Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2226113
Title: Are biodiversity data associated with resilience to tsunamis in Chilean urban areas? The role of ecoinformatics in Smart Cities.
OVERVIEW
The study provides new insight into the relationship between biodiversity and the resilience of social communities prone to tsunamis.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The subject matter is actual, interesting and within the scope of the Journal Sustainability.
The manuscript complies with the journal template.
The title has a question and ecoinformatics and smart cities are not the core of the manuscript. Please consider changing the title to “The role of biodiversity on resilience to tsunamis in Chilean urban areas”, for example.
The English spelling and grammar are fine.
The manuscript is original, and plagiarism was not detected.
The objectives are clearly stated.
The manuscript provides information on its replicability and reproducibility.
The analyses are appropriate and well-described.
The tables and figures are fine.
The interpretation and results are supported by the data.
The conclusions do not report the major findings of the study and must be improved.
The strengths and limitations of the study should be better emphasized.
The manuscript structure, flow and writing are fine.
In conclusion, I believe this manuscript is interesting and worthy of publication after minor changes.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments.

Point 1: The subject matter is actual, interesting and within the scope of the Journal Sustainability.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments

 

Point 2: The manuscript complies with the journal template. 

Response 2: Thanks, we did our best effort to comply

 

Point 3: The title has a question and ecoinformatics and smart cities are not the core of the manuscript. Please consider changing the title to “The role of biodiversity on resilience to tsunamis in Chilean urban areas”, for example.

Response 3: Indeed, this comment made us realize that a much better title is possible. Following your suggestion, the new title is: “Biodiversity and Resilience to tsunamis in Chilean urban areas. The role of Ecoinformatics to understand NCP”

 

Point 4: The English spelling and grammar are fine.

The manuscript is original, and plagiarism was not detected.

The objectives are clearly stated.

The manuscript provides information on its replicability and reproducibility.

The analyses are appropriate and well-described.

The tables and figures are fine.

The interpretation and results are supported by the data..

Response 4: Thank you for your good comments

 

Point 5: The conclusions do not report the major findings of the study and must be improved. The strengths and limitations of the study should be better emphasized. The manuscript structure, flow and writing are fine.

Response 5: Thank you. We have improved our conclusions by highlighting our findings. Also, we think that the new title partly points toward the major findings, so both comments contributed to giving a more coherent thread to the work.

 

Point 6: In conclusion, I believe this manuscript is interesting and worthy of publication after minor changes

Response 6: We appreciate your assertive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The main topic in the submitted paper is contribution of biodiversity to community resilience to tsunamies in the coastal parts of Chile. The authors applied a qualitative analyses based on Nature's Contribution to People methodological approach. The combined sets of data from various sectors, like biodiversity observation, economic value, surface area threatened by tsunami, etc. Relevant indices were calculated (Species Richness, Gini-Simpson, Pielou), and distribution of indices is presented with charts and graphs. The authors pointed out the biases are still present, and that thay did not confirm that more biodiverstiy of urban coastal areas in Chile provides more resilience. The authors identified insufficient monitoring and knowledge on biodiversity, with most of data related to records of bird fauna. 

Appendix C, in column: Class, change in: "Taxonomic group" because "class" is rank of the one of taxa classified; "Birds" change in "Aves"; because all other taxonomic groups of different rank are wirtten under their scientific (latin) name. When analysing list of classes in Table A1, some taxonomic groups can be combined, such as: Magnoliopsida+Liliopsida+Phaeophycaeae+MArchantiopsida+Pinopsida
+Gnetopsida is total 2612 occurrences, or 1,5 %. This number is appropriate result which can be included as part of the subchapter 3.2. Biodiversity. 

The vegetation specifities in the coastal area of Chile exposed to tsunamies is not described in more details.

Chapter: References, authors are strongly advised to check Instructions for Authors, and recently publish papers in the journal Sustainability. The journals names must be abbreviated, not written with full journal names. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments.

Point 1: The main topic in the submitted paper is contribution of biodiversity to community resilience to tsunamies in the coastal parts of Chile. The authors applied a qualitative analyses based on Nature's Contribution to People methodological approach. The combined sets of data from various sectors, like biodiversity observation, economic value, surface area threatened by tsunami, etc. Relevant indices were calculated (Species Richness, Gini-Simpson, Pielou), and distribution of indices is presented with charts and graphs. The authors pointed out the biases are still present, and that thay did not confirm that more biodiverstiy of urban coastal areas in Chile provides more resilience. The authors identified insufficient monitoring and knowledge on biodiversity, with most of data related to records of bird fauna. 

Response 1: Thank you. This is a proper summary of our work.

Point 2: Appendix C, in column: Class, change in: "Taxonomic group" because "class" is rank of the one of taxa classified; "Birds" change in "Aves"; because all other taxonomic groups of different rank are wirtten under their scientific (latin) name. When analysing list of classes in Table A1, some taxonomic groups can be combined, such as: Magnoliopsida+Liliopsida+Phaeophycaeae+MArchantiopsida+Pinopsida
+Gnetopsida is total 2612 occurrences, or 1,5 %. This number is appropriate result which can be included as part of the subchapter 3.2. Biodiversity. 

Response 2: Thank you for your assertive comment. We have corrected the appendix and included it in the subchapter.

Point 3: The vegetation specifities in the coastal area of Chile exposed to tsunamies is not described in more details.

Response 3: While many databases hosting vegetation information exist to describe the coastal flora in Chile (e.g: National inventory of species of Chile, Biodiversity Information and Monitoring System and Territorial Information System) report occurrences, geographic locations, or dates. These three variables together are essential to determine biodiversity indicators used in this work. For example, the biodiversity information and monitoring system from the Chilean ministry for the environment includes a geoportal serving information on ecosystem types and species by geographic zone lacking the exact geographic location of occurrences. Little academic information available in these types of open database makes us emphasize the importance of directing efforts toward opening up biodiversity data in Chile. This is analysis is presented in discussions.

Point 4: Chapter: References, authors are strongly advised to check Instructions for Authors, and recently publish papers in the journal Sustainability. The journals names must be abbreviated, not written with full journal names. 

Response 4: Thanks for noticing this. We have improved our references by installing ACS style in our Mendeley platform.

Reviewer 3 Report

According to the authors, the main objective of the study is to provide new insight into the relationship between biodiversity and the resilience of social communities prone to tsunamis. These are studies primarily of social importance. The impact of the tsunami occurring in the area vs. land use options. I could offer some suggestions to improve this manuscript based on careful review. 

Comments:

1) The study lacked reliable material on biodiversity, which the authors also note.

2) In part, from para. 1 shows that correlation coefficients are low.

3) Abstract should be condensed.

4) The bibliography lacks access dates and possibly links to sites.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments.

Point 0: According to the authors, the main objective of the study is to provide new insight into the relationship between biodiversity and the resilience of social communities prone to tsunamis. These are studies primarily of social importance. The impact of the tsunami occurring in the area vs. land use options. I could offer some suggestions to improve this manuscript based on careful review. 

Response 0: We are thankful for your review

Comments:

Point 1: The study lacked reliable material on biodiversity, which the authors also note.

Response 1: Indeed, this is a highlight in our findings.

Point 2: In part, from para. 1 shows that correlation coefficients are low.

Response 2: Thanks for your comment, but we do not understand it clearly. Do you mean the abstract? Is this a comment to improve or just an annotation of our results? If it is the second, it is correct and your notes are proper.

Point 3: Abstract should be condensed.

Response 3: Thank you. We have improved and reduced our abstract.

Point 4: The bibliography lacks access dates and possibly links to sites.

Response 4: Thanks for noticing this. This occurs due to the type of reference: in some cases (e.g: GBIF API Summary, SHOA CITSU) we used “miscellaneous” type in Mendeley platform, and the reference style of misc does not show their url. We are correcting this.  

 

Reviewer 4 Report

This article discusses the availability of biodiversity data in understanding the resilience of natural habitats to human settlements. The findings of the study are of reference value for smart city planning. However, there are some issues suggested to be modified and improved.

1. The abstract is not comprehensive enough to summarize the research content of the article, and it should be revised.

2. The conclusion is relatively limited, and the key role of biodiversity data in improving smart city planning should be supplemented.

3. The lack of biodiversity data affects the rationality of the analysis results in the article. It is suggested to cite existing research results to demonstrate the rationality of the conclusion in this paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments.

Point 1: The abstract is not comprehensive enough to summarize the research content of the article, and it should be revised.

Response 1: Thank you. We have improved and reduced our abstract.

Point 2: The conclusion is relatively limited, and the key role of biodiversity data in improving smart city planning should be supplemented.

Response 2: We have improved our conclusions by highlighting our findings and the role of biodiversity data in smart cities.

Point 3: The lack of biodiversity data affects the rationality of the analysis results in the article. It is suggested to cite existing research results to demonstrate the rationality of the conclusion in this paper

Response 3: This work seeks to be a contribution to understanding the role that plays biodiversity in tsunami resilience, and to reach this understanding, data availability is necessary and plannings on smart cities may be helpful to get data in urban places, including biodiversity data. This is the rationality of our work. However, as we realized due to the lack of data on biodiversity, we are not in conditions to get to conclusions about how biodiversity influences resilience. We now clarified these points in the discussion.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After checking the second version of the manuscript the Reviewer noticed that authors applied specific comments and suggestions, so the manuscript is improved.
Despite the authors respond that chapter References is re-arranged according to Instructions for Authors, this is not correct. The names of the cited journals MUST be abbreviated, where this is applicable.
Reference No 3: "Functional Ecology" must be abbreviated as "Funct. Ecol.
Reference No 21: "Journal of Environmental Management" must be abbreviated as "J. Environ. Manage."
It can be very easily checked on the web.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments.

Point 1: After checking the second version of the manuscript the Reviewer noticed that authors applied specific comments and suggestions, so the manuscript is improved.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments.

Point 2: Despite the authors respond that chapter References is re-arranged according to Instructions for Authors, this is not correct. The names of the cited journals MUST be abbreviated, where this is applicable.

Response 2: Thank you for your deep and neat revision. According to the journal instructions for authors and the template*, the journal abbreviations could be fixed by the editors. However, we corrected them in our new version following your revision. Thank you again for noticing this mistake.

 

* LateX template. % Please provide either the correct journal abbreviation (e.g. according to the “List of Title Word Abbreviations” http://www.issn.org/services/online-services/access-to-the-ltwa/) or the full name of the journal.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors consider the latest Reviewer's comments and made an improved chapter references with correct usage of the journal name abbreviations. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments.

The authors consider the latest Reviewer's comments and made an improved chapter references with correct usage of the journal name abbreviations. 

Response : Thank you for your comments. We are also working on improving the quality of our English, and we have taken the editor's comments into consideration to clarify our work.