Analysis of Urban Resilience in Water Network Cities Based on Scale-Density-Morphology-Function (SDMF) Framework: A Case Study of Nanchang City, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It would be appropriate to add to the results whether there has been a change / shift in extreme values (best, worst) during the observed period, between individual regions (eg Fig. 3).
Fig. 7 is illegible
Very interesting article. Solves synthesis evaluation using integrated methods.
Author Response
Point 1: It would be appropriate to add to the results whether there has been a change / shift in extreme values (best, worst) during the observed period, between individual regions (eg Fig. 3).
Response 1: Thanks for this comment. As suggested, we further enriched the variation of extreme values of resilience in each dimension and redrawn Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the manuscript. For details, see lines 434 to line 436, line 476 to line 478 and line 503 to line 505 of the revised manuscript, which have been marked in red.
Point 2: Fig. 7 is illegible
Response 2: Thanks for the professor's advice. In order to clearly show the resilience combination of various dimensions in the group area, we have redrawn Figure 7. See Figure 7 in the revised manuscript for details.
Point 3: Very interesting article. Solves synthesis evaluation using integrated methods.
Response 3: Thanks for the professor's recognition and encouragement.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors attempted to measure urban resilience on the example of Nanchang. To this end, the tools of landscape ecology were used, which were also combined with the theory of evolutionary resilience to explore its change in time.
The structure of the manuscript is appropriate, and the sequence of chapters is logical. The methodological approach is also good, in some cases novel. For example, we consider the use of the natural water network as a basic territorial unit to be a novel approach, but it would be good to compare the results with traditional methodologies, ie with administrative units or grid units. Nevertheless, the methodology is the weakest point of the manuscript because its description is incomplete, so if we want to repeat the research, we do not have the opportunity to do so due to a lack of information.
The authors mention many indicators in the methodological section for which we have no information on the source or how they were calculated. For example:
- In line 314, what does suitable construction land mean? An area that can be built for future real estate developments. Is this an area outside the city, or are it just the areas designated for development in plans?
- What is the source of the data needed to calculate the density resilience model? Where are the ecological footprint and consumption data from? Exactly what consumption data did the authors use for the calculations? The description of the methodology is incomplete here, so nobody can repeat the calculation based on the manuscript.
- In the functional resilience model, what do the ecological value function and the total ecosystem service value mean, where do these data come from?
Other problems with the manuscript:
- The abstract is too long, the results are discussed in depth that the reader does not understand without reading the article, so it does not fulfill its function.
- The 3rd objective of the manuscript is incomprehensible because the authors describe the 4-phase model of urban resilience only later (from line 243).
- - Fig.7. would be necessary to rethink because maps are very difficult to interpret.
- There is a misspelling in line 353, please correct it from “ource” to source
Recommendation:
- I am missing an illustration of the 4-phase model of resilience and its characteristics, this would help the general understanding in my opinion.
Author Response
The authors attempted to measure urban resilience on the example of Nanchang. To this end, the tools of landscape ecology were used, which were also combined with the theory of evolutionary resilience to explore its change in time.
Point 1: The structure of the manuscript is appropriate, and the sequence of chapters is logical. The methodological approach is also good, in some cases novel. For example, we consider the use of the natural water network as a basic territorial unit to be a novel approach, but it would be good to compare the results with traditional methodologies, ie with administrative units or grid units. Nevertheless, the methodology is the weakest point of the manuscript because its description is incomplete, so if we want to repeat the research, we do not have the opportunity to do so due to a lack of information. The authors mention many indicators in the methodological section for which we have no information on the source or how they were calculated. For example: In line 314, what does suitable construction land mean? An area that can be built for future real estate developments. Is this an area outside the city, or are it just the areas designated for development in plans?
Response 1: Thanks for this comment. The suitable construction area refers to the suitable construction area in the main functional zoning of the city, that is, the priority construction area, which can be used for real estate development or other construction. As suggested, We have made changes to the data source to make the data application in the formula more explicit. Please see Table 1 for details
Point 2: What is the source of the data needed to calculate the density resilience model? Where are the ecological footprint and consumption data from? Exactly what consumption data did the authors use for the calculations? The description of the methodology is incomplete here, so nobody can repeat the calculation based on the manuscript.
Response 2: Thanks for the professor's advice. The data required in the density resilience model mainly comes from two parts: land use and Nanchang Statistical Yearbook data. Equilibrium factor and the yield factor in the formula are mainly from relevant research literature. The data of ecological footprint and consumption come from Nanchang Statistical Yearbook. In the calculation, 14 types of material consumption and fossil energy consumption, such as grain, edible vegetable oil, fresh vegetables, liquor, melons and fruits, tea, pork, beef and mutton, fresh eggs, poultry, fresh milk, aquatic products, energy consumption and electricity are mainly used. For details, see lines 328 to line 357 of the revised manuscript, which have been marked in red.
Point 3: In the functional resilience model, what do the ecological value function and the total ecosystem service value mean, where do these data come from?
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In functional resilience, ecological value function represents the value equivalent of nine ecosystem service functions, including gas regulation, climate regulation, water conservation, soil formation and protection, waste disposal, biodiversity conservation, food production, raw materials and entertainment culture. The total ecosystem service value refers to the total value of ecosystem services. The data involved in the calculation process are mainly land use data and the value equivalent of the ecosystem service function per unit land. Among them, the latter is set with reference to relevant research on ecosystem services in Nanchang. For details, see lines 393 to line 401 of the revised manuscript, which have been marked in red.
Point 4: The abstract is too long, the results are discussed in depth that the reader does not understand without reading the article, so it does not fulfill its function.
Response 4: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have revised the abstract. The discussion results have been simplified to reinforce the main purpose and significance of the study in the revised manuscript. Please see line 10 to line 23 for details.
Point 5: The 3rd objective of the manuscript is incomprehensible because the authors describe the 4-phase model of urban resilience only later (from line 243).
Response 5: Thanks for the professor's advice. In order to avoid the difficulty of understanding the third goal of the study, we made a detailed analysis of the third goal in the revised manuscript. The specific modifications are as follows: Based on the coupling coordination model, we quantitatively measure the coupling and coordination status of the resilience of each dimension in each water network group in Nanchang city. At the same time, we combine the adaptive cycle theory with the coupling coordination status to reveal the characteristics of the adaptive phase of the water network cluster and propose differentiated governance strategies for the resilience development of the water network groups at each adaptation phase. Please see line 165 to 171 for details and the text has been marked in red.
Point 6: Fig.7. would be necessary to rethink because maps are very difficult to interpret.
Response 6: Thanks for the professor's advice. In order to clearly show the resilience combination of various dimensions in the group area, we have redrawn Figure 7. See Figure 7 in the revised manuscript for details.
Point 7: There is a misspelling in line 353, please correct it from “ource” to source.
Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this comment. “ource” has been replaced by “source” in the revised manuscript. Please see line 375 for details. The text has been marked in red.
Point 8: Recommendation: I am missing an illustration of the 4-phase model of resilience and its characteristics, this would help the general understanding in my opinion.
Response 8: Thanks for the professor's advice. In the text, we strengthen the description of the characteristics of the adaptive phase and make a correspondence with the characteristics of coupling coordination. Please see line 238 to line 254 for details
Reviewer 3 Report
After reading the manuscript “Analysis of urban resilience based on scale–density–morphology–function (SDMF) framework: a case study of Nanchang city, China”, I highlight next remarks:
- The title of the study seems misleading due to the bias derived from the single consideration of the natural water network groups of Nanchang city. Maybe this point should be also mentioned.
- The abstract cannot exceed a maximum of 200 words.
- Although resilience was characterized in lines 68-92, an outstanding feature as “recovery” was omitted in the definition.
- Figure 1 is messy and does not enable to understand the urban resilience framework posed as a base of the methodology formulated in Section 3.
- Some site evaluation units were marked in Figure 2, but no mention was made in the text. Criteria to select those units are necessary.
- A general overview of the methodology proposed is required. A set of equations were instead provided without a clear rationale behind and explanations to determine values of the multiple variables deemed. The connection between all these models is also unknown. Without no sound arguments, some values were arbitrarily assigned to parameters (lines 388 and 394). Hazards are critical when assessing urban resilience, however no related variables/parameters were found in the models given. Hence, it is very controversial the analysis of urban resilience that disregards such a relevant factor like hazards. Moreover, it is highly controversial the statement made in 379-380 “the organic combination of the subsystems jointly determines the sustainable development of the city” because sustainability is much more than a combination of scale, density, morphology and function attributes.
- Rationale that underpins the definition of the four thresholds of the Resilience Index / Density Resilience/ Morphology Resilience/ Function Resilience was not revealed. It is confusing how findings shown in Figure 7 were obtained, please clarify the method employed in Section 3.
- Miscellaneous comments. Please label figure 1 a) and b).
- Contribution in the field and theoretical/practical implications of the study should be highlighted in the last section since they are unknown.
The study evaluates several variables to examine the evolution of urban resilience in the city of Nanchang taking as reference 2000, 2010 and 2020. But the representativeness of selected variables in the field of resilience is controversial. Besides, the study was oriented to the natural water network groups existing in Nanchang and therefore, several major concerns emerged related to the suitable application of the framework proposed to any city and any kind of hazard (that factor was fully omitted in the study).
Author Response
After reading the manuscript “Analysis of urban resilience based on scale–density–morphology–function (SDMF) framework: a case study of Nanchang city, China”, I highlight next remarks:
Point 1: The title of the study seems misleading due to the bias derived from the single consideration of the natural water network groups of Nanchang city. Maybe this point should be also mentioned.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this suggestion. As suggested, We have added the concept of water network city in the title to better fit the research content of this paper. Please see lines 2-4 for details in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: The abstract cannot exceed a maximum of 200 words.
Response 2: Thank you very much for this comment. As suggested, We have revised the abstract. The discussion results have been simplified to reinforce the main purpose and significance of the study in the revised manuscript. Abstract word count has been limited to around 180 characters. Please see line 10 to line 23 for details.
Point 3: Although resilience was characterized in lines 68-92, an outstanding feature as “recovery” was omitted in the definition.
Response 3: Thanks for the professor's advice. We have taken care to strengthen the language of recovery when discussing the concept of resilience. Please see line 55 to line 56 and line 68 to 71 for details.
Point 4: Figure 1 is messy and does not enable to understand the urban resilience framework posed as a base of the methodology formulated in Section 3.
Response 4: Thank you very much for this comment. To more clearly illustrate the research framework and supporting research methods, we have modified Figure 1. Please see Figure 1 for details.
Point 5: Some site evaluation units were marked in Figure 2, but no mention was made in the text. Criteria to select those units are necessary.
Response 5:Thank you very much for this suggestion. The site evaluation units in Figure 2 are all used in the text. At the same time, we have changed some of the location words to the site evaluation units in Figure 1. Please see line 443 to line 446 and line 489 for details.
Point 6: A general overview of the methodology proposed is required. A set of equations were instead provided without a clear rationale behind and explanations to determine values of the multiple variables deemed. The connection between all these models is also unknown. Without no sound arguments, some values were arbitrarily assigned to parameters (lines 388 and 394).
Response 6: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have supplemented the parameter values and calculation process in the model method. At the same time, in the specific calculation, we also draw on the previous research of relevant scholars, which has been cited in the revised manuscript. Please see line 448 to line 357 and line 393 to line 401 for details.
Point 7: Hazards are critical when assessing urban resilience, however no related variables/parameters were found in the models given. Hence, it is very controversial the analysis of urban resilience that disregards such a relevant factor like hazards.
Response 7: Thank you very much for this suggestion. In Discussion 5.2, we have discussed the role and significance of resilience research from a landscape pattern perspective. In the process of researching resilient cities from the perspective of landscape patterns, we mainly focus on the adaptability and redundancy of resilience and emphasize how cities can minimize disaster losses and maximize follow-up sustainable development based on their own development status under the acute impact of natural disasters and their own chronic pressures, rather than describe the urban response process under the influence of one disaster or multiple disasters. Please see line 705 to line 710 for details.
Point 8: Moreover, it is highly controversial the statement made in 379-380 “the organic combination of the subsystems jointly determines the sustainable development of the city” because sustainability is much more than a combination of scale, density, morphology and function attributes.
Response 8: Thank you very much for this suggestion. As suggested, We have revised this conclusion and supplemented it in Discussion 5.3. Please see line 406 to line 407 and line 734 to line 736 for details.
Point 9: Rationale that underpins the definition of the four thresholds of the Resilience Index / Density Resilience/ Morphology Resilience/ Function Resilience was not revealed. It is confusing how findings shown in Figure 7 were obtained, please clarify the method employed in Section 3.
Response 9: Thank you very much for this comment. From the existing research, it is difficult to determine the resilience threshold. This study focuses on the relative change of resilience from the time scale. We draw on the division method of regional economic and industrial development to classify scale, density, morphology and functional resilience. Before Figure 7, we discuss the calculation process of Fig. 7 in detail. Range normalization is not included in the research method as a relatively simple calculation method. The specific modifications are as follows: This paper use the range standardization method to normalize the scale, density, morphology and functional resilience of the four subsystems of each group area so that the value range of each subsystem is from 0 to 1. At the same time, it is divided into high and low, named the priority type and hysteresis type, respectively, according to the average value of each resilience subsystem. The subsystems are spatially superimposed to form the urban resilience system development type area of each group area in Nanchang (Figure 7), which is mainly used to observe the shortcomings in the process of urban resilience development.
Point 10: Miscellaneous comments. Please label figure 1 a) and b).
Response 10: Thanks for the professor's advice. We have modified the labels in the revised manuscript. Please see line 269 and line 296 for details.
Point 11: Contribution in the field and theoretical/practical implications of the study should be highlighted in the last section since they are unknown.
Response 11: Thank you very much for this comment. We have reworked the conclusions to strengthen the discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the study. For details, please see line 747- 778 in the revised manuscript. The text has been marked in red. The specific modifications are as follows:
As a complex social-ecological system, cities face dual disturbances, such as chronic pressure brought about by their own rapid development and acute shocks caused by natural and man-made disasters. The community has begun to pay extensive attention to the construction of a resilient development environment in cities to improve the ability of urban systems to adapt and adjust to uncertain disturbances. Although the theory and case studies of urban resilience have developed considerably, few scholars have explored the spatiotemporal evolution process of urban resilience under special geographical forms. Based on the special geographical form of the water network city, this paper enriches the basic scale of urban research starts from the grouping unit divided by the water network. This study introduces the perspective of landscape ecology into the research on urban resilience, and establishes a resilience assessment method consisting of four indicators of scale, density, morphology and function from the basic dimensions of urban development. These expand the research perspectives and quantitative measurement methods of urban resilience. At the same time, this study strengthens the detection of key water network groups and key dimensions of urban resilience development, and depicts the coordination status and stage characteristics of urban resilience systems, which also provides scientific decision-making for resilience-oriented refined governance and adaptive planning.
In specific practice, we propose differentiated governance strategies, which include: (1) Group areas in a low-level coupling state should reasonably adjust functional zoning, advocate low-carbon production and living patterns, optimize group structure and morphology, and promote the gradual recovery of regional resilience through renewal and conservation measures. (2) In transitional group areas, ecological infrastructure construction and ecological land conservation should be strengthened, and the spatial layout of urban material elements should be optimized. (3) In developmental groups, smart growth should be implemented in the process of construction. At the same time, the region should also pay attention to the coupling and coordination relationship between various subsystems such as scale, density, morphology and function. (4) Group areas with high levels of coupling and coordination should reasonably control the risk of uncertain interference caused by human activities, and pay attention to the fragility and sensitivity characteristics of the ecological background in future development.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept the authors' answers to my questions. I think the quality of the manuscript has improved since the revisions. I still think that the explanation of the methodology could be more accurate, however, I see from the answers that its full elaboration would significantly increase the length of the article.
Author Response
Point: I accept the authors' answers to my questions. I think the quality of the manuscript has improved since the revisions. I still think that the explanation of the methodology could be more accurate, however, I see from the answers that its full elaboration would significantly increase the length of the article.
Response: Thanks for the professor's advice. We have further detailed the method based on your comments. In the revised manuscript, we incorporated specific parameters from the density resilience index, the morphology resilience index and the functional resilience index into the method. Please see line 364 to line 369, Table 2, line 416 to line 419, Table 3 for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Figure 1 was wrongly referred in 3.1. rather than Figure 2. A general overview of the methodology proposed is required. Some values were arbitrarily assigned to parameters with scarce scientific soundness.
Author Response
Point 1: Figure 1 was wrongly referred in 3.1. rather than Figure 2.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this suggestion. As suggested, we have revised the figure sequence in the Study area and data section. Please see lines 269 to line 270, line 276 and line 296 for details in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: A general overview of the methodology proposed is required.
Response 2: Thank you very much for this comment. We have added a detailed discussion of the resilience assessment framework proposed in Methods. Please see line 313 to line 321 for details.
Point 3: Some values were arbitrarily assigned to parameters with scarce scientific soundness.
Response 3: Thanks for the professor's advice. In the revised manuscript, we incorporated specific parameters from the density resilience index, the morphology resilience index and the functional resilience index into the method. Please see line 364 to line 369, Table 2, line 416 to line 419, Table 3 for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
