Analysis of Socio-Environmental Vulnerability in Areas with Overpopulation and Natural Risks Induced by Their Urban-Territorial Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I suggest to include section 3 "Literature Review" as sub-paragraph (1.1) of section 1 and then reduce the length of the introduction. The introduction should guide the reader to the general research context by using the literature review to understand the reason why authors are focusing on their aims. This is not really clear because these parts are separated. Moreover, in vulnerability analysis it is important to underline the conceptual framework that the author intends to follow. It is not specified why you decided to apply the approach proposed by CONAPO [83] 347 y García et al. [46]

2. In figure 2, it could be helpful to highlight in blue only the 9 districts under investigation (the urban context).

3. It is not explained why data are from 2020 and not more recent. 

4. It is not described the base of the choice of the indicators/variables. The choice is based on the literature or on the availability of data? Please refers to the type of approach suggested in the literature, such as deductive or inductive.

5. Table 1: please replace the term Physics with Physical 

6. I suggest to add the limitations of this research in the concluding remarks. Moreover, as vulnerability analysis is part of risk investigation, my advice is to add a suggestion about the development of specific hazard assessment of this study area in order to integrate hazard and your socio-environmental analysis. This could bring to a more detailed multidisciplinary approach, giving value to disaster studies.  

 

Author Response

1. I suggest to include section 3 "Literature Review" as sub-paragraph (1.1) of section 1 and then reduce the length of the introduction. The introduction should guide the reader to the general research context by using the literature review to understand the reason why authors are focusing on their aims. This is not really clear because these parts are separated. Moreover, in vulnerability analysis it is important to underline the conceptual framework that the author intends to follow.

We appreciate your comments on this matter. To maintain a uniform structure without subsections, it was decided to preserve the current order of the document, however, sections 1 to 3 were modified according to the reviewers' suggestions.

 

It is not specified why you decided to apply the approach proposed by CONAPO [83] 347 y García et al. [46]

For this research, the application of this approach was due to its feasibility in its application in the case study. This was added to the manuscript according to your recommendation.

 

2. In figure 2, it could be helpful to highlight in blue only the 9 districts under investigation (the urban context).

The figure was modified to indicate the delimitation of the delegations as well as the location of human settlements.

 

3. It is not explained why data are from 2020 and not more recent. 

The year 2020 was considered because the most complete population and housing census is carried out in Mexico every ten years. The 2020 version of the census allows obtaining the greatest number of indicators for analysis. According to his recommendation, the above described was included in the manuscript.

4. It is not described the base of the choice of the indicators/variables. The choice is based on the literature or on the availability of data? Please refers to the type of approach suggested in the literature, such as deductive or inductive.

The choice of indicators and variables is based on the literature review of the creation of various SEVIs as well as the availability of information from official databases, seeking to ensure that they are from the same year 2020 in order to have uniform data. The inductive approach is more suitable for developing a socio-economic vulnerability index from diverse data, as it allows you to build your analysis based on empirical observations. However, combining both approaches can enrich the analysis and provide a solid theoretical basis.

 

5. Table 1: please replace the term Physics with Physical 

Corrected

6. I suggest to add the limitations of this research in the concluding remarks. Moreover, as vulnerability analysis is part of risk investigation, my advice is to add a suggestion about the development of specific hazard assessment of this study area in order to integrate hazard and your socio-environmental analysis. This could bring to a more detailed multidisciplinary approach, giving value to disaster studies.  

Some limitations are added in the conclusions section. Literature is also included to highlight the importance of environmental analysis in vulnerability analysis

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the Introduction, the full name of INEGI should be used when it first appears.

2. In the Introduction, the sentence "However, the unsustainable practices we are undertaking as a society have not achieved sufficient progress to shift the unsustainable towards sustainability" lacks clarity in the relationship between "unsustainable practices" and "shift the unsustainable towards sustainability." The sentence seems to suggest that unsustainable practices themselves have not made progress, which is logically unreasonable.

3. In the Literature Review, “However, this growth was not equitable relative to population  growth, resulting in an increase in inequality and poverty on a global scale, which, combined with the lack of environmental policies, led to various socio-environmental problems.”The phrase "not equitable relative to population growth" is vague and should more specifically explain how the imbalance between economic growth and population growth leads to increased inequality and poverty.

4. In the Materials and Methods section, the description of Figure 6 states, "As shown in Figure 6, to determine the level of SEVI in each AGEB, socio-environmental vulnerability is classified as Middle-High if the indicator value falls between the mean plus 1 standard deviation, High if between the mean plus 2 standard deviations, and Very High if values are above 2 standard deviations. Conversely, AGEBs are classified as Middle-Low socio-environmental vulnerability if their value falls between the mean and minus 1 standard deviation, Low if between the mean and minus 2 standard deviations, and Very Low if between the mean and minus 3 standard deviations." In this description, the classification standards for "High if between the mean plus 2 standard deviations" and "Low if between the mean and minus 2 standard deviations" are unclear and logically overlapping.

5. In the Materials and Methods section, assigning the same weight to all indicators in the calculation of SEVI values may overlook the actual differences in the importance of each indicator in influencing socio-environmental vulnerability.

6. In the Analysis of SEVI by AGEB section, the sentence "It also highlighted health impacts resulting from residing in areas where air pollution emissions or solid waste disposal affect the environment, as well as living in unsuitable zones due to topographical conditions or the risk of potential flooding" only mentions that SEVI has health impacts. It should more directly specify what those health impacts are.

7. Some figures in the article are not visually appealing. For example, in Figure 6, centering the explanation of the mean and standard deviations might look better. Additionally, in Figures 2, 7, and 8, the scale is not very clear due to the color scheme, which could be improved.

Author Response

1. In the Introduction, the full name of INEGI should be used when it first appears.

Corrected

2. In the Introduction, the sentence "However, the unsustainable practices we are undertaking as a society have not achieved sufficient progress to shift the unsustainable towards sustainability" lacks clarity in the relationship between "unsustainable practices" and "shift the unsustainable towards sustainability." The sentence seems to suggest that unsustainable practices themselves have not made progress, which is logically unreasonable.

This section was modified according to your suggestion as well as that of other reviewers. Specifically, the indicated sentence was modified to make it clearer and more concise.

3. In the Literature Review, “However, this growth was not equitable relative to population growth, resulting in an increase in inequality and poverty on a global scale, which, combined with the lack of environmental policies, led to various socio-environmental problems”. The phrase "not equitable relative to population growth" is vague and should more specifically explain how the imbalance between economic growth and population growth leads to increased inequality and poverty.

Thank you for your comments, this section was also modified according to your suggestion. The indicated sentence was modified to make it clearer and more concise.

4. In the Materials and Methods section, the description of Figure 6 states, "As shown in Figure 6, to determine the level of SEVI in each AGEB, socio-environmental vulnerability is classified as Middle-High if the indicator value falls between the mean plus 1 standard deviation, High if between the mean plus 2 standard deviations, and Very High if values are above 2 standard deviations. Conversely, AGEBs are classified as Middle-Low socio-environmental vulnerability if their value falls between the mean and minus 1 standard deviation, Low if between the mean and minus 2 standard deviations, and Very Low if between the mean and minus 3 standard deviations." In this description, the classification standards for "High if between the mean plus 2 standard deviations" and "Low if between the mean and minus 2 standard deviations" are unclear and logically overlapping.

Thanks for your observations. Below I provide a revised version of the description of the SEVI level classification in each AGEB for clarity.

As shown in Figure 6, to determine the level of SEVI in each AGEB, socio-environmental vulnerability is classified as follows:

• Medium-High: if the indicator value is between the mean and one standard deviation above the mean.
• High: if the indicator value is between one standard deviation and two standard deviations above the mean.
• Very High: if the indicator value is above two standard deviations from the mean.
• Medium-Low: if the indicator value is between the mean and one standard deviation below the mean.
• Low: if the indicator value is between one standard deviation and two standard deviations below the mean.
• Very Low: if the indicator value is below two standard deviations from the mean.

This was also corrected in the manuscript. I hope this explanation clears up any confusion regarding classification limits.

5. In the Materials and Methods section, assigning the same weight to all indicators in the calculation of SEVI values may overlook the actual differences in the importance of each indicator in influencing socio-environmental vulnerability.

This research is the first approach and analysis of this type carried out in the region and therefore the first effort to design the SEVI in the municipality of Tijuana, the same value is taken for each indicator (Table 1), representing the same relative weight. However, it is considered important in future studies to perform a statistically supported sensitivity analysis to determine the influence of each variable. The manuscript explains the above in detail according to your recommendation, and it is also discussed in the final section (6. Concluding Remarks).

6. In the Analysis of SEVI by AGEB section, the sentence "It also highlighted health impacts resulting from residing in areas where air pollution emissions or solid waste disposal affect the environment, as well as living in unsuitable zones due to topographical conditions or the risk of potential flooding" only mentions that SEVI has health impacts. It should more directly specify what those health impacts are.

According to your suggestion, this is explained in detail in the manuscript.

7. Some figures in the article are not visually appealing. For example, in Figure 6, centering the explanation of the mean and standard deviations might look better. Additionally, in Figures 2, 7, and 8, the scale is not very clear due to the color scheme, which could be improved.

All figures were remade according to your suggestion