Evaluation of Urban Resilience of China’s Three Major Urban Agglomerations Using Complex Adaptive System Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article assesses the urban resilience of three large Chinese agglomerations. However, the study lacks innovation, and the method section is confusing. Here are some suggestions for revising the paper further.

1. The paper's research contributions are unclear. Given the abundance of papers on urban resilience in China, what makes your research stand out?

2. What is the significance of the cities highlighted in Figure 1?

3. How should the urban resilience evaluation index in Section 3.2 be chosen? Is there any justification?

4. What is the meaning of EUR in line 198? In line 193, what is HEP? The mechanism for calculating urban resilience is unclear. More explanation and justification are required.

5. What is the standard for categorising various levels of urban resilience?

6. It is advised that more discussions be added to demonstrate the paper's contributions.

7. Please double-check the citation format.

 

8. Please double-check the English throughout the paper.

 

Please double-check the English throughout the paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topics of the article titled: "Evaluation of urban resilience of China's three major urban agglomerations using complex adaptive system theory" may be of interest to the reader. However, the manuscript needs revisions. 

- The objective of the article should be clarified. It should be presented both in the abstract and in the introduction, the current form may not be clear to the reader.

- The abstract should be enriched with brief details of the experimental methodology.

- The methodology of the manuscript needs to be discussed in more detail.

- The abstract should present quantitative results.

- The quality of Figures 3 and 7 can be improved.

- More technical discussion should be added to the presented experimental results.

- The conclusions should be developed and briefly presented. More numerical results should be added. 

- No critical review/discussion before Conclusions. The authors should add them.

- What are the limitations of the present study? They should be mentioned in the manuscript.

- The novelty and significance of the present work should be highlighted in the last paragraph of the Introduction section.

- What is the need for this work? Is this work helpful for practical applications? What kind of applications?

In the reviewer's opinion, consideration of the above comments will improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is interesting, especially due to the size and complexity of the research objects, which are the selected cities. In scientific research, the accuracy and reliability of assumptions are very important, and these in the case of the cities presented in the work are very difficult to determine and require the researcher to know the cities, regions, the country, the societies and cultural codes that live there.
Therefore, I believe that this article can serve as a basis for the exchange of scientific results especially of Chinese researchers (familiar with Chinese society and urban, sociological and climatic conditions. In turn, all researchers - scientists working on similar topics can exchange experiences on research methodology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article "Evaluation of urban resilience of China's three major urban agglomerations using complex adaptive system theory" aims to evaluate the resilience of China's three major urban agglomerations (BTH, YRD, and GHMB) using the complex adaptive systems theory. The study proposes a resilience evaluation model based on measuring disaster severity, exposure, bearing capacity, recoverability, and learnability.

There are several areas in which the article needs improvement.

1.      The article needs to pay more attention to the readability issue. For example, it is essential to explain abbreviations the first time they are used in the text. In the abstract, abbreviations such as BTH, YRD, and GHMB are unclear and require clarification regarding their respective meanings. For example, if by BTH, you refer to Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, it is not clear in the text. The same happens in line 87.

2.      The article needs enhancement in terms of citation. For example, in lines 66-68, the Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory needs citation as it is used for the first time in the text.

3.      In the introduction section, the study performed a literature review on the definitions of resilience. It is recommended first to improve this part. Additionally, since the article's main objective is to evaluate resilience, it is essential to provide a background on the evaluation methods already established in the existing literature.

4.      On page 3, each single study area, for example, BTH, consists of several regions in different zones. The text does not explain why these areas are selected, despite not being geographically neighbors. So it is recommended to explain what (perhaps the economic or infrastructural connectivity) makes them a unique region.

5.      Part 2.2 is very short and lacks enough information on the data that the authors utilized.

6.   In section 3.1, the procedure of CAS that has been used needs a description. Although Figure 2 is provided, it is unclear how each step is followed in this specific article.

7.      Lines 166-169: it is not clear how D is calculated. What are the hazards or disasters in your case studies, and what variables are used?

8.      Looking at page 5: overall, the definition of the indicators (for example, D, E, etc.) needs a more scientific explanation. For instance, formula 2 is not clear. Do the authors consider the exposure as a sum of population densities? Exposure to the risks in the resilience context is a more complicated concept.

 

Article needs some moderate English editing

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The present manuscript is a very interesting study and has many points that can be considered innovative. The methodology proposed is very helpful for city design and policy making.

I appreciated the introduction which is very informative.

The description of the investigated areas as well as the methodology are reported in detail (see comments).

The figures proposed are very informative.

The results are proposed in a clear manner (see comments) and highly descriptive of the outcomes.

The conclusions are well organized and in line with the obtained results.

The literature proposed is very complete and allows the reader further deepening.

Specific comments:

as few shortcomings, I see in the paper:

1. the utilization in the abstract of acronyms not specified: the reader does not immediately understand. Only at the end of page 2 the mystery is solved. Please anticipate the description

2.   At the end of page 5 appears the sentence: "Define symbols.". this very short statement does not help the reader to understand that the authors are starting to describe the previous symbology. I suggest a much more indicative statement something such as: The definition of the symbols utilised follows. I know this is a very little shortcoming but it could be helpful.

3. At the end of page 10 suddenly appears the word "toughness". It is not easy to fully grasp what the authors mean. I suggest rephrasing giving a better definition in order to have no uncertainties on what we are talking about.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Research contributions are still not so clear.

Discussions can be improved with more dietails, such as the comparions with previous studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

非常感谢您的意见和专业建议。这些意见有助于提高我们稿件的学术严谨性。根据您的建议和要求，我们对修订后的稿件进行了更正修改。修订部分在修订版中标有黄色。对审稿人的逐点答复如下。

 

#1 给作者的意见和建议

研究贡献仍然不那么明确。

作者的回应：

我们非常感谢您的上述建议。正如审稿人所建议的，我们改进了稿件的内容。我们修订了引言，以展示本研究的贡献和创新（第95-102行）。

 

#2 给作者的意见和建议

讨论可以通过更多的尾巴来改进，例如与以前的研究进行比较。

作者的回应：

我们在讨论中添加了细节（456-462、465-468、474-476行），特别是与先前研究的比较。我们希望它能够改进讨论。

 

我们衷心感谢您的热情工作，并希望更正得到认可。期待您的来信。

 

万事如意，

 

张强