Evaluation of Humanitarian Supply Chain Resilience in Flood Disaster

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REVIEW COMMENTS

Title: Evaluation of Humanitarian Supply Chain Resilience in Flood Disaster

Abstract

Frequent natural hazards such as flooding, and the devastating consequences of severe events make the humanitarian supply chain particularly important in providing relief to disaster-affected people and alleviating their suffering. However, the wide sphere of environmental conditions, the ambiguity of information, and the different goals of stakeholders demand that the humanitarian supply chain must be resilient. This research adopts the use of literature review and expert opinions to identify the indicators that affect the resilience of the humanitarian supply chain using the flood event in Hechuan District, China in 2020 as an example. Based on the fuzzy-DEMATEL-ANP method, the interrelation between the indicators and the weight of each indicator is calculated. The research results indicate that decision-makers in the humanitarian supply chain should vigorously coordinate the cooperation among stakeholders, ensure the effective transmission of information, and formulate forward-looking strategic plans. At the same time, policymakers should also pay attention to the adjustment of strategies at different stages of flood development to achieve a flexible humanitarian supply chain. The results of this study are helpful for the professional staff involved in the humanitarian supply chain to formulate strategies to reduce the losses caused by natural hazards such as floods.”

 

Comments:

The paper reads ok, but the abstract has one short coming in terms of defining what is the fuzzy-DEMATEL-ANP. The authors need to define these terms and make appropriate reference in the introduction or the methodology. The following remarks should be considered and addressed before a publication recommendation can be made.

1) The introduction is not properly done. At the end of the introduction, readers expect to see a pitch on the summary contributions of the paper and how the rest of the paper is structured. Nothing of this known writing structure is evident in the work. It is recommended that the writers fix this.

 

2) The structured way most manuscripts are written is not how this one is done, such as the introduction, problem statement, literature review, methodology, results, and conclusion. I hope this can be followed and finalized.

 

3) Reducing redundant words is a practice that even seasoned writers struggle with. I will recommend that the authors proof-read the paper again to make it more concise.

 

4) If the problem statement is not being presented exclusively, then there is the need for the authors to outline clearly in the introduction, what the problem is and how they intend to solve it. I think outlining the challenges in the humanitarian supply chain is a good problem and so the literature should cover enough based. But I do believe this manuscript has good contributions to the field of humanitarian and supply chain logistics.

5) At the end of literature review (although this is a review paper), it will be nice to see the contributions to the literature also summarized as a paragraph or provided in bullet points.

6) I would like to see some counter intuitive results or thoughts about the results and the insights as well. The future results should include some stochasticity in the planning process.

 

7) Overall, I think this is a good paper but there is the need for a thorough major revision, especially in the suggestions provided, as why this paper should be accepted. I will encourage the authors to indicate at the end of the introduction, a summary or a pitch of the contributions. Also, at the end of the literature review, we should see the gaps in the literature that this paper addresses. Once these changes are made, the paper can be accepted. I expect the journal to do due diligence in relation to plagiarism check.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Evaluation of Humanitarian Supply Chain Resilience in Flood Disaster

by Wenping Xu et al.

General comments

The manuscript deals with the identification of indicators that affect the resilience of humanitarian supply chain. To reach the aim, the authors analysed the flood event occurred in Hechuan District, China in 2020.

In my opinion, the manuscript is interesting, well written and clear in purpose. The state-of-the-art is well defined, the methodology is appropriate.

Specific comments

In order to increase both the scientific soundness and interest in readers, the Discussion section needs revision. In fact, after identifying the ranking for the individual indicators, the discussion for each of them needs to be correlated with the literature. For example, the discussion on the C1 indicator requires be linked to the literature to corroborate what the authors claim (lines 329-331). The same is for the statements on lines 336-337 (slow rescue work)  and 349-351 (wait-and-see behaviour).

The analysis of previous experiences and good practices on how to realize timely and effective transmission of information (lines 343-345) would be very useful  for the professional staff involved in the humanitarian supply chain.

Other points

-I would rather not see the misnomer terminology "natural disasters" (lines 30-31 and 377);

-the acronym RFID should be defined  (line 68).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf