Cross-Sectoral and Multilevel Dimensions of Risk and Resilience Management in Urban Areas Enabled by Geospatial Data Processing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors discussed the major difficulties about risk and resilience  management in urban areas, i.e., tackling multi-hazard an multi-risk features of urban environment, integrating risk and resilience management and improve cross-sectoral and cross- scale urban governance and planning. Furthermore, case study of Pozzuoli is used as a paradigmatic example of most of these issues. In addition, the role of data and information management in enhancing the capacities of complex urban environments to deal with the challenges of each pillar is discussed.

 

I have some comments about the data and knowledge that supports the development of emergency. The first one is that all of details detail is missing, e.g., how both Multi-temporal Landsat and Sentinel-2 are used to derive the land-cover land-use classification results. The second one is that why existing land-cover land-use products are used to derive these results, since the specific way to deriving these results is not the focus of this results here. What is the point might be that geospatial data can be used to supports the development of emergency.

 

In addition, it is necessary to proof-check the manuscripts again since there exists some minor mistakes, e.g.,

Line 93: “… identifying respectively triggering, increased or decreased probability …”

Line 132: “Authors”-> “authors”

Line 221: “JRC” –> “Joint Research Centre”?

Line 748：“environemnts” -> “environments”

Fig. 5: More information about legend is necessary here.

Table 1: Necessary lines within the table are necessary.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Carefully checking manuscript is ncessary.

Author Response

First of all we would like to thank reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. They have helped us to clarify some points and also to check to what extent a complex paper could be understood by an audience of experts in different specific fields. In what follows the answers regarding how we tackled the different points that have been raised.

 

REV 1

Points raised

I have some comments about the data and knowledge that supports the development of emergency. The first one is that all of details detail is missing, e.g., how both Multi-temporal Landsat and Sentinel-2 are used to derive the land-cover land-use classification results. The second one is that why existing land-cover land-use products are used to derive these results, since the specific way to deriving these results is not the focus of this results here (inerpretazione frase). What is the point might be that geospatial data can be used to supports the development of emergency.

Reply

Details have been added regarding the satellite image classification process, the used algorithms and their performance. With respect to existing land cover products, if we have correctly interpreted the reviewer’s comment, we have motivated why they could not be used, mainly for time coverage and consistency reasons.

In the discussion part 6.4 it has been explained what is the added value of geospatial data processing and the work that has been carried out in the case of Pozzuoli. In the more general part, section 3, the role of geospatial data processing as enabler to deal with the three main challenges that have been identified since the beginning is explained. Also, given the new structure of the paper we think that the position of this section, that follows the second explaining the three challenges together and not separately as was the case in the first submission, facilitates the understanding of the connection between geospatial data management systems and the challenges.

 

 

In addition an English proof review made by a native speaker has been carried out on the last reviewed version of the paper also to make the parts written by the three authors more homogeneous for the reader.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper fits the theme of this special issue well. Of course, one of the things that might be questioned about such a study is whether our academy really needs one more and more comprehensive review after another, just for one case study. So what are the highlights of your research questions and perspectives? This is indeed an interesting and valuable study that reviews a large amount of local literature over a long period of time in this field. Thus the abstract and introduction of this paper must have been better written to attract readers.

In addition, in the end of the introduction part, we need to add a paragraph to give a brief introduction to the content (structure) of the following text.

The second part of the article seems to be not completed, I only see the content of title 2.1. The current 2.1 review is written in a highly readable manner, but the story of the relevant research is obviously not fully told.

At the beginning of the third part, there is no division and summary of paragraphs through secondary headings, which is not conducive to readers to follow the authors' logic of the story. Some content of this part also seems to belong to Literature. I think the author should reorganize the structure of all the above content.

The double entry table (Figure 1) requires more illustration of the tags on the graph. Current one is still confusing.

The fifth and sixth parts of the thesis do more qualitative research and discussion, and the later research provides the theoretical and methodological basis, as well as the case planning background.

The eighth part of the paper has a more comprehensive and dialectical discussion on the research content, technology, data and system. Overall, this is a relatively rich qualitative study, and I really suggest that a better summary and affirmation of research contributions should be made at the end (also in its abstract)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need proofreading by native English Speakers, after revised the manuscript.

Author Response

Points raised

The topic of this paper fits the theme of this special issue well. Of course, one of the things that might be questioned about such a study is whether our academy really needs one more and more comprehensive review after another, just for one case study. So what are the highlights of your research questions and perspectives? This is indeed an interesting and valuable study that reviews a large amount of local literature over a long period of time in this field. Thus the abstract and introduction of this paper must have been better written to attract readers.

In addition, in the end of the introduction part, we need to add a paragraph to give a brief introduction to the content (structure) of the following text.

 

Reply

The abstract and the introduction have been re-written according to the suggestion of the reviewer. The innovative aspects of the analysis have been highlighted at the beginning in the attempt to capture the interest of readers. Also the structure of the article is explained at the end of the introduction with the newly introduced figure 1.

Points raised

The second part of the article seems to be not completed, I only see the content of title 2.1. The current 2.1 review is written in a highly readable manner, but the story of the relevant research is obviously not fully told.

At the beginning of the third part, there is no division and summary of paragraphs through secondary headings, which is not conducive to readers to follow the authors' logic of the story. Some content of this part also seems to belong to Literature. I think the author should reorganize the structure of all the above content. (mettere insieme 2. 3 e 4)

The double entry table (Figure 1) requires more illustration of the tags on the graph. Current one is still confusing.

Reply

The second section has been completely re-structured according to the reviewer’s suggestion. We have grouped the formerly separated sections putting the explanation of the three main challenges according to our interpretation in section 2, and have provided a more logic and coherent structure. It has been also explained that the three challenges are supported by literature, but literature that has been selected by the authors based on experience and they reflect an interpretation rather than a systematic review. An interpretation that than is used to structure and discuss the case study. We hope this way the case study is better connected to the theoretical part that we deem important so we do not wish to publish it separately. Without the case study it would be just an additional interpretation a bit disconnected from the real world.

 

Points raised

The fifth and sixth parts of the thesis do more qualitative research and discussion, and the later research provides the theoretical and methodological basis, as well as the case planning background.

Reply

Now sections 4 and 5 are about the case study that is not fully a qualitative research, it is a semiqualitative research that ground also on the use of indicators to assess for example the urban expansion in relation to existing hazards.

 

Points raised

The eighth part of the paper has a more comprehensive and dialectical discussion on the research content, technology, data and system. Overall, this is a relatively rich qualitative study, and I really suggest that a better summary and affirmation of research contributions should be made at the end (also in its abstract)

Reply

We have re-written the abstract and the introduction and also the conclusion. We tried to tighten everything and wrap up the reflection in a more coherent and hopefully interesting way.

In addition an English proof review made by a native speaker has been carried out on the last reviewed version of the paper also to make the parts written by the three authors more homogeneous for the reader.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study by Menoni et al. explores how earth observation and geospatial data can improve risk and resilience management, highlighting the case of Pozzuoli as an example of these challenges and opportunities. The integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into urban planning is essential but often falls short in addressing the complexities of urban environments. My review comments are as follows:

 

1. First of all, the readers may want to know how effectively does the paper integrate the concepts of risk and resilience management in urban planning? Are the distinctions and connections between these concepts clearly articulated and justified?

 

2. Regarding the case study, does the analysis of the Pozzuoli case study sufficiently demonstrate the practical applications and challenges of using geospatial data in managing multi-risk urban environments. Please explain.

 

3. The article suggests strategic planning as a potential tool to unify various urban interventions. Is there sufficient discussion on the challenges and governance structures needed to implement this strategic approach effectively, and how realistic is the proposed cross-sectoral governance model?

 

4. In Section 7.1, Gaussian Maximum Likelihood classifier achieved the best performance with an overall accuracy of 96% and a Kappa index of 92%. Can you provide more detailed information on why this classifier was chosen over others, and how its performance compares to other algorithms tested?

 

5. The paper notes that some gross errors, such as incorrectly classifying greenhouses as built-up areas, were manually corrected. How comprehensive was the error correction process, and were there any additional validation steps taken to ensure the accuracy of the final classification results?

 

6. The first five paragraphs of the paper are too long, up to 300 lines. As a reviewer, I believe the authors could condense this section and even consider submitting it as a separated review paper.

Author Response

Point raised 

1. First of all, the readers may want to know how effectively does the paper integrate the concepts of risk and resilience management in urban planning? Are the distinctions and connections between these concepts clearly articulated and justified?

Reply

The paper emphasizes the need for new approaches, based on the complementarity rather than separation of risk and resilience management. In detail, paragraph 2.2  highlights the main differences between risk assessment and management and resilience-based approaches. Moreover, a final sentence has been added to explain the importance of this complementarity to overcome some of the gaps in current risk management making reference .

 Point raised

2. Regarding the case study, does the analysis of the Pozzuoli case study sufficiently demonstrate the practical applications and challenges of using geospatial data in managing multi-risk urban environments. Please explain.

 

Reply

The Pozzuoli case study is obviously not exhaustive in demonstrating all the practical application and challenges of using geospatial data in managing multi-risk urban environments, also due to the limited geographical scale compared, for example, to the entire metropolitan city of Naples, but it allowed highlighting at least the contribution of geospatial data to a better understanding of some issues relevant to both emergency and spatial planning. A sentence has been added to the Conclusion paragraph to better explain this aspect.

 

Points raised

3. The article suggests strategic planning as a potential tool to unify various urban interventions. Is there sufficient discussion on the challenges and governance structures needed to implement this strategic approach effectively, and how realistic is the proposed cross-sectoral governance model?

Reply

In fact the entire paragraph has been re-written and the figure better explained. Also the figure has been slightly modified to be more readable and more coherent with the explanation. In this context we believe that the potential role of strategic planning becomes clearer. Also we have brought back this point also in the analysis of the case study, showing the need for such a strategic vision at the metropolitan level to solve problems that cannot be considered simply “local”.

 Point raised

4. In Section 7.1, Gaussian Maximum Likelihood classifier achieved the best performance with an overall accuracy of 96% and a Kappa index of 92%. Can you provide more detailed information on why this classifier was chosen over others, and how its performance compares to other algorithms tested?

Reply

We have listed the other algorithms used and mentioned the performance.

 

 

Point raised

5. The paper notes that some gross errors, such as incorrectly classifying greenhouses as built-up areas, were manually corrected. How comprehensive was the error correction process, and were there any additional validation steps taken to ensure the accuracy of the final classification results?

Reply  

The manual correction was thorough and as comprehensive as possible, however, it was not quantified with additional validation steps.

 

Point raised

6. The first five paragraphs of the paper are too long, up to 300 lines. As a reviewer, I believe the authors could condense this section and even consider submitting it as a separated review paper.

Reply

As mentioned above, we have restructured the sections and also tried to shorten them. However we deem the theoretical part is the methodological interpretation that constitutes the lenses through which we analyse the case study to support our understanding. So at the end we have decided to leave it, albeit with the many changes that were suggested and in the attempt to clarify the points that were not clear enough.

 

In addition an English proof review made by a native speaker has been carried out on the last reviewed version of the paper also to make the parts written by the three authors more homogeneous for the reader.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this manuscript has improved a lot.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is now suitable for publication. I am glad to accept it.