Measuring the Evolution of Urban Resilience Based on the Exposure–Connectedness–Potential (ECP) Approach: A Case Study of Shenyang City, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is considered very interesting , dense and mature, and supported by updated references. Some minor suggestions.
General:
Avoid using "we" through the manuscript. As an example, in line 144 instead of "we propose differentiated strategies..." consider "differentiated strategies are proposed..."
Avoid using "etc" through the manuscript. As an example, in line 291 instead of “can easily lead to heatstroke…...etc” consider “can easily lead namely to heatstroke…...”
Along the text the word "water logging" would be better replaced by flooding, on most situations- Example, in line 263.
Consider move table 2 for just after the first time is mentioned, after line 339, and put the all table in the same page.
Specific suggestions:
lines 35-36- Insert the keywords by alphabetic order;
line 225, after "Province" insert ", "in China"
line 238- Please clarify the "water logging data" (is it water depths and water velocities ?)
In table 2 ( line 279) - Please clarify what is an extreme rainfall, e.g corresponds to witch return period ?
lines 401 to 407- Improve the presentation of the symbols
line 629 .. please clarify "risk exposure is mainly concentrated in the third ring", because Figure 6 do not show exactly this- Are the authors meaning the increase rate of risk exposure is mainly....?
line 733- Please clarify the sentence "exposure is inevitable and eliminated in urban development."
lines 768 to 783 ( 5.3 clause ) - An important aspect related with water management in urban areas, and also related with urban resilience, is not just flooding risk, but also water pollution and contamination risks. This aspect might be referred for future studies
Author Response
Point 1: Avoid using "we" through the manuscript. As an example, in line 144 instead of "we propose differentiated strategies..." consider "differentiated strategies are proposed..."
Response 1: Thanks for this comment. As suggested, we have completely avoided the use of “we” in the revised manuscript which in lines 114, 174, 180, 280, 305, 315, 327, 334, 354, 363, 411, 565, 689, 697, 705, 716, 720, 759 and 764 have been marked in red in the text.
Point 2: Avoid using "etc" through the manuscript. As an example, in line 291 instead of “can easily lead to heatstroke…...etc” consider “can easily lead namely to heatstroke…...”
Response 2: Thanks for the professor's advice. In the revised manuscript, we have completely avoided the use of "etc" . For details, lines 40, 286 and 338 of the revised manuscript. The text has been marked in red.
Point 3: Along the text the word "water logging" would be better replaced by flooding, on most situations- Example, in line 263.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Flooding has been used to replace water logging in the revised manuscript and modifications have been made in Table 1, Table 2 and Figure 3. For details, see lines 40, 345, 443, 461, 462, 463 and 758 of the revised manuscript, which have been marked in red.
Point 4: Consider move table 2 for just after the first time is mentioned, after line 339, and put the all table in the same page.
Response 4: Thank you very much for this suggestion. After Table 2 has been moved to section 3.2 in the revised manuscript. All tables are guaranteed to be on the same page. Please see lines 255 and 274 for details.
Point 5: lines 35-36- Insert the keywords by alphabetic order;
Response 5: Thanks for the professor's advice. The keywords have been reordered in alphabetical order in the revised manuscript. Please see line 35 for details and the text has been marked in red.
Point 6: line 225, after "Province" insert ", "in China"
Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revised manuscript, "in China" has been placed after Liaoning Province, line 223 for details. The text has been marked in red.
Point 7: line 238- Please clarify the "water logging data" (is it water depths and water velocities ?)
Response 7: Thanks for the professor's advice. The "water logging data" in the article refers to the point data at which the flood occurred. This data is explained in Table 1 in the revised manuscript.
Point 8: In table 2 ( line 279) - Please clarify what is an extreme rainfall, e.g corresponds to witch return period ?
Response 8: Thanks for this comment. In the revised manuscript, extreme rainfall has been revised to rainstorm, which mainly refers to heavy rainfall. Explanation and modification have been made in Table 1.
Point 9: lines 401 to 407- Improve the presentation of the symbols
Response 9: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revised manuscript, the symbol presentation in the method in section 3.3.1 has been modified. For details, please see the line from 390 to 400, which have been marked in red in revised manuscript.
Point 10: line 629 .. please clarify "risk exposure is mainly concentrated in the third ring", because Figure 6 do not show exactly this- Are the authors meaning the increase rate of risk exposure is mainly....?
Response 10: Thanks for the professor's advice. The meaning of this sentence is that the growth rate of risk exposure is the fastest in the third ring. In the revised manuscript, it has been modified to “Among them, the risk exposure has increased most significantly in third ring”. Please see the line 610-611 for details in revised manuscript. The text has been marked in red.
Point 11: line 733- Please clarify the sentence "exposure is inevitable and eliminated in urban development."
Response 11: We thank the reviewer for this comment. “exposure is inevitable and eliminated in urban development.” has been revised to “Exposure factors are always changing with the dynamic development of cities.”. This sentence mainly emphasizes the evolutionary characteristics of exposure factors. Please see the line 720 for details in revised manuscript.
Point 12: lines 768 to 783 ( 5.3 clause ) - An important aspect related with water management in urban areas, and also related with urban resilience, is not just flooding risk, but also water pollution and contamination risks. This aspect might be referred for future studies
Response 12: Thank you very much for this suggestion. As suggested, the revised manuscript has incorporated water management (water pollution and pollution risks) in urban areas in the prospects (section 5.3). In the future study, we will consider the water pollution indicator in urban resilience. The text has been modified in line 763 and marked in red in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors investigated urban resilience through the ECP approach in the case of Shenyang city. The research questions formulated are clear and the theoretical framework is well explained.
The manuscript is not compact enough, which is the main shortcoming. Sometimes the authors lost in details. Chapter 3.3.1 is a good example of this. In my opinion, the underlying content of the InVEST model does not need to be described here, but only the fact that it has been applied and, if there are deviations, these should be explained, as it is well documented and frequently used method.
Some parts are out of place, such as the part from line 242 to line 261, which can be part of the indicator selection as in the manuscript but is more appropriate for the introduction of the research area (Section 3.1). I would move a shortened version of these nearly 20 lines there.
Overall, therefore, I would recommend the authors shorten the manuscript.
My objection to the Discussion is that it is not Discussion in its present form, since there is only one reference to other literature. There is no comparison of the results with other studies, but instead a summary (Section 5.1 and 5.2).
The structure of the manuscript is logical and the methods used are appropriate to answer the research questions. The figures and tables support the authors' messages and are well designed. The English of the article is good.
On this basis, with minor revisions, I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Point 1: The manuscript is not compact enough, which is the main shortcoming. Sometimes the authors lost in details. Chapter 3.3.1 is a good example of this. In my opinion, the underlying content of the InVEST model does not need to be described here, but only the fact that it has been applied and, if there are deviations, these should be explained, as it is well documented and frequently used method.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this suggestion. As suggested, the content of chapter 3.3.1 has been further simplified. Some general detailed language has been deleted and the key description of method application has been strengthened in the revised manuscript. Modify as follows:
“This paper defined woodland, grassland, arable land and water as the habitat landscape. Urban construction land, rural residential areas, industrial and mining land, railways, expressways, national roads, provincial roads and county roads were taken as threat sources. The threat radius of the threat source and the distance attenuation method of its impact on the habitat, the suitability of the habitat and its relative sensitivity to various threat sources are all determined by the recommended values of the model and related literature [71,73].”
Please see lines 401-407 for details in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Some parts are out of place, such as the part from line 242 to line 261, which can be part of the indicator selection as in the manuscript but is more appropriate for the introduction of the research area (Section 3.1). I would move a shortened version of these nearly 20 lines there.
Response 2: Thank you very much for this comment. As suggested, lines 242 to 261 in the original manuscript have been moved to the introduction of the research area and some simplifications have been made in the revised manuscript. Please see lines 230-245 for details. The text has been marked in red.
Point 3: Overall, therefore, I would recommend the authors shorten the manuscript.
Response 3: Thanks for the professor's advice. The manuscript has been shortened to a certain extent in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: My objection to the Discussion is that it is not Discussion in its present form, since there is only one reference to other literature. There is no comparison of the results with other studies, but instead a summary (Section 5.1 and 5.2).
Response 4: Thank you very much for this comment. Comparison with other studies has been added and the citation of related studies has been strengthened in the discussion part of the revised manuscript. For details, please see line 688- 771 (Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3) in the revised manuscript. The text has been marked in red.
Point 5: The structure of the manuscript is logical and the methods used are appropriate to answer the research questions. The figures and tables support the authors' messages and are well designed. The English of the article is good.
Response 5:Thanks for your encouragement. Thank you for your valuable comments on this article. With your advice the paper can be further improved. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
