Resilience Assessment and Enhancement Strategies for Urban Transportation Infrastructure to Cope with Extreme Rainfalls
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript provides a new research idea for urban transportation infrastructure resilience assessment. The article proposes a framework for urban transportation infrastructure resilience assessment by taking Changchun as an example and combining physical vulnerability, functional vulnerability, service vulnerability and sustainability. The questions and hypotheses presented in the manuscript have also been clearly articulated. I think it can be accepted after minor revision. The detail as followed:
1.Update the literature review in the introductory section: Literature from 2003 and 2007 was used in the article, and new references need to be updated to ensure that the literature review is up-to-date with the most recent research, especially research published in the last two to three years. This will enhance the relevance and timeliness of the research.
2.In the Introduction part, the clarification of the paper's work (in the last paragraph) is suggested to be simplified, which takes up too much space.3.Manuscript picture layout needs to be improved, inconsistency in picture size is recommended to be adjusted to be consistent in order to reduce the number of pages used.
4.The map of the study area could be improved. For example, the spatial distribution of meteorological stations could be added to the map of the study area.
5. The manuscript contains parts of words without spaces between them (lines 162-163)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Sincere thanks should be given to you for the encouraging comments. Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We thank you very much for your evaluation of the manuscript, and we revised or explained all your comments in the follow-up. We wish you all the best.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The manuscript mainly used the MCDM model and GIS software to evaluate the vulnerability of urban transportation infrastructure. However, the research results of the abstract and conclusion are qualitative expressions, and can they be expressed quantitatively?
2. The structure and expression of the introduction are confused. Is it extreme weather or extreme rainstorm weather? Is it vulnerability or resilience? These words have completely different meanings, but they are interrelated. The author should deeply understand the meanings of these words, sort out their usage, and avoid confusion. What are the advantages of using MCDM models and GIS software in the manuscript? Why choose these two methods.
3. The language expression is not fluent and the quality of English needs to be improved.
4. What are the innovations of the manuscript besides the combination of MCDM model and GIS software?
5. In Figure 1, the map of China lacks longitude and latitude, compass, and scale bar.
6. What is the basis for constructing the indicator system in 7.2.2, and what are the standards and methods for selecting indicators? How to prove the scientificity of the indicator system.
7. In sections 7.3.3 to 3.6, two-dimensional graphs were drawn using GIS software for each indicator. However, how are the specific indicators quantified? For example, rainfall, transportation, soil type, etc., what is the principle of the model? Supplement the intermediate data calculation process. Content can be added to the appendix.
8. In Figure 9, red represents high resilience, however, in Figure 10, areas with high resilience are more prone to flooding. However, vulnerability is also used in language descriptions. It's confusing. Is it resilience or vulnerability?
9. Are both Part 5 and Part 6 conclusions? Is Part 5 a discussion? If so, please conduct a comparative analysis around the innovation points, technological advantages of this article, and other current methods. Discuss the progressiveness of the manuscript method.
10. The conclusion description is too broad. Specific contributions and results of this study need to be provided.
11. The manuscript mentions the AHP method, but the specific scoring criteria, scale settings, and the types and numbers of scoring personnel are not explained. How can we prove the authenticity of the indicator weight results? Please add relevant content, which can be listed as an appendix.
12. Adjust the key content of the manuscript and consider the keywords.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments. Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your comments on the manuscript and we have revised or interpreted all your comments in subsequent work. We wish you all the best. Please refer to the attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for submitting the work to the paper.
The study considers the resilience and vulnerability of a fragile geographical area in Changchun City district. The multicriteria method for assessing complex scenarios meets the needs of the work.
We suggest for completeness:
- to include some sample landscape and spatial level images (photoes) in order to better understanding for the reader.
- Beware there are two paragraphs with conclusions check for accuracy.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Sincere thanks should be given to you for the encouraging comments. Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We thank you very much for your evaluation of the manuscript, and we revised or explained all your comments in the follow-up. We wish you all the best.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author's response was thoughtful, and they responded to all the suggestions I put forward, suggesting acceptance.
