Evaluation of Flooding Disaster Risks for Subway Stations Based on the PSR Cloud Model

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We value your comments and carefully consider your questions and suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

The study design, questions, assumptions and methodology are shown in lines 81-86 of the last paragraph of the introduction and lines 208-235 of the 3 research methods section.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

The results of the study are carried out according to the process in the research methodology, and the results are explained, see the 4.3 Comparative Cloud Determination Results section and the 4.4 Result Analysis part.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [ The content mentioning the characteristics of rainstorms in the Introduction part lacks relevant references.]

Response 1: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The characteristics of heavy rain are the author's conclusions based on observations in life and some references. In response to your question, we have added references to the characteristics of heavy rainfall, which you can find in reference 3 in line 32 of the first paragraph of the introduction, and references 4 and 5 in line 34

Comments 2: [In the end, there is no general summary of the content of this paper. It can be added to make the structure of this paper more complete.]

Response 2: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Agree. Therefore, we have revised the content of the conclusion section and emphasized this point in the list. You can see our specific changes in lines 453-498 of the fifth conclusion.

Comments 3: [ The first paragraph of the Literature Review introduces two methods for risk assessment of rainstorm and flood hazards respectively, but the characteristics of the two methods are not compared and summarized.]

Response 3: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Agree. Therefore, we have added the respective characteristics of the two methods in lines 93-96 in the second paragraph and 110-113 in the third paragraph of the literature review section of Part 2, and compared and summarize the two methods in the fourth paragraph 129-133.

Comments 4: [ Properly distinguish the format of the reference and the text to avoid confusion with the text content.]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with that comment. We've made changes to the full-text citation format against the template.

Comments 5: [ In the third part of the article, the content of "flood risk assessment flow chart of subway station" can be supplemented with words to explain.]

Response 5: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Agree. Therefore, we have added some text to explain. You can find it in lines 202-235 above "Subway Station Flood Risk Assessment Flow Chart" in Part III Research Methodology.

Comments 6: [ The phenomenon shown in Figure 2 lacks a specific explanation and is not clear.]

Response 6: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Agree. Therefore, we have added a paragraph after Figure 2 to explain. You can find it in lines 302-314 of 3.2.3

Comments 7: [ The three conclusions mentioned in the abstract are not reflected in the Conclusion, and the structure of the paper is not complete enough.]

Response 7: Agree. We're sorry, but we found some issues with the summary section. Therefore, some changes have been made to the content in the summary. In addition, in response to your questions, we have revised the content of the conclusion section and highlighted this point. You can see our specific changes in the conclusion section.

Comments 8: [ There are some Limitations aspects in the Conclusion, so you can add a subtitle to expand the description and enrich the content of the article.]

Response 8: Thank you for the suggestion, since the conclusion has less content, the subtitle is not added, but is given in the form of column points, which you can find in the conclusion.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We value your comments and carefully consider your questions and suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research(if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [What are the most effective methods for improving the resilience of subway stations to rainstorm waterlogging disasters?]

Response 1: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Thank you for your question, for this. On the one hand, it is mainly to improve the situation of subway entrances and exits, such as terrain, step height, etc., on the other hand, improve the quality of flood control emergency plan preparation, improve flood control emergency system, strengthen meteorological information early warning analysis, through the design and construction of waterproof facilities, improve drainage capacity, strengthen monitoring and early warning, increase backup power supply, strengthen maintenance and management, and strengthen publicity and education, etc., can effectively improve the resilience of subway stations to heavy rain and waterlogging disasters.

Comments 2: [How can the cloud model algorithm be adapted to assess the risk of disasters in other types of transportation systems?]

Response 2: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Thank you for your question. So my answer is that adapting cloud model algorithms to assess disaster risk in other types of transportation systems requires steps such as data collection, algorithm customization, risk assessment framework development, model validation, and continuous improvement. Mainly through the adjustment of the standard cloud build. Standard cloud builds are for different types of transportation systems, and standard cloud builds have different hierarchical ratings, so cloud feature values are different. Through these steps, it is possible to adapt the characteristics and vulnerabilities of different transport systems, accurately assess their disaster risks, and propose corresponding responses.

Comments 3: [How can the risk cloud map be used to inform decision-making and improve emergency response planning for subway stations?]

Response 3: Thank you for your question, about this. My answer is to improve the subway station emergency plan based on the information at each criterion level in the risk cloud map. (See lines 403-449 in section 4.4)

Comments 4: [The introduction can be improved. In particular, many recent researches employ machine learning techniques to predict disasters. Some references to build the related work.]

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion, we have added some content on machine learning, which you can find in paragraph 5 of the literature review section.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have rechecked the English language for errors and changed it.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We value your comments and carefully consider your questions and suggestions.Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research(if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling?

Can be improved

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

The results of the study were carried out according to the process of the research methodology and were illustrated using text tables and graphs. Added a description of the results, see 4.3 Comparison Cloud Determination Results and 4.4 Results Analysis Section.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The research is limited to data collected from one metro station, which I find insufficient.]

Response 1: Thank you for your question, for this. My answer is that the selected subway station is a three-line transfer, with many exits, and there has been waterlogging. Representative. So choose as the research object. In future studies, a number of different types of subway stations can be compared and analyzed.

Comments 2: [In the second part, the authors discuss the literature review on the given issue, which I consider to be somewhat nonstandard.]

Response 2: [We have marked this modification in red in the manuscript] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have therefore made adjustments to the Literature Review section, and you can find the changes we have made in the Literature Review section on lines 93-113 and 124-168.

Comments 3: [Discussion supplemented by comments from cited sources is absent in the article. It would be good to add and write whether similar research has not already been carried out.]

Response 3: Agreed, we have added a related discussion of the analysis of results, which you can find in the first paragraph of 4.4

Comments 4: [Incorrectly cited literary sources are listed throughout the article. It is necessary for authors to study how to properly cite in a given journal.]

Response 4: Agreed, so we changed the way the erroneous citation in the article was based on the template.