Above the Ravines: Flood Vulnerability Assessment of Earthen Architectural Heritage in Quito (Ecuador)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript which is focused on the flood vulnerability assessment of earthen architectural heritage in Quito (Ecuador). 

The text supports a very important idea that is the implementation of a vulnerability map using GIS technology how the basis for developing convenient conservation actions in terms of cost-benefits. To demonstrate that hypothesis, the case study of the historic centre of Quito, World Heritage by UNESCO, is used.

In the introduction, the previous references that the authors refer to is wide and theoretical, and indicates the main relevant concepts, from the definitions of Earthen architecture, heritage and the risk assessment according to the GIS tools as the Delphi model, concepts that allow to address and face the main argument of the manuscript that will be contextualized and developed later. The issue addressed in the text is very well explained and structured.

Perhaps in the description of the method there is an excessive insistence that non-monetary terms are used in the work. This idea is clear at the beginning so it is not necessary to insist, since it makes the speech less fluid. 

There are also some strange concepts that should be qualified, such as ‘the Andalusian house is built around a Castilian patio’, surrounded by a portico and rooms; as it says on lines 192 and 193 of page 6. It would be necessary to better define what is generally understood by Andalusian house and what by Castilian patio, as if there were a single defining type of these geographical areas so diverse and different. In this sense, perhaps it would be more appropriate to speak only of Spanish or Hispanic architecture, given the process of hybridization that took place and that gave rise to the vernacular architecture of Quito.

In another vein, the result discussions seem relevant to me. Figures, graphs, and images are well made, of good quality, and adequately support the discourse of the manuscript. In general, this research is original, and offers conclusions important from a point of cities heritage preservation with important risks.

In general, I find the work to be very relevant and well done, with well-defined objectives, methodologically well developed and with an adequate discussion and fair and focused conclusions. The references provided support well the arguments maintained in the manuscript. 

I want to highlight that this research is thoroughly developed, that it is ambitious, by combining a place, heritage, risks, statistical procedures etc. Some English expressions could be enhanced. 

 

Author Response

Initial Considerations

First of all, the authors would like to thank the contribution of the editor and reviewers for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which will undoubtedly enhance the manuscript’s quality. The authors have tried to attend the comments and suggestions of the Editor and Reviewers in this revised version of the manuscript. All the comments made by the editor and reviewers are addressed individually. In each case, the editor - reviewer’s comment/question is presented first (in italic), then the authors’ reply/answer is given next, and, finally, the action prompted by the reply is described.

In the present version of the manuscript, the modified content is identified by highlighted text.

 

General comment – “The text supports a very important idea that is the implementation of a vulnerability map using GIS technology how the basis for developing convenient conservation actions in terms of cost-benefits. To demonstrate that hypothesis, the case study of the historic centre of Quito, World Heritage by UNESCO, is used.

In the introduction, the previous references that the authors refer to is wide and theoretical, and indicates the main relevant concepts, from the definitions of Earthen architecture, heritage, and the risk assessment according to the GIS tools as the Delphi model, concepts that allow to address and face the main argument of the manuscript that will be contextualized and developed later. The issue addressed in the text is very well explained and structured.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and comment.

 

Comment 1 – “Perhaps in the description of the method there is an excessive insistence that non-monetary terms are used in the work. This idea is clear at the beginning so it is not necessary to insist, since it makes the speech less fluid. "

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. The Materials and Method description was modified according to the comment.

 

Comment 2 – “There are also some strange concepts that should be qualified, such as ‘the Andalusian house is built around a Castilian patio’, surrounded by a portico and rooms; as it says on lines 192 and 193 of page 6. It would be necessary to better define what is generally understood by Andalusian house and what by Castilian patio, as if there were a single defining type of these geographical areas so diverse and different. In this sense, perhaps it would be more appropriate to speak only of Spanish or Hispanic architecture, given the process of hybridization that took place and that gave rise to the vernacular architecture of Quito.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. According to the comment, the terms “Andalusian house” and “Castilian patio” have been changed into “Hispanic”.

 

Comment 3 – “In another vein, the result discussions seem relevant to me. Figures, graphs, and images are well made, of good quality, and adequately support the discourse of the manuscript. In general, this research is original, and offers conclusions important from a point of cities heritage preservation with important risks.

In general, I find the work to be very relevant and well done, with well-defined objectives, methodologically well developed and with an adequate discussion and fair and focused conclusions. The references provided support well the arguments maintained in the manuscript.” 

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and comment.

 

Comment 4 – “I want to highlight that this research is thoroughly developed, that it is ambitious, by combining a place, heritage, risks, statistical procedures etc. Some English expressions could be enhanced.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. The manuscript has been checked by a native English-speaking colleague.

 

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Miguel Ángel Eguibar

(Universitat Politècnica de València)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the manuscript entitled “Above the ravines: flood vulnerability assessment of earthen architectural heritage in Quito (Ecuador)” have tried to assess the vulnerability of 15 earthen sites aimed at the flood risk in Quito by using the Delphi Method and expert judgment. The research thought is feasible but there are still some problems in the research method and results reliability. I give such following suggestions:

1. In Fig. 1, I suggest the authors add a map of the location country of the research sites, and mark where the research area was located.

2. In the introduction, there are not enough references review about the research progress on the vulnerability assessment of earthen sites. In fact, some scholars from China, Japan, UK, etc., have researched this aspect. Please search and supplement related literature.

3. In the materials and methods, the introduction of the research methods is very obscure. How the experts give their judgment and how the Delphi Method is applied lacks a detailed description.

4. In Fig. 4, please add one site figure for each building type.

5. Combined with comment 3, please give the authors basis to give weights and SF in Table 2 and Table 3.

6. In Fig. 5(b), the total percentage is not 100%. Please check it.

7. The verification of the assessment results was lacking. How can the authors prove their calculation results were feasible? Please add the comparison between the assessment results and the actual situation of these sites.

 

8. The language of this manuscript needs to be improved and polished.

Author Response

Initial Considerations

First of all, the authors would like to thank the contribution of the editor and reviewers for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which will undoubtedly enhance the manuscript’s quality. The authors have tried to attend the comments and suggestions of the Editor and Reviewers in this revised version of the manuscript. All the comments made by the editor and reviewers are addressed individually. In each case, the editor - reviewer’s comment/question is presented first (in italic), then the authors’ reply/answer is given next, and, finally, the action prompted by the reply is described.

In the present version of the manuscript, the modified content is identified by highlighted text.

 

General comment – “The authors of the manuscript entitled “Above the ravines: flood vulnerability assessment of earthen architectural heritage in Quito (Ecuador)” have tried to assess the vulnerability of 15 earthen sites aimed at the flood risk in Quito by using the Delphi Method and expert judgment. The research thought is feasible but there are still some problems in the research method and results reliability.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help.

 

Comment 1 – “In Fig. 1, I suggest the authors add a map of the location country of the research sites, and mark where the research area was located.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. A map of the location country was added to the paper.

 

Comment 2 – “In the introduction, there are not enough references review about the research progress on the vulnerability assessment of earthen sites. In fact, some scholars from China, Japan, UK, etc., have researched this aspect. Please search and supplement related literature.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. A literature review was carried out and new references added.

 

Comment 3 – “In the materials and methods, the introduction of the research methods is very obscure. How the experts give their judgment and how the Delphi Method is applied lacks a detailed description.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. A description of the application of the Delphi Method was added. 

 

Comment 4 – “In Fig. 4, please add one site figure for each building type.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. Figures corresponding to building types were added (see Figure 1).

 

Comment 5 – “Combined with comment 3, please give the authors basis to give weights and SF in Table 2 and Table 3.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. More basis to weights and SF were included in the text.

 

Comment 6 – “In Fig. 5(b), the total percentage is not 100%. Please check it.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. The percentage was checked and corrected.

 

Comment 7 – “The verification of the assessment results was lacking. How can the authors prove their calculation results were feasible? Please add the comparison between the assessment results and the actual situation of these sites.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. The vulnerability assessment proposed is focused on evaluating the potential and expected damages (or level of damage) that the assets can possibly experience when a flood occurs. Therefore, at the present buildings only show the effects of material weathering (e.g., due to rising damp) as mentioned in the paper. However, an explanation of this aspect was added to the discussion to make it clearer.   

 

Comment 8 – “The language of this manuscript needs to be improved and polished.”

 

Reply/Action – The authors thank the reviewer for their time and help. The language has been revised and polished.

 

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Miguel Ángel Eguibar

(Universitat Politècnica de València)

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the issues I raised before. so I think it can be accepted.