The Role of Disaster Memorial Facilities in Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences from the Tohoku Region in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 Your manuscript titled "The Role of Disaster Memorial Facilities in Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences from the Tohoku Region in Japan" presents a compelling examination of memorial facilities' impact on disaster risk awareness and education. Here are my observations and suggestions to enhance the clarity and depth of your paper:

The introduction aptly sets the stage by emphasizing the relevance of disaster memorials in risk reduction strategies. However, it could benefit from a more explicit linkage between these facilities and their roles in enhancing community resilience against disasters. Also, a brief overview of the theoretical framework guiding the study could also be included to provide a clearer foundation for the research objectives.

The literature review is thorough but tends to focus extensively on general disaster management strategies without sufficiently highlighting studies directly related to disaster memorials. I recommend incorporating a more focused review of recent studies that specifically examine the efficacy of disaster memorials in public education and community engagement in DRR practices.

Your methodology section is well-articulated, detailing the quantitative approach and the selection criteria for the case study sites. To enhance this section, consider discussing any limitations or biases inherent in your survey methodology and how they might affect the interpretation of results.

The results section effectively presents the varied impacts of different memorial facilities on disaster awareness. It would be beneficial to discuss the statistical significance of your findings to substantiate the conclusions drawn. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of the results with existing literature could provide a deeper insight into the study's contributions to the field.

 

The conclusion succinctly summarizes the study's findings and their implications for disaster risk reduction strategies. To further enhance this section, detailed recommendations for future research could be provided, particularly suggestions for applying the study's insights to other disaster-prone regions globally. Additionally, discussing any policy implications based on your findings could significantly enrich this section.

I hope these comments will help you to improve your paper.

Kind regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your strong support of our work. You have provided us with very valuable advice to improve the quality of this paper. We have used your comments to revise the manuscript and have attached a point-by-point response to your comments.

Sincerely,

ZHANG Xinyu on behalf of the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting.

The weakness of this article is the analysis of research data! see comments in the reviewed article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your strong support of our work. You have provided us with very valuable advice to improve the quality of this paper. We have used your comments to revise the manuscript and have attached a point-by-point response to your comments.

Sincerely,

ZHANG Xinyu on behalf of the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Having chosen to review your manuscript “The Role of Disaster Memorial Facilities in Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences from the Tohoku Region in Japan” was immediately appealing! In fact, I thought the idea behind your research was interesting, but then reading the manuscript I found several critical issues in the scientific method. The sustainability of your research, and thus the possibility of reducing risk from disasters, cannot be based on the administration of a questionnaire and an approximate analysis of the results. Readers are asked at the end of the manuscript how the three structures will be able to affect disaster risk reduction. The first question, I ask you, what are the disasters I need to reduce? What do the three representative structures expose in terms of content and in what language is the information narrated? Disaster storytelling should create emotion, and in this social media, which generally highlights it, is markedly irrelevant. The presentation of a questionnaire should follow criteria, not clearly stated in the text. Processing the responses should allow for understanding differences by age, city, occupation, ... For example, a young person (unfortunately a decidedly small number!) feels most threatened by what? Is a worker concerned about not receiving information in a timely manner or about not being able to ensure the safety of the activity? Other results seem to repeat the consensus for either question ... without understanding in depth why. However, it would have been useful to enrich this analysis with graphs, which would have helped the reading. It follows that the discussion should be purposeful based on the results received. That way those who were reading the results or those who would acquire them for a risk-reduction plan could capitalize on them. References could be augmented with publications related to disasters specific to the region, as mentioned above to be used in a section. You will find other suggestions in the manuscript to improve it for immediate resubmission.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your strong support of our work. You have provided us with very valuable advice to improve the quality of this paper. We have enhanced our methodology explanation, clarified the specific disasters addressed, and provided more details on the memorial structures' content. We also improved our data analysis, including comparisons of different variables and visual representations of the three sites. Additionally, we expanded our references to include more region-specific publications. We believe these changes have significantly strengthened our paper and are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work based on your insights. Attached is the point-by-point response to your comments. 

Sincerely,

ZHANG Xinyu on behalf of the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your improvements.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you so much for your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the readability and scientific quality of the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

ZHANG Xinyu on behalf of the authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for addressing the comments and suggestions provided in the previous review. In the revised manuscript all the necessary changes  have made in accordance of my review. There are no further comments from my side. All the changes in the submitted manuscript have to be accepted (see attached revised doc).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you so much for your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the readability and scientific quality of the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

ZHANG Xinyu on behalf of the authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased that you appreciated my comments and suggestions on the manuscript ‘The Role of Disaster Memorial Facilities in Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences from the Tohoku Region in Japan’. I made them, because I felt that the idea contained in the research, although in need of improvement, could help raise awareness in the places where people live and act accordingly. The revision you carried out was consistent and effective and this definitely improved the quality of the manuscript in terms of content and graphics. The new version of the manuscript, or rather I should say the new organisation of the text, makes the purpose of your research clearer. You have indeed succeeded in better describing the disasters, to which these places are subject, the sites, where to exercise resilience responsibly, and the questionnaires, which highlight how exposed people feel to these risks. It seems to me that the answers, which you have given me, have ensured all or most of this. The few remaining doubts are abundantly overcome by the major effort you have put into the new version of the manuscript. Of course, it is hoped that your work will influence the response that these memory sites will have in reducing disasters. On the graphic part, which has already been improved, you should make a small effort: (1) add a figure in which to represent the 3 sites, the subject of your research; (2) not mandatory, if you can slightly enlarge the texts in figure 5. Except for these graphic situations to be supplemented/corrected, the manuscript can be published without further changes. However, I choose the option of minor revision only to allow for these changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback, which has greatly improved the readability and scientific quality of our revised manuscript. We have updated the graphics and made revisions accordingly. We believe these changes have significantly strengthened the paper, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance our work based on your insightful suggestions.

Attached is our point-by-point response addressing your comments.

Sincerely,

ZHANG Xinyu on behalf of all the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf