, and technologies presented in this article are entirely geared at remaining viable answers for communities seeking change for resilience improvement. Please see the changes in the introduction section.

Comment #6: Line 211: What type of beam? Because depending on the location, amount of population and water supply processes, these hazards will vary. 

Reply: Any type of stress caused by a hazard that has an impact on the physical infrastructure's functionality. We added this point in the text. Thank you.

Comment #7: Line 268: so far it has been interesting, but it is necessary to include concrete methodologies that can be useful for people who have to carry out these actions. The manuscript is quite good, and as a final message I would only say that a section on limitations of methods and concrete actions that can be taken by the people in charge of water supply systems should be added. At the same time, it would be good to add a small paragraph on the dangers of groundwater contamination due to infiltration of pipes in urban areas, which are very common. 

Reply:  Thank you for your valuable feedback. These are acknowledged, much appreciated. We added this part prior to the Conclusions section. Please see the highlighted text in that section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your paper.

Paper is suitable for our journal and journal in its field.

The paper is beautifully designed, fluid and legible at the same time.

Scientifically, both theoretical and figures and tables are given in detail and clearly.

Specific comments:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main topic of his research is Resilience Assessment in Urban Water Infrastructure.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

The topic is both specific and appropriate to the field. The authors have addressed this gap in their own countries.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The authors presented a model by comparing other publications. (See from Table 3)

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

Please consider whether Methods and Materials section is required.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Yes. There is no problem.

6. Are the references appropriate?

Suitable.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Just a minor correction that I overlooked is in Figure 6; infrastructure will be at the end of the sentence.

 

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing the paper. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The act of reviewing papers is generally an instructive process for the reviewer (accessing research, identifying flaws, contributing to ....) and can also sometimes help to identify flaws or potential shortcomings.In the case of the present research, the review has been a very enjoyable learning process for this writer, an immersion in a topic and a review of a superbly developed work.

I will try to outline what I believe are the elements that articulate excellent research. The justification for the relevance of the study is precise: the challenges and stresses faced by UWI (urban water infrastructure) require a conceptual clarification of the typology of studies developed under the label of "resilience". More precisely, the four axes of the study (bibliometrics; frameworks; strategies; and metrics / software) provide a broad, rigorous and precise overview of the state of the art (resilience in UWI). I would like to highlight the section on assessment approaches, where the authors summarise the pros and cons of technical and holistic approaches. Personally, I believe that studies (the holistic ones, with the inclusion of the institutional element in the system) are revalued, despite their obvious difficulties.

As a suggestion, I would have liked to see a table listing the 76 studies selected according to their criteria and the classification assigned to them. Peccata minuta' for a study that will undoubtedly be a reference for UWI researchers.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing the paper and making the comments. We have carefully considered all the references and revised relevant references whenever needed to ensure all aspects of the criteria and classification have been properly addressed by the appropriate references. Please note our modifications highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.