The Interplay between Citizen Activities and Space across Different Official Memorial Landscape Construction Phases: Disaster Risk Reduction in Ishinomaki, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic and has some research value, but there are still many problems.

1. The introduction does not meet the standards of academic papers. In the Introduction section, the authors need to explain clearly  what is the significance of  this research? And what are the main contributions and research purposes of this paper?

2.The literature review is too weak. The authors need to introduce the existing  methodsand explain the reasons for the methods chosen in this paper.It is recommended that the author add more international literatures to improve this part.

3.The language of the manuscript must be improved. I recommend that the authors invite a native English speaker to edit the language.

4.The result section and discussion section are too simple and now look more like a display of calculation results without in-depth analysis and discussion.

5.The conclusion part needs to be further improved. In addition to the need to summarize and analyze the results of this study, it is necessary to make a certain outlook on the future research direction.

6.The section arrangement of the manuscript does not meet the requirements of academic papers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the manuscript must be improved. I recommend that the authors invite a native English speaker to edit the language.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

We would like to thank you for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

OVERALL IMPRESSION

The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic and has some research value, but there are still many problems.

 

Point 1: The introduction does not meet the standards of academic papers. In the Introduction section, the authors need to explain clearly what is the significance of this research? And what are the main contributions and research purposes of this paper?

 

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The significance of this research is presented in section 1.2. (Memorial facilities and DRR). In the revised version, we clarified the importance of conducting this research by improving the language expression.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 85-94) However, in some instances, grassroots citizen activities intersect with the official construction of memorial facilities. For example, in Ishinomaki, citizen activities occurred on the space designated for the official memorial landscape before the government began constructing of memorial parks commemorating the Great East Japan Earthquake [18]. It is crucial to investigate whether these citizen-driven activities can harmoniously coexist with a more influential construction process and persist in assuming similar roles within the realm of DRR under such circumstances. To bridge this research gap, a comprehensive examination of the creation and utilization of memori-al facilities and the surrounding spaces through citizen involvement during the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction stages of official memorial facilities is imperative.

 

The main contributions and research purposes of this paper were stated in section 1.4.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 130-138) Considering the context, this study aims to achieve the following research objectives through an in-depth analysis of the memorial park in Ishinomaki (Figure 1):

(i) Explore the narrative of citizen activities contributing to the construction and management of grassroots memorial facilities and investigate how these facilities in turn influence citizen activities before, during, and after the construction of the memorial park.

(ii) Examine the relationship between official and citizen-led efforts in different construction periods of the memorial park.

(iii) Assess the potential of the process mentioned in (i) and (ii) to contribute to DRR in terms of preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery (PPRR) strategies.

 

Point 2: The literature review is too weak. The authors need to introduce the existing methods and explain the reasons for the methods chosen in this paper. It is recommended that the author add more international literatures to improve this part.

 

Response 2:

Thanks to this helpful comment. Indeed, we agree that it is necessary to mention why we selected this method. In the introduction section of this revised version, we pointed out that previous research on citizen-led DRR initiatives in memorial facilities used qualitative research, instead of incorporating quantitative data to complement the results. Thus, it is necessary to use a more comprehensive and integrative research methodology to let qualitative data and quantitative data to support each other.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 94-100) Moreover, previous research related to public participation in DRR within commemorative landscapes has typically employed qualitative methods, such as ethnography [17], narrative literature reviews [19, 20], qualitative summaries [13], discourse analysis [21], and interviews [22]. But there is a lack of mutual corroboration and complementary support between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Therefore, a more comprehensive and integrative research methodology is necessary.

 

Besides, we introduced the definition and advantages of our research in the method section (section 2.2.1.).

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 160-169) To achieve well-rounded results and minimize the bias caused by a single research method, we adopted a mixed methods research approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research methods [35]. Text and image data were collected from the internet. The quantitative research (Method 1) was conducted first by attaching and counting labels for the activity data. Subsequently, the qualitative research (Method 2) was conducted by analyzing the original text and images to determine the reasons behind the quantitative results. Thus, the quantitative results supported the qualitative findings, and the qualitative findings explained the quantitative result (Figure 3). To prevent bias, members of the research team conducted the coding and text analysis independently and cross-checked the results.

 

Point 3: The language of the manuscript must be improved. I recommend that the authors invite a native English speaker to edit the language.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for pointing this out. Before we submitted the previous version of paper, we commissioned a language editing company, “editage” (https://www.editage.com/), to improve our English. To improve our English expression furthermore, we rechecked and edited the language again in the revised version, for better clarity, conciseness, and coherence.

 

Point 4: The result section and discussion section are too simple and now look more like a display of calculation results without in-depth analysis and discussion.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for this helpful comment. In the result section, we tried to let the qualitative result and quantitative result to prove each other. For example, after the official construction of the memorial park, quantitative data shows that the frequency of citizen-led activities increased, instead of being disturbed by the construction process. While qualitative data shows that the official construction process and citizens respected each other, thus citizen activities and their grassroots facilities were protected, and even improve by the official construction. Thus, qualitative explains the reason why frequency of activities increased, and quantitative data supports the reason explained in the qualitative explanation.

 

Details of the example of quantitative data mentioned above are as follows:

(Line 249-253) After the construction of the park (Ⅲ), activities for “planting and environment” (A) peaked, alongside increase in “prayer and mourning” (C) and “general citizen usage” (D) compared to the preceding period. Consequently, the total value of activities in-creased. Most of the values in 3 months exceeded 10, and the maximum value reached 23. This showed that the construction of the park did not disturb the citizens activities.

 

Details of the example of qualitative data mentioned above are as follows:

(Line 380-395) The official construction allowed ongoing citizen activities because of mutual respect between citizens and officials and collaborative tree-planting movements. This explains why the number of activity data increased during the construction period (Figure 5). Official planning documents proposed preserving and nurturing citizen activities during construction (Table 9). Consequently, citizen-led place-making efforts were not undermined but were integrated into the official construction process.

On the other hand, citizens adjusted their grassroots facilities based on planning documents in response, which included relocation, expanding the size, and adding new functions (Table 9 and Figure 11). During this process, their facilities were im-proved by ensuring better accessibility to the outside, better connection with other official facilities in theme, as well as larger and more places for use. Additionally, a Participatory Management Council was proposed about six months before the park's official construction. This council, which included government sectors and citizen organizations, aimed to facilitate collaborative management and activities. However, this management method was not established, because the council was not positioned as a place to decide, and the final decision was made by the government after listening to the advice of citizen groups.

 

Besides, in the revised version, we further developed the discussion by suggesting practical initiatives that may be made to harness citizen activities for improved resilience and disaster risk reduction results.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 580-591) As a recommendation for spatial recovery, citizens should build up buildings while they first set up grass-roots memorial facilities in disaster-stricken area, because it provides a stable space for sustaining citizen activities. During official construction, government sectors should hold frequent meetings or discussions to coordinate with citizen groups because that might facilitate improvement of grass-roots facilities, incorporating them as a part of the official memorial landscape finally. Park managers should organize collaborative management meetings to facilitate cooperation among all stakeholders. For social recovery, we suggest both parties to further promote civic activities involving tourists and non-residents, such as planting activities with implicit meanings of recovery and commemoration. This approach would enable residents to rebuild local relationships and establish connections with a broader audience, potentially enhancing psychological recovery in the disaster-affected areas at the same time.

 

(Line 616-624) These disaster preparedness measures demonstrate flexible and diverse approaches to disaster education. In fact, challenges such as aging infrastructure, inadequate funding, and declining visitor numbers currently confront disaster education efforts within memorial facilities for the GEJE [48]. These challenges may hinder the continuation of disaster preparedness measures, diminishing public awareness of disaster risks over time [49]. In response, this section illustrates how citizen groups in memorial facilities sustain disaster education by implementing both non-formal and informal education, as well as by collaborating with formal educational institutions like schools to promote on-site education programs.

 

(Line 629-638) Although we did not determine a specific contribution of citizen activities on disaster prevention, the process of relocating grassroots facilities constructed by citizen groups was closely intertwined with official construction efforts to raise the ground level, a process founded on mutual respect between citizens and the government. This indirectly contributed to flood and tsunami prevention. Moreover, in other tsunami memorial landscape, the construction of disaster prevention facilities includes greening initiatives, as seen in the traditional pine forest in Takatamatsubara Tsunami Memori-al Park [50]. Therefore, memorial landscapes could potentially enhance disaster preparedness facilities through citizen-led planting activities and environmental conservation.

 

(Line 648-651) Therefore, it is necessary to promote emergency drills organized by citizen groups at memorial facilities in areas prone to recurrent disasters. This approach not only aids in faster response during actual disasters but also improves the drills through high levels of citizen participation and feedback.

 

Point 5: The conclusion part needs to be further improved. In addition to the need to summarize and analyze the results of this study, it is necessary to make a certain outlook on the future research direction.

 

Response 5:

Thanks for this comment. In the revised version, we have pointed out the limitations of this paper, and how future research should work on overcoming them.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 702-720) The study also had limitations so future research should overcome them:

(i) Regarding citizen activities, this paper collects data on group activities, while lacks specific data on the individual citizens participating in activities. For example, there is no information about the number of individual participants, their modes of engagement, and the demographic and sociological backgrounds of the activity participants. This limitation may lead to a simplified view of collaboration mechanisms [52]. Therefore, future research should employ surveys distributed to activity participants to obtain detailed information on individual activities and civil-government collaboration.

(ii) All data were derived from online texts or pictures, which may be insufficient compared to data obtained from interviews. According to the Media Richness Theory [53], the capacity of communication channels to convey rich information increases with the number of channels. In other words, text messages collected through the internet are less rich than face-to-face communication, which allows for immediate feedback, nonverbal cues, and contextual information. Consequently, future research should consider using interviews to obtain deeper insights from individuals.

(iii) This paper investigates only one location in Japan, while citizen participation in DRR may be influenced by cultural [54], and social systems [55]. Therefore, more relevant cases need to be examined, or comparative studies of citizen participation in disaster prevention under different contexts should be conducted.

 

Point 6: The section arrangement of the manuscript does not meet the requirements of academic papers.

 

Response 6:

Thanks for this comment. We have utilized the academic format to accomplish this paper: introduction, methods, results, discussions, conclusions. The revisions from Point 1 to Point 5 might make the article seem more organized based on the format of an academic article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article, titled "The Interplay between Citizen Activities and Space across Different Official Memorial Landscape Construction Phases: Disaster Risk Reduction in Ishinomaki, Japan," provides an engaging examination of its subject. The application of mixed methods, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative approaches, results in a robust and detailed analysis. The findings of this study are valuable, enriching the existing body of knowledge on disaster risk reduction.

Despite these strengths, there are areas where the manuscript could be improved for enhanced clarity and comprehensiveness. Specifically, the section detailing the study site (lines 140-155) lacks essential data, such as estimates of the population before and after the disasters, as well as information about housing units and households. It would strengthen the article to include these details, referencing publicly available data for support.

Additionally, the manuscript begins to address the study's limitations at line 653 but does so without clearly detailing them. For greater transparency and to aid in the reader's understanding, it would be advantageous to enumerate these limitations explicitly, detailing them as the first, second, and third types, and providing context for each.

Furthermore, in the conclusion section, the discussion would benefit from a clearer linkage to the three objectives initially listed in lines 129-135. Each objective should be explicitly revisited with a concise summary of the related findings. This structured approach will not only reinforce the coherence of the paper but will also ensure that the contributions of the research to the field of disaster risk reduction are clearly articulated and easy to grasp.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

We would like to thank you for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

OVERALL IMPRESSION

This article, titled "The Interplay between Citizen Activities and Space across Different Official Memorial Landscape Construction Phases: Disaster Risk Reduction in Ishinomaki, Japan," provides an engaging examination of its subject. The application of mixed methods, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative approaches, results in a robust and detailed analysis. The findings of this study are valuable, enriching the existing body of knowledge on disaster risk reduction.

Despite these strengths, there are areas where the manuscript could be improved for enhanced clarity and comprehensiveness.

 

Point 1: Specifically, the section detailing the study site (lines 140-155) lacks essential data, such as estimates of the population before and after the disasters, as well as information about housing units and households. It would strengthen the article to include these details, referencing publicly available data for support.

 

Response 1:

We appreciate the reviewer for this comment. We have added related data about estimation of population before and after the disaster, and information about housing units as well as households surrounding the study site.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 145-148) Before the tsunami disaster, the site was a densely populated residential area with 1,124 families and 2,694 residents. The magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami resulted in 275 deaths, 132 missing persons, and the destruction of over 2000 houses [32]. Since the disaster, the area has remained uninhabited [33].

 

Point 2: Additionally, the manuscript begins to address the study's limitations at line 653 but does so without clearly detailing them. For greater transparency and to aid in the reader's understanding, it would be advantageous to enumerate these limitations explicitly, detailing them as the first, second, and third types, and providing context for each.

 

Response 2:

Thanks to this helpful comment, in the revised version we have mentioned three limitations, and how future research should overcome them.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 702-720) The study also had limitations so future research should overcome them:

(i) Regarding citizen activities, this paper collects data on group activities, while lacks specific data on the individual citizens participating in activities. For example, there is no information about the number of individual participants, their modes of engagement, and the demographic and sociological backgrounds of the activity participants. This limitation may lead to a simplified view of collaboration mechanisms [52]. Therefore, future research should employ surveys distributed to activity participants to obtain detailed information on individual activities and civil-government collaboration.

(ii) All data were derived from online texts or pictures, which may be insufficient compared to data obtained from interviews. According to the Media Richness Theory [53], the capacity of communication channels to convey rich information increases with the number of channels. In other words, text messages collected through the internet are less rich than face-to-face communication, which allows for immediate feedback, nonverbal cues, and contextual information. Consequently, future research should consider using interviews to obtain deeper insights from individuals.

(iii) This paper investigates only one location in Japan, while citizen participation in DRR may be influenced by cultural [54], and social systems [55]. Therefore, more relevant cases need to be examined, or comparative studies of citizen participation in disaster prevention under different contexts should be conducted.

 

Point 3: Furthermore, in the conclusion section, the discussion would benefit from a clearer linkage to the three objectives initially listed in lines 129-135. Each objective should be explicitly revisited with a concise summary of the related findings. This structured approach will not only reinforce the coherence of the paper but will also ensure that the contributions of the research to the field of disaster risk reduction are clearly articulated and easy to grasp.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, we agree that by revisiting the three objectives, the paper will be coherent and easy to understand. We have revised the conclusion section based on this idea.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 653-688) This research conducted a case study on a memorial landscape in the Tohoku region of Japan, an area affected by tsunami and earthquake. It utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to reach well-rounded results about the citizens activities conducted in different construction stages of memorial parks under the government and how could this model contribute to DRR.

(i) For the interplay between space and citizen activities, the research found that in accessible spaces, citizens established temporary memorial facilities such as houses, monuments, and squares, as well as planted vegetation with implicit memorial meanings before the construction phase. They regularly maintained these facilities to sustain them. On the other hand, these place-making works were essential for providing space and shelter for citizen activities before and during the official construction in turn. After the official construction, the vacant square with little park facilities to define the space enabled diverse citizen activities beyond the based on flexible place-making by citizen groups. 

(ii) For the interplay between official and citizen-led efforts to the memorial park, the methods of forming joint efforts without mutual interference were identified. Dur-ing the construction, the official planning of the memorial park included and upgraded existing citizen activities and grassroots memorial facilities, possibly resulted by frequent communication. This mutual respect also facilitated collaborative tree planting activities. After the opening of the park, a Collaborative Management Council, comprising government and citizen groups, was vital for everyone to form a joint effort towards the planed targets of the memorial park.   

(iii) For the mechanism which the process (i) and (ii) contribute to DRR in four aspects (PPRR) (Figure 14), disaster recovery (spatial, social, and psychological) was the basis of the other three aspects. To foster spatial recovery, we suggest frequent communication between citizen groups and official construction sectors to enhance improvement of grassroots facilities. We suggest setting up Participatory Management Council for collaborative efforts centered around a park goal with consensus. For disaster preparedness, diverse educational types were identified, including non-formal education by storytellers and collaboration with stakeholders for formal education, as well as informal education through sports and exercise. Thus, we recommend that citizen groups conduct diverse educational activities to sustain the function of memorial facilities. For disaster prevention, we found that government construction of hard infrastructures was primary, but citizen groups also have the potential to contribute through planting. For disaster response, it is found that in memorial landscape at risk of future disasters, regular emergency drills led by citizen groups, incorporating both visitors and staffs, were vital for making steady improvement of disaster response, thus should be encouraged.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the paper Entitled" The Interplay between Citizen Activities and Space across Different Official Memorial Landscape Construction Phases: Disaster Risk Reduction in Ishinomaki, Japan.”

The following issues remain to be revised:

1.      I recommend a strong editorial check for possible human errors, syntax and representation of mathematical equations.

2.      There's something wrong with the layout of Figure 1 and Figure 3.

3.      The Japanese explanation in Figure 13 should be removed.

4.      The label for Figure 4 should be directly below the image.

5.      The source that appear several times in the table, e.g. H2*, D*, etc., should be explained first.

6.      The numerical results of the quantitative analyses should be combined with the discussion in the abstract to emphasize the contribution of this work.

7.      The conclusions should be elaborated upon and may include further discussions of responses in future work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English Language can be improved. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

We would like to thank you for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

OVERALL IMPRESSION

I reviewed the paper Entitled" The Interplay between Citizen Activities and Space across Different Official Memorial Landscape Construction Phases: Disaster Risk Reduction in Ishinomaki, Japan.”

The following issues remain to be revised:

 

Point 1: I recommend a strong editorial check for possible human errors, syntax and representation of mathematical equations.

 

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have checked the possible errors, syntax, and representation of mathematical equations carefully. Eventually, we revised the English expression in some parts for better clarity, conciseness, and coherence.

 

Point 2: There's something wrong with the layout of Figure 1 and Figure 3.

 

Response 2:

Thanks to this helpful comment, in the revised version we have revised the layout two figures.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 139-140) Figure 1. Framework of the study aims.

(Line 176-177) Figure 3. The flow of the Mixed Methods Research Approach.

 

Point 3: The Japanese explanation in Figure 13 should be removed.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for pointing this out. In the revised version, we have deleted the Japanese explanation inside.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 474-475) Figure 13. Collaborative regulation system

 

Point 4: The label for Figure 4 should be directly below the image.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for this comment, we have moved the label below the image.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 228-229) Figure 4. Method of distributing value for codes.

 

Point 5: The source that appear several times in the table, e.g. H2*, D*, etc., should be explained first.

 

Response 5:

Thanks for this comment. We have explained these labels in Table 1, where the sources and types of collected data are presented. To improve the clarity of these labels we have changed the name of them in Table 1 as “Labels of the data source”, and in the rest tables for qualitative data as “Data source”.

Details are as follows:

(Line 197-198)

Table 1. The sources and types of collected data.

	Labels of the data source	Names of the categories	Ishinomaki Minamihama Tsunami Memorial Park
			number	Percentage (%)
Source of data	[D*]	Digital newspaper (KAHOKU SHIMPO Database)	328	36.28
	[O*]	Online news	21	2.32
	[H1*]	Homepages of memorial parks or related facilities	55	6.08
	[H2*]	Homepages or online documents from national and local governments	155	17.15
	[H3*]	Homepages of organizations joined in the activities	115	12.72
	[S*]	Social media accounts of organizations joined in the activities	227	25.11
	[R*]	Research papers	6	0.66
Type of data		Content of activities	754	83.41
		Management of activities	73	8.08
		Space of activities	77	8.52
Total			904	100

(Line 306-307)

Table 3. Qualitative data samples for notable activities of the site before the disaster.

Category	Explanation	Original text	Data source, year
(1) Activities in the cultural center	The function of the cultural center for cultural and artistic activities	The Ishinomaki Cultural Center and Ishinomaki Civic Hall, which were the city's main cultural facilities... Both facilities had served as the center of cultural and artistic activities for the citizens of the city.	[H2*], 2016
(2) Disaster education activities	Disaster education seminar	In preparation for disasters ..., an "Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster Prevention Seminar"... will be held for foreigners...	[D*], 2006
	Emergency drills were proved to be effective	The two-story facility was destroyed... but all 47 users and 30 staff members were spared. The facility had been conducting evacuation drills several times a year... it took 20 minutes to complete the ride. However, the time was shortened to 6 minutes...	[D*], 2013

 

Point 6: The numerical results of the quantitative analyses should be combined with the discussion in the abstract to emphasize the contribution of this work.

 

Response 6:

Thanks for this comment. In the result section, we tried to let the qualitative result and quantitative result to prove each other. For example, after the official construction of the memorial park, quantitative data shows that the frequency of citizen-led activities increased, instead of being disturbed by the construction process. While qualitative data shows that the official construction process and citizens respected each other, thus citizen activities and their grassroots facilities were protected, and even improve by the official construction. Thus, qualitative explains the reason why frequency of activities increased, and quantitative data supports the reason explained in the qualitative explanation. Then, the discussion section is based on the results, and explained based on the three objectives of the paper (Line 130-139).

 

Details of the example of quantitative data mentioned above are as follows:

(Line 249-253) After the construction of the park (Ⅲ), activities for “planting and environment” (A) peaked, alongside increase in “prayer and mourning” (C) and “general citizen usage” (D) compared to the preceding period. Consequently, the total value of activities in-creased. Most of the values in 3 months exceeded 10, and the maximum value reached 23. This showed that the construction of the park did not disturb the citizens activities.

 

Details of the example of qualitative data mentioned above are as follows:

(Line 380-395) The official construction allowed ongoing citizen activities because of mutual respect between citizens and officials and collaborative tree-planting movements. This explains why the number of activity data increased during the construction period (Figure 5). Official planning documents proposed preserving and nurturing citizen activities during construction (Table 9). Consequently, citizen-led place-making efforts were not undermined but were integrated into the official construction process.

On the other hand, citizens adjusted their grassroots facilities based on planning documents in response, which included relocation, expanding the size, and adding new functions (Table 9 and Figure 11). During this process, their facilities were im-proved by ensuring better accessibility to the outside, better connection with other official facilities in theme, as well as larger and more places for use. Additionally, a Participatory Management Council was proposed about six months before the park's official construction. This council, which included government sectors and citizen organizations, aimed to facilitate collaborative management and activities. However, this management method was not established, because the council was not positioned as a place to decide, and the final decision was made by the government after listening to the advice of citizen groups.

 

Details of the example of discussion mentioned above are as follows:

(Line 516-528) However, during the construction phase (Phase III), the study site witnessed collaborative efforts between citizens and governments to foster mutual respect. The park's offi-cial design documents acknowledged the significance of preserving existing citizen activities, whereas citizens adjusted their place-making efforts in alignment with the park's overall plan. This collaboration led to enhanced facilities, improved accessibility, better connections with other official theme-related facilities, and the creation of larger and more diverse usable spaces. This outcome can be attributed to the frequent information exchanges between officials and local citizen groups at several conferences, during which the ideas of citizens were respected and included in the planning and construction documents [28, 46]. Furthermore, once the basic terrain creation and mounding of the park had been completed by official construction in the park, tree planting activities were carried out by residents, fostering civic engagement in land-scape recovery.

 

Point 7: The conclusions should be elaborated upon and may include further discussions of responses in future work.

 

Response 7:

Thanks for this comment. In the revised version, we explained the important findings and suggestions in this paper based on three objectives of this research, and then explain what this research might be useful for academic area, citizen groups, and governments.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 653-701)

This research conducted a case study on a memorial landscape in the Tohoku re-gion of Japan, an area affected by tsunami and earthquake. It utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to reach well-rounded results about the citizens activities conducted in different construction stages of memorial parks under the government and how could this model contribute to DRR.

(i) For the interplay between space and citizen activities, the research found that in accessible spaces, citizens established temporary memorial facilities such as houses, monuments, and squares, as well as planted vegetation with implicit memorial meanings before the construction phase. They regularly maintained these facilities to sustain them. On the other hand, these place-making works were essential for providing space and shelter for citizen activities before and during the official construction in turn. After the official construction, the vacant square with little park facilities to define the space enabled diverse citizen activities beyond the based on flexible place-making by citizen groups. 

(ii) For the interplay between official and citizen-led efforts to the memorial park, the methods of forming joint efforts without mutual interference were identified. During the construction, the official planning of the memorial park included and upgraded existing citizen activities and grassroots memorial facilities, possibly resulted by frequent communication. This mutual respect also facilitated collaborative tree planting activities. After the opening of the park, a Collaborative Management Council, comprising government and citizen groups, was vital for everyone to form a joint effort towards the planed targets of the memorial park.   

(iii) For the mechanism which the process (i) and (ii) contribute to DRR in four aspects (PPRR) (Figure 14), disaster recovery (spatial, social, and psychological) was the basis of the other three aspects. To foster spatial recovery, we suggest frequent communication between citizen groups and official construction sectors to enhance improvement of grassroots facilities. We suggest setting up Participatory Management Council for collaborative efforts centered around a park goal with consensus. For disaster preparedness, diverse educational types were identified, including non-formal education by storytellers and collaboration with stakeholders for formal education, as well as informal education through sports and exercise. Thus, we recommend that citizen groups conduct diverse educational activities to sustain the function of memorial facilities. For disaster prevention, we found that government construction of hard infrastructures was primary, but citizen groups also have the potential to contribute through planting. For disaster response, it is found that in memorial landscape at risk of future disasters, regular emergency drills led by citizen groups, incorporating both visitors and staffs, were vital for making steady improvement of disaster response, thus should be encouraged.

The findings of this research contribute to several key areas. First, from an academic perspective, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the collaborative dynamics and mutual respect between spontaneous citizen activities and official park construction in the post-disaster revitalization of tsunami-affected sites, highlighting its implications for DRR. For citizen organizations, the case study offers insights into how citizen groups contribute to DRR in disaster-affected regions, showing effective coordination with official constructions through mutual respect and participatory management. For government sectors, this study is helpful to build official memorial landscapes for disasters on the site where spontaneous activities of citizens have al-ready occurred. Considering the potential challenges of limited manpower or citizen involvement immediately after a disaster, officials need to utilize existing citizen activities to improve the construction and management of memorial landscapes. This approach encourages viewing citizen initiatives as valuable assets rather than hindrances to the realization of official revival plans.

 

Point 8: The Quality of English Language can be improved.

 

Response 8:

Thanks for pointing this out, in the revised version, we have rechecked the full text to ensure that there are no writing errors and for better clarity, conciseness, and coherence.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

land-2954992 review note

 

Thank you for you this review invitation.

 

The manuscript "The Interplay between Citizen Activities and Space across Different Official Memorial Landscape Construction Phases: Disaster Risk Reduction in Ishinomaki, Japan" conveys meanings of the collaborative dynamics and mutual respect between spontaneous citizen activities and official park construction in post-disaster revitalization efforts in tsunami-affected areas.

 

Based on my review, this paper appears to be almost ready for publication. The analytical method is rationally organized and aimed to attract discussion topics and guide the conclusion. I have no qualm about the entire content organization and writing style (English looks fine). 

 

However, I would propose addressing a few minor concerns, as follows: 

 

1)In conclusion, the authors need to provide a succinct summary of the work's key results to emphasize the study's primary contributions in the academic society of disaster management. The authors should summarize the findings' implications for future disaster-related risk reduction measures and community engagement programs.

 

2) During the discussions, suggest practical initiatives that may be made to harness citizen activities for improved resilience and disaster risk reduction results.

 

3) By incorporating these revisions into the research manuscript's comments and conclusion sections, the authors may improve the clarity, depth, and significance of the study's findings while also contributing to the academic discourse on citizen actions and solutions in disaster risk reduction. ‘Briefly and logically’

 

4) Tables should be shown concisely and clearly for all levels of readers, including students and researchers. They are unfocused.

 

Overall, I would suggest the manuscript for acceptance with minor revisions.

 

Good job and good luck!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

We would like to thank you for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

OVERALL IMPRESSION

Thank you for you this review invitation.

 

The manuscript "The Interplay between Citizen Activities and Space across Different Official Memorial Landscape Construction Phases: Disaster Risk Reduction in Ishinomaki, Japan" conveys meanings of the collaborative dynamics and mutual respect between spontaneous citizen activities and official park construction in post-disaster revitalization efforts in tsunami-affected areas.

 

Based on my review, this paper appears to be almost ready for publication. The analytical method is rationally organized and aimed to attract discussion topics and guide the conclusion. I have no qualm about the entire content organization and writing style (English looks fine).

 

However, I would propose addressing a few minor concerns, as follows:

 

Point 1: In conclusion, the authors need to provide a succinct summary of the work's key results to emphasize the study's primary contributions in the academic society of disaster management. The authors should summarize the findings' implications for future disaster-related risk reduction measures and community engagement programs.

 

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revised version, we have summarized the paper’s key results by answering the three objectives mentioned in the introduction section (Line 129-139). Besides, the implications of the findings were mentioned afterwards by presenting the importance of this paper to the academic community, citizen groups, and governments.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 653-701) This research conducted a case study on a memorial landscape in the Tohoku re-gion of Japan, an area affected by tsunami and earthquake. It utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to reach well-rounded results about the citizens activities conducted in different construction stages of memorial parks under the government and how could this model contribute to DRR.

(i) For the interplay between space and citizen activities, the research found that in accessible spaces, citizens established temporary memorial facilities such as houses, monuments, and squares, as well as planted vegetation with implicit memorial meanings before the construction phase. They regularly maintained these facilities to sustain them. On the other hand, these place-making works were essential for providing space and shelter for citizen activities before and during the official construction in turn. After the official construction, the vacant square with little park facilities to define the space enabled diverse citizen activities beyond the based on flexible place-making by citizen groups. 

(ii) For the interplay between official and citizen-led efforts to the memorial park, the methods of forming joint efforts without mutual interference were identified. During the construction, the official planning of the memorial park included and upgraded existing citizen activities and grassroots memorial facilities, possibly resulted by frequent communication. This mutual respect also facilitated collaborative tree planting activities. After the opening of the park, a Collaborative Management Council, comprising government and citizen groups, was vital for everyone to form a joint effort towards the planed targets of the memorial park.   

(iii) For the mechanism which the process (i) and (ii) contribute to DRR in four aspects (PPRR) (Figure 14), disaster recovery (spatial, social, and psychological) was the basis of the other three aspects. To foster spatial recovery, we suggest frequent communication between citizen groups and official construction sectors to enhance improvement of grassroots facilities. We suggest setting up Participatory Management Council for collaborative efforts centered around a park goal with consensus. For dis-aster preparedness, diverse educational types were identified, including non-formal education by storytellers and collaboration with stakeholders for formal education, as well as informal education through sports and exercise. Thus, we recommend that citizen groups conduct diverse educational activities to sustain the function of memorial facilities. For disaster prevention, we found that government construction of hard infrastructures was primary, but citizen groups also have the potential to contribute through planting. For disaster response, it is found that in memorial landscape at risk of future disasters, regular emergency drills led by citizen groups, incorporating both visitors and staffs, were vital for making steady improvement of disaster response, thus should be encouraged.

The findings of this research contribute to several key areas. First, from an aca-demic perspective, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the collaborative dynamics and mutual respect between spontaneous citizen activities and official park construction in the post-disaster revitalization of tsunami-affected sites, highlighting its implications for DRR. For citizen organizations, the case study offers insights into how citizen groups contribute to DRR in disaster-affected regions, showing effective coordination with official constructions through mutual respect and participatory management. For government sectors, this study is helpful to build official memorial landscapes for disasters on the site where spontaneous activities of citizens have al-ready occurred. Considering the potential challenges of limited manpower or citizen involvement immediately after a disaster, officials need to utilize existing citizen activities to improve the construction and management of memorial landscapes. This approach encourages viewing citizen initiatives as valuable assets rather than hindrances to the realization of official revival plans.

 

Point 2: During the discussions, suggest practical initiatives that may be made to harness citizen activities for improved resilience and disaster risk reduction results.

 

Response 2:

Thanks to this helpful comment, in the revised version added suggestions to harness citizen activities for DRR based on the research findings.

 

Details are as follows:

(Line 580-591) As a recommendation for spatial recovery, citizens should build up buildings while they first set up grass-roots memorial facilities in disaster-stricken area, because it provides a stable space for sustaining citizen activities. During official construction, government sectors should hold frequent meetings or discussions to coordinate with citizen groups because that might facilitate improvement of grass-roots facilities, incorporating them as a part of the official memorial landscape finally. Park managers should organize collaborative management meetings to facilitate cooperation among all stakeholders. For social recovery, we suggest both parties to further promote civic activities involving tourists and non-residents, such as planting activities with implicit meanings of recovery and commemoration. This approach would enable residents to rebuild local relationships and establish connections with a broader audience, potentially enhancing psychological recovery in the disaster-affected areas at the same time.

 

(Line 616-624) These disaster preparedness measures demonstrate flexible and diverse approaches to disaster education. In fact, challenges such as aging infrastructure, inadequate funding, and declining visitor numbers currently confront disaster education efforts within memorial facilities for the GEJE [48]. These challenges may hinder the continuation of disaster preparedness measures, diminishing public awareness of disaster risks over time [49]. In response, this section illustrates how citizen groups in memorial facilities sustain disaster education by implementing both non-formal and informal education, as well as by collaborating with formal educational institutions like schools to promote on-site education programs.

 

(Line 629-638) Although we did not determine a specific contribution of citizen activities on disaster prevention, the process of relocating grassroots facilities constructed by citizen groups was closely intertwined with official construction efforts to raise the ground level, a process founded on mutual respect between citizens and the government. This indirectly contributed to flood and tsunami prevention. Moreover, in other tsunami memorial landscape, the construction of disaster prevention facilities includes greening initiatives, as seen in the traditional pine forest in Takatamatsubara Tsunami Memori-al Park [50]. Therefore, memorial landscapes could potentially enhance disaster preparedness facilities through citizen-led planting activities and environmental conservation.

 

(Line 648-651) Therefore, it is necessary to promote emergency drills organized by citizen groups at memorial facilities in areas prone to recurrent disasters. This approach not only aids in faster response during actual disasters but also improves the drills through high levels of citizen participation and feedback.

 

Point 3: By incorporating these revisions into the research manuscript's comments and conclusion sections, the authors may improve the clarity, depth, and significance of the study's findings while also contributing to the academic discourse on citizen actions and solutions in disaster risk reduction. ‘Briefly and logically’

 

Response 3:

Thanks for pointing this out. We hope that the revision in Point 1 and Point 2 can further improve this paper, enhancing the clarity, depth, and significance.

 

Point 4: Tables should be shown concisely and clearly for all levels of readers, including students and researchers. They are unfocused.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for this helpful comment. Indeed, the tables seems occupying too many pages and seems difficult for readers to focus on. However, the original text data is vital for reaching to qualitative results, which are analyzed based on them. Thus, we tried to improve the tables in the revised version by shrinking the font of original text and bold the font of categories and explanations. In this way, readers will focus on important parts like categories and explanations.

 

Examples of the revised tables are as follows. Please see the attachment or the revised version of paper.

(Line 306-307) Table 3. Qualitative data samples for notable activities of the site before the disaster. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is revised. Most of problems are addressed well. Some of them can be further revised. The main contribution in terms of methods should be summarized in the section one.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English Language can be improved. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We would like to express our gratitude for your careful and thorough review of our manuscript. Your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions have greatly contributed to enhancing its quality. Please find below our point-by-point responses to your comments and concerns.

 

OVERALL IMPRESSION

The paper is revised. Most of problems are addressed well. Some of them can be further revised.

 

Point 1: The main contribution in terms of methods should be summarized in the section one.

 

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have explained how this method might improve the research on citizen-led disaster risk reduction in memorial landscape or facilities.

Details are as follows:

(Line 95-102)

Moreover, previous research related to public participation in DRR within memo-rial facilities has typically employed qualitative methods, such as ethnography, narrative literature reviews, qualitative summaries, discourse analysis, and interviews. But there is a lack of mutual corroboration and complementary support between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Therefore, a more comprehensive and integrative research methodology is necessary. For example, a mixed methods research approach, which is used in this study, is helpful for making qualitative and quantitative results to support each other, thereby enhancing the validity of inferences.

 

Point 2: The Quality of English Language can be improved.

Response 2:

Thanks to this helpful comment, we have rechecked the English expression.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf