The Alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Achieving Resilient Buildings and Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and suitable for the Buildings journal. The reflection of international decisions and regulations in the national context is important, especially in the field of disaster risk reduction.

Main issues:

-         Methodological concerns 

It is challenging to use Pearson Correlation for Likert scales when the number of questionnaires is rather low (27). I would suggest using Spearman Correlation instead. It might give better and more convincing results.

To discuss the Australian approach, the sample of participants in the questionnaire should be more representative. At this, it could be (moment more or less) representative only for Sidney. If possible, more questionnaires should be do done. If not, the title and the abstract should be modified to illustrate that it is more of a perspective limited to Sidney.

-         Research design 

The first part of the article should be restructured and rewritten, as there should be an introduction to the topic, a theoretical framework (including the presentation of resilience concept, buildings resilience and community resilience, and the link between the two) and the presentation of international and national (Australian) contexts. Then, the methodology should be presented more clear: data and methods used to obtain the results. At this moment, the methodology is divided between summary and main findings (2.4) and results (3.1-3.4). A section should be dedicated exclusively to methodology.

The questionnaire should be presented as an annexe. Or at least the structure of the questionnaire...

Other issues:

In the introduction (page 1) there are some examples of disasters but the year when they occurred should also be indicated (in the case of Serbia, Thailand, Malaysia etc.) as there was not a single disaster in these countries in recent years.

In 4.2., when presenting the disaster frequencies based on the questionnaires, the results should be confronted with the official statistics. The relation between perception and reality should be commented more in the article (even though it is the perception of experts).

“Figures” 8, 9, 10 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are, in fact, tables (not figures)

General proofreading should be made to eliminate typos, repetitions and other errors.

Page 6 lines 254-256 “There is no existing literature that suggests how communities compare in terms of 254 their resilience or how these communities are becoming more resilient in the context of 255 natural disasters”. There is a lot of literature on this. Please check. Your references (34, 35) are rather old.

Page 7, line 310 “Quantitative data was the main research method for the data analysis” – Quantitative data is not a method.

There is not a clear and convincing answer to the question from the title within the conclusions section.

Author Response

Comment #1: It is challenging to use Pearson Correlation for Likert scales when the number of questionnaires is rather low (27). I would suggest using Spearman Correlation instead. It might give better and more convincing results.

Response #1: We really appreciate the reviewer’s meticulous comment. We do agree that Spearman Correlation can be used for correlation analysis, we also realized that both Pearson and Spearman are absolutely fine when we use a 5 or 7 scale Likert scale, also we did not see any significant differences between Pearson and Spearman correlation analysis in this paper. 

Comment #2: To discuss the Australian approach, the sample of participants in the questionnaire should be more representative. At this, it could be (moment more or less) representative only for Sidney. If possible, more questionnaires should be do done. If not, the title and the abstract should be modified to illustrate that it is more of a perspective limited to Sidney.

Response #2: Many thanks for the rewarding feedback, we have updated the article’s title and abstract to emphasise the representation of Sydney metropolitan, Australia as a collected data. We also added this limitation in the conclusion for collecting more data not only in Sydney but also in all part of Australian states and territories. 

Comment #3: The first part of the article should be restructured and rewritten, as there should be an introduction to the topic, a theoretical framework (including the presentation of resilience concept, buildings resilience and community resilience, and the link between the two) and the presentation of international and national (Australian) contexts. Then, the methodology should be presented more clear: data and methods used to obtain the results. At this moment, the methodology is divided between summary and main findings (2.4) and results (3.1-3.4). A section should be dedicated exclusively to methodology.

Response #3: Many thanks for the reviewer’s constructive comment. We have restructured the paper, we added a new section (Section 3) related to the Conceptual Framework and research methodology rewritten significantly. Section 4 includes 4.1. Research methodology, 4.2. Questionnaire administration; and 4.3. Data analysis technique.

Comment #4: The questionnaire should be presented as an annexe. Or at least the structure of the questionnaire...

Response #4: The general outline of the research questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1.

Comment #5: In the introduction (page 1) there are some examples of disasters but the year when they occurred should also be indicated (in the case of Serbia, Thailand, Malaysia etc.) as there was not a single disaster in these countries in recent years.

Response #6: Many thanks for your precise comment. Years of occurrence were added to the text.

Comment #6: In 4.2., when presenting the disaster frequencies based on the questionnaires, the results should be confronted with the official statistics. The relation between perception and reality should be commented more in the article (even though it is the perception of experts).

Response #6: Many thanks for your precise comment. Historical data were added to the text. Please consider Sections 5.2. and 5.3. 

Comment #7: “Figures” 8, 9, 10 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are, in fact, tables (not figures)

Response #7: Many thanks for your precise comment. The mentioned Figures were replaced by relevant tables in the revised manuscript. 

Comment #8: General proofreading should be made to eliminate typos, repetitions and other errors.

Response #8: Many thanks for your precise comment. The manuscript was thoroughly checked against typos, errors, etc. 

Comment #9: Page 6 lines 254-256 “There is no existing literature that suggests how communities compare in terms of 254 their resilience or how these communities are becoming more resilient in the context of 255 natural disasters”. There is a lot of literature on this. Please check. Your references (34, 35) are rather old.

Response #9: Many thanks for your precise comment. This part was modified in the revised manuscript. 

Comment #10: Page 7, line 310 “Quantitative data was the main research method for the data analysis” – Quantitative data is not a method.

Response #10: Many thanks for your precise comment. It was modified in the revised version

Comment #11: There is not a clear and convincing answer to the question from the title within the conclusions section.

Response #11: Many thanks for your precise comment. The conclusion was revised. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper looks into a specific research question using both literature review and quantitative data analysing.

Suggestion 
1>> Line 115, the analytics here are attractive to readers. However review into NCC is only restricted in a general and abstract way. It would be much pursuable and supportive once insights are given with the help of specific examples .
2>> Line 320, the description of research design is quite in general terms. Especially it is hard for the review to get valuable information from figure 3 and table 1. Therefore this part is suggested being worthy digging deeper and analysing with clearer threads. Meanwhile the constituted 4 survey parts should have more clear narratives. For instance, list all the questions  or briefly list the framework of questionnaire.
3>> Line 411, as this part mainly discusses natural disaster frequencies, it would be more scientific to supplement the historical records other than the respondents' replies, which can also act as data verification. 
4>> Line 418, the diagrams are unclear to check the details.
5>> Line 420, the discussion here mainly response to respondents' existing experiences and mainly in metropolitan Sydney. Does it impact on any risk management in the future or in a national scale?
6>> Line 457, the results from this part also influenced greatly by respondents' locations. For this reason, the reviewer doubts whether the selection of respondents is appropriate or representative in this study. Back to Line 402, it would be necessary to supplement an analyse of responded location there.
7>> Line 457, other than the location of respondents, are there any other impacting elements, as business client type, main business should be factored in either?
8>> Line 474, please provide explanation what is Pearson correlation and also support with abundant relevant references.

 

Author Response

Comment 1>> Line 115, the analytics here are attractive to readers. However review into NCC is only restricted in a general and abstract way. It would be much pursuable and supportive once insights are given with the help of specific examples .

Response #1: Many thanks for your precious comment. The relative examples were added to the text.

Comment 2>> Line 320, the description of research design is quite in general terms. Especially it is hard for the review to get valuable information from figure 3 and table 1. Therefore this part is suggested being worthy digging deeper and analysing with clearer threads. Meanwhile the constituted 4 survey parts should have more clear narratives. For instance, list all the questions  or briefly list the framework of questionnaire.

Response #2: : Many thanks for your precious comment. The manuscript was thoroughly revised in this stage. Please consider sections 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript in which the conceptual framework development, hypotheses formulation, and questionnaire survey as means of data collection have been explained in detail.

Comment 3>> Line 411, as this part mainly discusses natural disaster frequencies, it would be more scientific to supplement the historical records other than the respondents' replies, which can also act as data verification. 

Response #3: Many thanks for your precise comment. The historical facts were added to this section. 

Comment 4>> Line 418, the diagrams are unclear to check the details.

Response #4: Many thanks for your precious comment. The manuscript was thoroughly revised in this stage. The clarity of diagrams/tables have been improved.

Comment 5>> Line 420, the discussion here mainly response to respondents' existing experiences and mainly in metropolitan Sydney. Does it impact on any risk management in the future or in a national scale?

Response #5: Many thanks for your precise comment. The general aim of this study was to investigate how the NCC is aligned with the SFDRR in terms of disaster risk reduction and management to achieve buildings and communities’ resilience. In sections 5.5. and 5.6. the need for a master plan for DRM to cope well with future disasters have been highlighted. 

Comment 6>> Line 457, the results from this part also influenced greatly by respondents' locations. For this reason, the reviewer doubts whether the selection of respondents is appropriate or representative in this study. Back to Line 402, it would be necessary to supplement an analyse of responded location there.

Response #6: Many thanks for your precise comment. This point is totally correct. As a remedy, the authors decided to change the title of manuscript to “The alignment of the Australian National Construction Code (NCC) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) in achieving resilient buildings and communities; The case of Sydney” for better generalizability of the results. 

Comment 7>> Line 457, other than the location of respondents, are there any other impacting elements, as business client type, main business should be factored in either?

Response #7: Many thanks for your precise comment. This study has considered disaster risk management on a national scale that’s why the NCC and SFDRR and their contribution have been emphasized. The location of respondents in this study has been highlighted in order to give a better perception of the natural disaster frequency in the region, especially when it is juxtaposed with the empirical data analysis. In this regard, the micro-level (e.g., types of businesses) might not applicable.  

Comment 8>> Line 474, please provide explanation what is Pearson correlation and also support with abundant relevant references.

Response #8: Many thanks for your precise comment. Definition and application of Pearson Correlation were added to the text in the revised manuscript. Please consider section 4.3.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have conducted a very interesting research on the alignment of the Australian national construction code with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The research is interesting suitable to be published in “Buildings” after some improvements. My comments are as follows.

• The necessity for conducting this research should be highlighted in the abstract.
• The methodology/ methods used to achieve the aim of the research should be mentioned in the abstract.
• In the abstract, the following contribution looks a general one. I recommend the authors revise it and mention the contribution of their work clearer. “Stakeholders in the construction industry will need to contemplate on these practices, especially authority figures such as local governments that are responsible for the approval of development applications and best practices.”
• Section 2.2: Please briefly discuss the risks in the Australian national building code at the end of this paragraph. A couple of sentences would suffice. Also, the risks would be better to be presented as sub-sections.
• Section 2.4 should be renamed. “finding” is not a suitable word for a subsection in the Literature review. It can be renamed to show this subsection presents the existence of the research gap and the necessity to be filled.
• Section 3.1 “Quantitative data was the main research method for the data analysis.“ please revise it.
• Try to justify the methodology and used methods by citing some relevant references.
• The quality of the Figures should be enhanced.
• Future work should be added to the conclusion section.

Author Response

Comment #1: The necessity for conducting this research should be highlighted in the abstract.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. The abstract was thoroughly modified. 

Comment #2: The methodology/ methods used to achieve the aim of the research should be mentioned in the abstract.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. The abstract was thoroughly modified.

Comment #3: In the abstract, the following contribution looks a general one. I recommend the authors revise it and mention the contribution of their work clearer. “Stakeholders in the construction industry will need to contemplate on these practices, especially authority figures such as local governments that are responsible for the approval of development applications and best practices.”
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. The abstract was thoroughly modified.

Comment #4: Section 2.2: Please briefly discuss the risks in the Australian national building code at the end of this paragraph. A couple of sentences would suffice. Also, the risks would be better to be presented as sub-sections.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. Relevant examples were added to the text. 

Comment #5: Section 2.4 should be renamed. “finding” is not a suitable word for a subsection in the Literature review. It can be renamed to show this subsection presents the existence of the research gap and the necessity to be filled.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. The sub-section name was revised. 

Comment #6: Section 3.11 “Quantitative data was the main research method for the data analysis.“ please revise it.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. It was modified in the revised manuscript. 

Comment #7: Try to justify the methodology and used methods by citing some relevant references.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. The methodology part was thoroughly revised. 

Comment #8: The quality of the Figures should be enhanced.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. Figures were replaced with high-quality figures. 

Comment #9: Future work should be added to the conclusion section.
Authors’ response: Many thanks for your precise comment. Conclusion was thoroughly revised.