A Comprehensive Assessment of Buildings for Post-Disaster Sustainable Reconstruction: A Case Study of Beirut Port
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
The paper is interesting and highlight the important topic for the case study country. I have following suggestions to improve it;
1. Revise the abstract and add the methodology part in it.
2. Revisit the introduction and you directly jumped to purpose. Develop your case first.
3. The literature review is weak, Add properly what merits and demerits previous work has?
4. Method is also not clear and basic. Elaborate it.
5. How you validated your findings? add it
6. Discussion enhances too short it.
7. Revisit conclusion too.
8. Add limitation section and table of abbreviations.
Minor errors
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his comments, which allowed us to improve the paper.
All the comments were considered in the revision as follows:
Comment 1
Revise the abstract and add the methodology part in it.
Response 1
The abstract was revised; a description of the methodology was also added (lines 12 – 22)
Comment 2
- Revisit the introduction and you directly jumped to purpose. Develop your case first.
Response 2
The introduction was modified. The case is presented in lines (28-32).
Comment 3
- The literature review is weak, Add properly what merits and demerits previous work has?
Response 3
The literature review was modified (lines 117 – 132).
The following references were added as suggested by other reviewers: 13-14; 18 to 22
Comment 4
The method is also not clear and basic. Elaborate it.
Response 4
The methodology was modified to address this comment (lines 79 – 93).
Comment 5
How you validated your findings? add it
Response 5
- The selection of indicators was based on experts' opinions as explained in the methodology.
- The model was validated through its application to the port of Beirut. Data was collected using questionnaires and visits. The Physical Priority Index (PPI) and the Socio-Economic Priority Index (SEPI) were determined using the proposed model and collected data. As explained in lines (762-772), the buildings ranking was checked for some buildings.
Comment 6
Discussion enhances too short it.
Response 6
The discussion was enhanced by adding the comments in lines (762-772).
Comment 7
Revisit the conclusion too.
Response 7
The conclusion was enhanced by adding a paragraph (Lines 801-806).
Comment 8
Add limitation section and table of abbreviations.
Response 8
A section was added about the research limitation (Lines 778-786).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that document is very interesting and an opportune proposal in accord to journal topic. I only consider that may be improved adding more recent references.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his comments, which allowed us to improve the paper.
All the comments were considered in the revision as follows:
Comment 1
I think that document is very interesting and an opportune proposal in accord to journal topic.
I only consider that it may be improved by adding more recent references.
Response 1
The following 11 references were added:
- References 13-14
- References 18 to 22
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a well written and highly informative account of a developed system that can be applied to post-disaster buildings and situations.
The description of the process is strong, and the application of the formula to a specific area is highly appropriate.
The conclusions are short and do not really reflect upon the appropriateness of the methodology. There is no reflection upon the efficacy of the method, no discussions about whether the results are as expected, or indeed correct. This is a shame, because this is a strong paper let down by this lack of deliberation about the subject itself.
It would have been good to see some images of the buildings that are being discussed, and there are two maps included, neither show the position of the explosion, just the position of the buildings affected by it.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his comments, which allowed us to improve the paper.
All the comments were considered in the revision as follows:
Comment 1
The conclusions are short and do not really reflect upon the appropriateness of the methodology. There is no reflection upon the efficacy of the method, no discussions about whether the results are as expected or indeed correct. This is a shame, because this is a strong paper let down by this lack of deliberation about the subject itself.
Response 1
The conclusion was modified as suggested by the reviewer (Lines 789-806).
Comment 2
The concIt would have been good to see some images of the buildings being discussed, and there are two maps included; neither shows the position of the explosion, just the position of the buildings affected by it.
Response 2
- The position of the explosion was added to the maps.
- Unfortunately, we cannot add images to the paper because of privacy.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have discussed a very relevant and essential topic pertaining to sustainable assessments of post-disaster reconstruction, specifically the case of the Beruit port disaster. This manuscript needs major revision, there is too much content, and it looks like a detailed report. The authors should reduce the content and make it more concise. Much of the information in the Figure and Table can be part of supplementary files. It is very difficult to understand the specific outcomes of this study, but I feel this manuscript will be good for publication following major revision.
There are sentence-forming errors and confusion on certain occasions. Please improve the quality of English for the manuscript.
Author Response
Comment 1
This manuscript needs major revision, there is too much content, and it looks like a detailed report. The authors should reduce the content and make it more concise. Much of the information in the Figure and Table can be part of supplementary files. It is very difficult to understand the specific outcomes of this study, but I feel this manuscript will be good for publication following major revision.
Response 1
Some materials, such as figures and algorithms, were put in appendices (A and B)
The abstract was modified to present well the objective, methodology, and outcome (Lines 12 – 22)
The introduction was modified to introduce well the paper’s objective and contribution (lines 27 – 32)
The section methodology was improved (lines 78 – 93)
The section discussion was improved (lines 762 – 786)
A section was added about the research limitation (lines 778 -786)
The conclusion was improved (lines 801-806)
Comment 2
There are sentence-forming errors and confusion on certain occasions. Please improve the quality of English for the manuscript.
Response 2
The English quality was improved.
Reviewer 5 Report
· Line 52,53,54 modify as
a new Build-Back-Better conceptual model is developed to analyze recovery after the Changning earth quake in China, where they integrated 35 indicators covering different fields such as
maintaining sustainable livelihoods and community resilience[8].
· Line 227, The damage level scale ranges from 1 to 4: damage level 2, what do you mean the structural and non structural damage, specify
· Damage level 3 and 4, what is the basis for that other than visible observation, any qualitative assessment is carried out?
Author Response
Comment1
- Line 52,53,54 modify as
a new Build-Back-Better conceptual model is developed to analyze recovery after the Changning earth quake in China, where they integrated 35 indicators covering different fields such as
maintaining sustainable livelihoods and community resilience[8].
Response 1
The modification was made in Lines (54-57)
Comment 2
- Line 227, The damage level scale ranges from 1 to 4: damage level 2, what do you mean the structural and non structural damage, specify
- Damage level 3 and 4, what is the basis for that other than visible observation, any qualitative assessment is carried out?
Response 2
A section was added to explain the damage level (Lines 254 – 261)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
I appreciate your efforts in revised manuscript. I believe you might need help from your peers to improve it squarely. I think, your efforts could not improve the paper.
"The research starts with a literature review concerning the assessment methods for post-disaster damage." Such statements are not encouraged in abstract and similarly your fast pure in the introduction is paper aim.
I suggest to revisit my last comments and improve the paper accordingly.
moderate changes are required.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his comments, which were considered in the revision, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed all my queries and adequately revised the manuscript.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for his comments which allow them to improve the paper
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
It is improved now.
