The Uncertain Certainty of a Nightmare: What If Another Destructive Earthquake Strikes Izmir (Türkiye)?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study suggest a composite risk index based based on vulnerability, hazard amplification map, and exposure.

There is a great work in gathering the needed data and maps for the study. However the reviewer have the impression that the method is GIS based and mainly GIS tools were used to offer the results. Moreover, the reviewer was not able to locate in the text the formula suggested for this index.

Lots of work has been done and might be helpful for Tyrkiyeh authorities. However, not much innovative approach, mainly GIS results.

Some general and specific notes sto improve the work:

- Line 256 : "structure and structure", kindly erase one of them.

- Line 278: The "near function", kindly give a reference for it.

- Page 16 lines 537 & 546 : Section 2.6 and 2.7 has the same title. The section 2.7 should probably has the title of "Risk Index".

- Line 540: "valuesrepresents": kindly it needs a space.

 - Lines 549 and 550: What is the formula used for the generation of this "Risk Index".

- Lines 566-569: Based on your statment, so what is the need or the purpose of this study?

- Lines 570-573: What is this matrix? Formula?

- Lines 589-590: Was this probability computed? Or just a statment?

- Lines 599-600: common knowledge, but also there is a mathmatical models that can compute it such as in HAZUS method. 

- Lines 611-613: common knowledge (EC8/HAZUS), and the probability is not computed here.

- Line 753: periodization of the buildings: Is it the period of the building? In case you are refereing to period or frequency, kindly replace periodization by period or frequency.

- Line 801: Kindly erase " the ramifications of our findings are profound". Not very supported by the study. It is hard work, based on GIS, and the findings are in agreements with the common knowledge of the scientific community. However, as it is helpful for Tyrkiyeh authorities and tailored for Izmir to help the society prepare for the future. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study suggest a composite risk index based based on vulnerability, hazard amplification map, and exposure.

 

There is a great work in gathering the needed data and maps for the study. However the reviewer have the impression that the method is GIS based and mainly GIS tools were used to offer the results. Moreover, the reviewer was not able to locate in the text the formula suggested for this index.

 

Lots of work has been done and might be helpful for Tyrkiyeh authorities. However, not much innovative approach, mainly GIS results.

Thank you for your general comments. We’ll try to improve this final point.

 

 

Some general and specific notes sto improve the work:

 

- Line 256 : "structure and structure", kindly erase one of them.

Thank you.

 

- Line 278: The "near function", kindly give a reference for it.

We found two references.

 

- Page 16 lines 537 & 546 : Section 2.6 and 2.7 has the same title. The section 2.7 should probably has the title of "Risk Index".

Thank you.

 

- Line 540: "valuesrepresents": kindly it needs a space.

Thank you.

 

 - Lines 549 and 550: What is the formula used for the generation of this "Risk Index".

We created the formula.

 

- Lines 566-569: Based on your statment, so what is the need or the purpose of this study?

We re-sentenced.

 

- Lines 570-573: What is this matrix? Formula?

It was a matrix but since we didn’t show it on the text we decided to smooth the text talking of a correlation analysis.

 

- Lines 589-590: Was this probability computed? Or just a statment?

It was a statement but we re-sentenced.

 

- Lines 599-600: common knowledge, but also there is a mathmatical models that can compute it such as in HAZUS method.

We changed the sentence.

 

- Lines 611-613: common knowledge (EC8/HAZUS), and the probability is not computed here.

Sentence Delated.

 

- Line 753: periodization of the buildings: Is it the period of the building? In case you are refereing to period or frequency, kindly replace periodization by period or frequency.

No we were referring to the age of construction… but we re-sentenced.

 

 

- Line 801: Kindly erase " the ramifications of our findings are profound". Not very supported by the study. It is hard work, based on GIS, and the findings are in agreements with the common knowledge of the scientific community. However, as it is helpful for Tyrkiyeh authorities and tailored for Izmir to help the society prepare for the future.

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "The uncertain certainty of a nightmare: What if another Destructive Earthquake strikes Izmir (Türkiye)?" The article builds a composite indicator of the degree of exposure to earthquakes. The operational structure of the composite indicator appears to be quite robust. The authors did a lot of work in selecting and treating the sub-indicators aggregated into the composite indicator. The manuscript has merits for publication. However, I would like to suggest some improvements to increase the manuscript's readability, clarity, and impact.

 

The organization of the manuscript is good, but the language is poor. The text lacks objectivity, which makes it long and tiring. The manuscript can benefit greatly from rewriting. Perhaps the content of Section 2 could be shortened after moving Figure 14 (line 561) to the beginning of the section.

 

My major concern with the manuscript is associated with the research's motivations, objectives, and contributions. In particular, the research does not seek to answer the questions in line 91 (But who cares about citizen's safety? Furthermore, are people aware of the risk they are facing?). Furthermore, answering the question in line 92 (Is it possible to know to what degree of risk citizens are exposed if an earthquake similar to the Kahramanmaras hits Türkiye's third most populated city (Izmir)) doesn't say much. In short, the reader cannot clearly identify the objective of the research. Considering the title, the objective is the construction of a composite indicator of the degree of exposure to earthquakes. At this point, two issues in the manuscript need to be improved.

First, the literature on composite indicators of the degree of earthquake exposure is presented in a scattered form. The research contributions to the literature are based on comparing the approach proposed by the authors with the specialized literature.

Second, the lack of clarity of objectives leads to confusing conclusions. The results must be linked to the research objective to avoid contradictory statements. Line 567 says that "the resulting numerical value of the index does not provide insights into the potential nature or extent of damage that could occur in the event of an actual earthquake." At this point, the reader cannot understand whether or not the authors fulfill the research objective.

 

 

 

Minor errors:

 

Please rephrase the first sentence of the summary (which phenomenon?)

 

Present acronyms before their first appearance in the text. E.g., GIS (line 24)

 

Sections 2.6 and 2.7 have the same name (The Exposure)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the language is poor. It is recommended to use more objective and direct language.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "The uncertain certainty of a nightmare: What if another Destructive Earthquake strikes Izmir (Türkiye)?" The article builds a composite indicator of the degree of exposure to earthquakes. The operational structure of the composite indicator appears to be quite robust. The authors did a lot of work in selecting and treating the sub-indicators aggregated into the composite indicator. The manuscript has merits for publication. However, I would like to suggest some improvements to increase the manuscript's readability, clarity, and impact.

 

The organization of the manuscript is good, but the language is poor. The text lacks objectivity, which makes it long and tiring. The manuscript can benefit greatly from rewriting. Perhaps the content of Section 2 could be shortened after moving Figure 14 (line 561) to the beginning of the section.

Thank you for your suggestion. We moved the workflow in the beginning and shortened the contents of section 2 accordingly.

 

My major concern with the manuscript is associated with the research's motivations, objectives, and contributions. In particular, the research does not seek to answer the questions in line 91 (But who cares about citizen's safety? Furthermore, are people aware of the risk they are facing?). Furthermore, answering the question in line 92 (Is it possible to know to what degree of risk citizens are exposed if an earthquake similar to the Kahramanmaras hits Türkiye's third most populated city (Izmir)) doesn't say much. In short, the reader cannot clearly identify the objective of the research. Considering the title, the objective is the construction of a composite indicator of the degree of exposure to earthquakes. At this point, two issues in the manuscript need to be improved.

Thank you for your suggestion. Definitely, the questions were only partially answered by our work thus we modified the research questions accordingly.

 

First, the literature on composite indicators of the degree of earthquake exposure is presented in a scattered form. The research contributions to the literature are based on comparing the approach proposed by the authors with the specialized literature.

Thank you for this observation, we included a section in the introduction that clarifies this matter.

 

Second, the lack of clarity of objectives leads to confusing conclusions. The results must be linked to the research objective to avoid contradictory statements. Line 567 says that "the resulting numerical value of the index does not provide insights into the potential nature or extent of damage that could occur in the event of an actual earthquake." At this point, the reader cannot understand whether or not the authors fulfill the research objective.

Thank you for this observation which is also shared by other reviewers. We changed that confusing statement which led readers to possible misunderstandings.

 

 

Minor errors:

Please rephrase the first sentence of the summary (which phenomenon?)

 

Present acronyms before their first appearance in the text. E.g., GIS (line 24)

Done, thank you.

 

Sections 2.6 and 2.7 have the same name (The Exposure)

Corrected.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the language is poor. It is recommended to use more objective and direct language.

We asked our external Academic Writing Center to make an extensive check of Grammarly and the logic of the text. We attached the certificate.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Given the objectives proposed within this research, a significant level of interest is attributed to the central topic of the paper: the development of a composite risk index based on earthquake vulnerability, hazard amplification mapping, and exposure variables. The methodological framework presented is adequately aligned with the objectives described in the paper.

The outcomes and conclusions derived from this study hold significance across multiple dimensions: (i) merged limited digital resources and Copernicus Sentinel data to assess Izmir's earthquake risk comprehensively; (ii) used geological maps to identify seismic vulnerabilities, creating a tailored earthquake risk index for Izmir; and (iii) empowered policymakers with vital insights, highlighting science's role in fortifying Izmir's resilience and disaster preparedness.

Nevertheless, considering the investigation of earthquake risk and hazard in Izmir through the impact of urbanization and soil characteristics, it is advisable to incorporate references, within Section 1 or 2, related to the utilization of geostatistical analysis of seismic damage obtained from post-earthquake evaluations in order to enhance strategies for mitigation from a spatial viewpoint. If permissible, a recent reference that could potentially serve this purpose is García-Ayllón, S.; Tomás, A.; & Ródenas, J.L. The spatial perspective in post-earthquake evaluation to improve mitigation strategies: geostatistical analysis of the seismic damage applied to a real case study. Applied Sciences. 2019. 9(15), 3182. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9153182

To finish, the formal attributes of the paper demonstrate appropriateness, encompassing both the structure within sections and the presentation quality concerning textual content, tables, and figures. Additionally, the compilation of literature references exhibits adequacy, incorporating a sufficient number of current articles that accurately represent the contemporary technological state of research. However, the presence of excessive non-English references (3) poses potential limitations in accessing these resources for a wide spectrum of readers. It is advisable to consider limiting non-English references, ideally retaining only one or two, to ensure broader accessibility. Furthermore, the previously recommended reference has the potential to substantially enrich, enhance, and supplement the existing state of research outlined in the paper.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Given the objectives proposed within this research, a significant level of interest is attributed to the central topic of the paper: the development of a composite risk index based on earthquake vulnerability, hazard amplification mapping, and exposure variables. The methodological framework presented is adequately aligned with the objectives described in the paper.

Thank you for your comment.

 

The outcomes and conclusions derived from this study hold significance across multiple dimensions: (i) merged limited digital resources and Copernicus Sentinel data to assess Izmir's earthquake risk comprehensively; (ii) used geological maps to identify seismic vulnerabilities, creating a tailored earthquake risk index for Izmir; and (iii) empowered policymakers with vital insights, highlighting science's role in fortifying Izmir's resilience and disaster preparedness.

Thank you for your comment.

 

Nevertheless, considering the investigation of earthquake risk and hazard in Izmir through the impact of urbanization and soil characteristics, it is advisable to incorporate references, within Section 1 or 2, related to the utilization of geostatistical analysis of seismic damage obtained from post-earthquake evaluations in order to enhance strategies for mitigation from a spatial viewpoint. If permissible, a recent reference that could potentially serve this purpose is García-Ayllón, S.; Tomás, A.; & Ródenas, J.L. The spatial perspective in post-earthquake evaluation to improve mitigation strategies: geostatistical analysis of the seismic damage applied to a real case study. Applied Sciences. 2019. 9(15), 3182. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9153182

Thank you for this suggestion. We integrated our investigation on earthquake risk and hazard in the introduction while adding a brief bibliographic review that includes your suggested work.

 

To finish, the formal attributes of the paper demonstrate appropriateness, encompassing both the structure within sections and the presentation quality concerning textual content, tables, and figures. Additionally, the compilation of literature references exhibits adequacy, incorporating a sufficient number of current articles that accurately represent the contemporary technological state of research. However, the presence of excessive non-English references (3) poses potential limitations in accessing these resources for a wide spectrum of readers. It is advisable to consider limiting non-English references, ideally retaining only one or two, to ensure broader accessibility. Furthermore, the previously recommended reference has the potential to substantially enrich, enhance, and supplement the existing state of research outlined in the paper.

Thank you for this observation. We included more than 12 new international references to broaden the spectrum of our knowledge.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am fine now with the corrections.

Onlu one remaining typing error in line 288 : "near""" should be replaced with "near"