Improving Disaster Risk Management According to Development Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review prepared for Manuscript ID# risks-1396317
Dear Authors,
This paper proposes multiple improvements to upgrade the current EIA/DIA protocols available for Korea’s disaster risk reduction purposes.
Overall, the manuscript's structure seems reasonable, and there is a cohesive flow of contents throughout this work. A critical shortcoming is the Introduction section and lack of comprehensive examination of the previous works along this research track, such as how this work can contribute to that field.
Moreover, a couple of suggestions are given below to improve the current standing of this manuscript further, so that:
- I) There must be at least a thorough (and concise) paragraph that discusses the cost/benefit (from different socioeconomic aspects) associated with these suggested improvements. Is there also some information regarding the timeline to implement these supplementary projects?
- II) How are you sure that such improvements could be practical and effective if implemented at this scale?
Thank you, -Reviewer
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is more like a political discourse or a philosophical editorial about the organisation of state policies on the risks caused by natural disasters.
Some formulations are interesting: “The ratio of property damage caused by heavy rain is 43% while that of typhoons is 46%. Together, they comprise 89% of the total damage caused by natural disasters. ” Is that really the case? Landslides, earthquakes, etc. to fall into such a small proportion of 11%? Probably ...
However, there are also some leaks, which stun any reviewer: "the establishment of a storm reservoir." etc. ... of, of ...
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have read with interest your paper on the Improving Disaster Risk Management according to Development Projects. The article is well-organized, the background is widely described, goals are clearly defined. The analysis of the problems of Disaster Impact Assessment System both from theoretical and practical point of view looks reliable, multi-threated discussion is logically ordered and gives the reader opportunity to confront the presented thesis and conclusions with its own opinion and experience. Conclusions reflect investigated matter properly and might be useful for further, more advanced research as well as may give some support for potential improving strategies at the local, regional and country scale.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Introduction section still needs more improvements. The Authors should identify the knowledge gap(s) and indicate how this work will address those gaps. I would also encourage to provide a more comprehensive background and recent advances in this track of research/work.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks!
