Urban Resilience Index for Critical Infrastructure: A Scenario-Based Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction in Road Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Enclosed
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript "Urban Resilience Index for Critical Infrastructure: A Scenario-Based Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction of Road Networks". We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have put into providing us with valuable feedback to improve our work.
In response to your comments, we have made the following main changes to the manuscript:
Key Changes:
- Expanded the Abstract to include a numerical inference from the analysis, stating that "Scenario 2, Proactive Resilience Planning, demonstrates a 7.6% increase compared to Scenario 1, Reactive Flood Response, and a 3.5% increase compared to Scenario 3, Early Warning Systems Implementation."
- Provided the full form of abbreviations (CAPEX and OPEX) in the first mention.
- Restructured the 2.1 (Urban Resilience Stages) sub-section to align with commonly used stage naming and structure.
- Revised the 2.2 (Critical infrastructure) sub-section to include a more comprehensive literature review on the use of critical infrastructure data and models in the specific region of interest.
- Added an additional paragraph to provide a more in-depth interpretation of the scatter plot in Figure 4.
- Revised the caption of Figure 4 to accurately reflect the correlation between the composite metric derived and the RMI, and added axis titles.
- Provided references to support the choice of road types as critical infrastructure.
- Rephrased line 631 to enhance clarity.
- Included the sources of Table 1.
- Addressed the missing formula in line 708 by adding a new section "3.8. Urban Resilience Index Formulation".
- Added a new section "3.8. Urban Resilience Index Formulation" to provide a short description of the scenarios analysis, including the tools and platforms used.
- Expanded the discussion of the urban resilience index values and reasoning in the new section "4.5. The Numerical comparison between scenarios".
- Removed Figure 13 as it was redundant.
- Added the expansion of s1, s2, and s3 in the text to provide clarity for Figure 16.
- Included a comparison of our results with findings from other relevant research in the discussion section.
Please find the point-by-point response to your review comments in the attached document. We have addressed each of your suggestions and concerns to the best of our ability, and we believe the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.
We hope that the changes made in response to your review are satisfactory. Please let us know if you have any further comments or questions.
Thank you again for your time and valuable feedback.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
Please revise the manuscript following the comments and suggestions detailed in the attachment.
Best regards
Comments for author File: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:df58c875-373c-48da-b639-9351499ad47c
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript "Urban Resilience Index for Critical Infrastructure: A Scenario-Based Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction of Road Networks". We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have put into providing us with valuable feedback to improve our work.
In response to your comments, we have made the following main changes to the manuscript:
Key Changes:
- Expanded the Abstract to include a numerical inference from the analysis, stating that "Scenario 2, Proactive Resilience Planning, demonstrates a 7.6% increase compared to Scenario 1, Reactive Flood Response, and a 3.5% increase compared to Scenario 3, Early Warning Systems Implementation."
- Provided the full form of abbreviations (CAPEX and OPEX) in the first mention.
- Restructured the 2.1 (Urban Resilience Stages) sub-section to align with commonly used stage naming and structure.
- Revised the 2.2 (Critical infrastructure) sub-section to include a more comprehensive literature review on the use of critical infrastructure data and models in the specific region of interest.
- Added an additional paragraph to provide a more in-depth interpretation of the scatter plot in Figure 4.
- Revised the caption of Figure 4 to accurately reflect the correlation between the composite metric derived and the RMI, and added axis titles.
- Provided references to support the choice of road types as critical infrastructure.
- Rephrased line 631 to enhance clarity.
- Included the sources of Table 1.
- Addressed the missing formula in line 708 by adding a new section "3.8. Urban Resilience Index Formulation".
- Added a new section "3.8. Urban Resilience Index Formulation" to provide a short description of the scenarios analysis, including the tools and platforms used.
- Expanded the discussion of the urban resilience index values and reasoning in the new section "4.5. The Numerical comparison between scenarios".
- Removed Figure 13 as it was redundant.
- Added the expansion of s1, s2, and s3 in the text to provide clarity for Figure 16.
- Included a comparison of our results with findings from other relevant research in the discussion section.
Please find the point-by-point response to your review comments in the attached document. We have addressed each of your suggestions and concerns to the best of our ability, and we believe the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.
We hope that the changes made in response to your review are satisfactory. Please let us know if you have any further comments or questions.
Thank you again for your time and valuable feedback.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. In Figure 1, the authors should explain on scenarios 1 and 2 for improved clarity.
2. The authors should clearly mention the data sources.
3. Clearly explain the data preprocessing steps in the manuscript.
4. All figures, especially Figure 4, need to have properly labeled axes.
5. The authors should incorporate the ML model performance indicators in the manuscript.
6. Improve the presentation of the article. make it concise
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor editing
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript "Urban Resilience Index for Critical Infrastructure: A Scenario-Based Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction of Road Networks". We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have put into providing us with valuable feedback to improve our work.
In response to your comments, we have made the following main changes to the manuscript:
Key Changes:
- Expanded the Abstract to include a numerical inference from the analysis, stating that "Scenario 2, Proactive Resilience Planning, demonstrates a 7.6% increase compared to Scenario 1, Reactive Flood Response, and a 3.5% increase compared to Scenario 3, Early Warning Systems Implementation."
- Provided the full form of abbreviations (CAPEX and OPEX) in the first mention.
- Restructured the 2.1 (Urban Resilience Stages) sub-section to align with commonly used stage naming and structure.
- Revised the 2.2 (Critical infrastructure) sub-section to include a more comprehensive literature review on the use of critical infrastructure data and models in the specific region of interest.
- Added an additional paragraph to provide a more in-depth interpretation of the scatter plot in Figure 4.
- Revised the caption of Figure 4 to accurately reflect the correlation between the composite metric derived and the RMI, and added axis titles.
- Provided references to support the choice of road types as critical infrastructure.
- Rephrased line 631 to enhance clarity.
- Included the sources of Table 1.
- Addressed the missing formula in line 708 by adding a new section "3.8. Urban Resilience Index Formulation".
- Added a new section "3.8. Urban Resilience Index Formulation" to provide a short description of the scenarios analysis, including the tools and platforms used.
- Expanded the discussion of the urban resilience index values and reasoning in the new section "4.5. The Numerical comparison between scenarios".
- Removed Figure 13 as it was redundant.
- Added the expansion of s1, s2, and s3 in the text to provide clarity for Figure 16.
- Included a comparison of our results with findings from other relevant research in the discussion section.
Please find the point-by-point response to your review comments in the attached document. We have addressed each of your suggestions and concerns to the best of our ability, and we believe the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.
We hope that the changes made in response to your review are satisfactory. Please let us know if you have any further comments or questions.
Thank you again for your time and valuable feedback.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I appreciate your effort for the revised manuscript.
In my opinion, it is now suitable for publication.
best regards,
