Enhancing Local Disaster Management Network through Developing Resilient Community in New Taipei City, Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for this interesting paper.
Page 1, line 36, Exposure ... Long sentence with a risk for misunderstanding. Divide them into 2 or 3 sentences.
Page 3, line 91, To encourage... How do you reason about giving lectures to the civilian? Specifically when you discuss cases and experiences from a scientific perspective.
Page 5, Table 1.
Who has defined the tasks for each team? Is it a consensus result, or evidence-based?
How about vehicles in an evacuation?
Are people motivated to do some medical interventions? Did you ask them or did you do any study?
Page 6, Education and training
How many times per year do you have courses? How do you certificate participants and do you re-certificate them? How do you measure knowledge retention? Was any study done?
How do you involve vulnerable groups?
Page 7, Results and discussion
I believe this section will improve if the results are presented separately. At least for me, it is hard to follow what is the result and what is the discussion.
In your discussion, it would be valuable to have a paragraph on how do you think this plan will work in pandemics?
The concept of Flexible Surge Capacity has been discussed in the literature. How do you think that your approach match or differs from this concept?
Page 13, Conclusions. Please, point out the main conclusions from this study and its recommendation
Please elaborate on all limitations of your study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I am a pleasure to review your manuscript. I think this is a significant topic. Through reviewing your manuscript, I can understand that this project could help establishing really organized community engagement and network for preparedness for disasters. Although, the type of your manuscript was submitted as an article, I think that your manuscript may be matched a project report.
I would like to make the following comments based on your submission type ((original) article, not project report).
[Abstract]
In the abstract, a study design should be contained. And, a conclusion should be mentioned based on findings from your research or activities.
[Introduction]
I can understand this project have built a disaster management system cooperated with local government, district office and community. However, what is the main outcome in your study? You had better to clarify the main outcomes. Also, I cannot understand the main purpose of your study. Could you please clarify the purpose and methods of you study?
[Methods]
Could you show what is the purpose of this project? Is there any research to evaluate this project? Also, if "the 3.2. Successful cases of community operation" was described as any findings through this project, it is necessary to mention the meaning and intention in the methods section.
[Result and discussion]
In this manuscript, two successful cases were described. However, I could not see what part of your project(or whole?) did lead to success. Therefore, you should mention in the method section how you evaluate this project.
[Conclusion]
You mentioned that "Overall, the NTPC government had successfully formulated the local disaster management network by promoting the resilient community in the last decade." However, what is the reason you have evaluated this project is successful. In this manuscript, I think there is no specific research to evaluate this project. (e.g. interview to local residents or questionnaire)
You mentioned that "Although the NTPC government had invested limited funding and manpower to help the community build capacity, the key to success still lies in the community’s progressive engagement and its role as a center of the local disaster management network." You had better mention why you evaluated this project funding are limited. There is no comparison other budgets or funding, so I cannot evaluate it. Also, I can understand that this project could help establishing really organized community engagement and network, however, what is the criteria for success? I think it is necessary to show any successful events in practical settings or research findings.
[Minor points]
- Some heading numbers are off-position.
- Result and Discussion section should be separated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revision of your interesting paper. It has improved. There is however just two points to be considered;
On page 2, You have once described your aims in the last paragraph of the introduction and then also have a separate section as Aim. Please make one section with an aim or just keep the last paragraph. Furthermore, in the last paragraph when you describe aim, you use the word SUCCESSFULLY enhanced. This makes your paper totally biased, i.e., saying from the start that you intend to show how good things are you may also do whatever you can to show it that way. I would use only ENHANCED (delete "successfully"), and let the reader decide how it went.
Best wishes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your resubmission. I think you almost have addressed my comments correctly, however, it has still been remained several issues which should be revised.
1. It is necessary to explain about the questionnaire survey which was conducted annually in the methods section.
2. There was no description about ethical consideration even the subjects of the questionnaire were general residents. If this study was reviewed from any ethical committees, you had better mention it including permission No. and date. If not, it is necessary to mention in detail about the informed consent before the survey.
3. Could you please the response rates and basic demographic (age, gender. If possible, educational information) of the subjects not the respondents in the questionnaire survey. Basic information regarding subjects of the survey are essential.
4. I think there are several limitations or challenges to establish or maintain this resilience community. Since it will be a lesson in future similar project, you had better make sure to list any challenges through this project.This limitation section should be separated clearly to Discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
