IoT for Environmental Management and Security Governance: An Integrated Project in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with an integrated project in Taiwan regarding IoT for environmental management and security governance.
It is quite interesting and well-written but there are some issues that must be solved before final acceptance, represented by:
- it is necessary to expand the SROI acronym at least the first time it is written in the text of the paper.
- The references must be numbered progressively according to the order of citation in the paper.
- It is necessary to enlarge the font of the characters in figure 1 to make them clearer and more legible.
- It is necessary to correctly position the term “prediction & early warning” in figure 2 and harmonize it with the other fonts of the characters present in the figure.
- It is necessary to increase the font of the characters of the words found in the lower part of figure 5.
- It is necessary to expand the PPP acronym.
- It is necessary to divide the "Discussions and conclusions" paragraph into two separate paragraphs, putting the conclusions as a separate paragraph at the end.
Author Response
Manuscript Sustainability-1395826
Response to reviewers
Dear Prof. Dr. Khorram-Manesh,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “IoT for Environmental Management and Security Governance: An Integrated Project in Taiwan” for publication in Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the helpful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for appoint-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
Reviewers’ Comments to the Authors:
Reviewer #1
The paper deals with an integrated in Taiwan regarding IoT for environmental management and security governance.
It is quite interesting and well-written but there are some issues that must be solved before final acceptance, represented by:
Author response: Thank you!
- it is necessary to expand the SROI acronym at least the first time it is written in the text of the paper.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We didn’t expand the SROI acronym in the abstract because it is noted follow below in the keywords. As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised it and also listed all acronyms in the end of the manuscript.
- The references must be numbered progressively according to the order of citation in the paper.
Author response: Thank you for mentioning it. We made some typos in the previous version. The references have been numbered progressively according to the order of citation in the paper.
- It is necessary to enlarge the font of the characters in figure 1 to make them clearer and more legible.
Author response: Thank you for showing it. Figure 1 has been modified.
- it is necessary to correctly position the term prediction & early warning“ in figure 2 and harmonize it with the other fonts of the characters present in the figure.
Author response: As suggested by the reviewer. We have modified the position and fonts of Figure 2.
- It is necessary to increase the font of the characters of the words found in the lower part of figure 5.
Author response: Thank you for pointing it out. We have modified the characters of the words found in Figure 5.
- it is necessary to expand the PPP acronym.
Author response: Thank you for mentioning it. As suggested by the reviewer, we have expanded the PPP acronym and also listed all acronyms in the end of the manuscript.
- it is necessary to divide the “Discussion and conclusions” paragraph into two separate paragraphs, putting the conclusions as a separate paragraph at the end.
Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. Accordingly, we have read more relevant studies and reports to enrich the contents the paragraphs of discussion, we also divided the discussion and conclusions into two separate paragraphs.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a novel idea on IoT for environmental management and security governance. The abstract as well as introduction don't explicitly state the clear cut objectives of the work. The use of security governance seems awkward as far as the content of the paper is concerned while from topic it seems to be related to some security issue. However, there is no such information neither a scope to encompass such aspects within this paper. I think author mean from Security Governance (otherwise need to define) as the protection against climatice extrems (events). This is the major confusion which can erupt from title. The other parts of the paper are aptly suited. The figure 2 needs the source as is given in other cases. However, 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are redundant in that there are many studies that portray such cycles and linkages more often. Moreover, majority of the figures are adapted from other studies which make the work seemly a repetition. The last section is too terse to be called discussion. It is simply a conclusion, that too needs some more insights on policy and research.
Author Response
Manuscript Sustainability-1395826
Response to reviewers
Dear Prof. Dr. Khorram-Manesh,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “IoT for Environmental Management and Security Governance: An Integrated Project in Taiwan” for publication in Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the helpful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for appoint-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
Reviewers’ Comments to the Authors:
Reviewer #2
The paper presents a novel idea on IoT for environmental management and security governance.
Author response: Thank you!
- The abstract as well as introduction don’t explicitly state the clear cut objectives of the work.
Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. Accordingly, we have read more relevant studies and reports to enrich the contents the paragraphs of abstract and introduction. The objectives of this work have been revised in introduction.
- The use of security governance seems awkward as far as the content of the paper is concerned while from topic it seems to be related to some security issue. However, there is no such information neither a scope to encompass such aspects within this paper. I think author mean from Security Governance (otherwise need to define) as the protection against climatic extremes (events). This is the major confusion which can erupt from title. The other parts of the paper are aptly suited.
Author response: Thank you for specifying it. We agree with the reviewer’s comments, Security Governance refers to the protection against natural hazards (including climatic extremes).
- The figure 2 needs the source as is given in other cases. However, 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are redundant in that there are many studies that portray such cycles and linkages more often. Moreover, majority of the figures are adapted from other studies which make the work seemly a repetition.
Author response: Figure 2 is illustrated by authors. We agree with the other part of reviewer’s suggestions and rewrite many sentences of 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 to emphasize the ideas of our work.
- The last section is too terse to be called discussion. It is simply a conclusion, that too needs some more insights on policy and research.
Author response: Thank you for point this out. We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. Accordingly, we have read more relevant studies and reports to enrich the contents the paragraphs of discussion, we also divided the discussion and conclusions into two separate paragraphs.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Actually, the quality of the manuscript is questionable. For example, the resolution of the figures is clearly having problems. The reference number format is incorrect. overall, the format of the manuscript should also be improved. Regarding the content of the manuscript, a lot of information is missing which makes it not clear. In particular, the authors should elaborate more on the method section in order to make the manuscript clearer. I am sorry that I haven't provided many specific comments, as I don't think the manuscript is ready for peer review.Author Response
Manuscript Sustainability-1395826
Response to reviewers
Dear Prof. Dr. Khorram-Manesh,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “IoT for Environmental Management and Security Governance: An Integrated Project in Taiwan” for publication in Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the helpful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for appoint-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
Reviewers’ Comments to the Authors:
Reviewer #3
Actually, the quality of the manuscript is questionable.
Author response: Thank you for point this out. We appreciate to hear your comments.
- For example, the resolution of the figures is clearly having problems.
Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s comments. Most Figures have been modified.
- The reference number format is incorrect.
Author response: Thank you for mentioning it. We made some typos in the previous version. The references have been numbered progressively according to the order of citation in the paper.
- Overall, the format of the manuscript should also be improved.
Author response: Thank you for specifying it. As suggested by the reviewer, we have reviewed more relevant studies and reports to enrich the contents of introduction, and the paragraphs of discussion. We also divided the discussion and conclusions into two separate paragraphs.
- Regarding the content of the manuscript, a lot of information is missing which makes it not clear. In particular, the authors should elaborate more on the method section in order to make the manuscript clear.
Author response: Thank you for pointing it out. We have revised the method section to make the manuscript clear.
I am sorry that I haven’t provided many specific comments, as I don’t think the manuscript is ready for peer review.
Author response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have sufficiently addressed the suggestions and comments to render a publishable quality to the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback and comments. We have been reviewed and revised the manuscript many times, and still have found some mistakes, which have been revised in this version. Besides, we have revised the abstract, introduction and discussion, and carefully improved the writing style after the editing and proofreading process. Thank you for your consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
After revision, the manuscript still has a lot of trivial errors such as the wrong ordering of references (e.g. line 29), reference number with negative values (e.g. line 128), use of abbreviation without defining it (e.g. line 172), a casual graph without y-axis and poor style (figure 6), wrong front size and format (e.g. 159-162, 302-319).
Besides these basic issues, the manuscript also lacks important contents, such as sample size, time of data collection, data source, ethical statement.
Author Response
- After revision, the manuscript still has a lot of trivial errors such as the wrong ordering of references (e.g., line 29), reference number with negative values (e.g., line 128), use of abbreviation without defining it (e.g., line 172), a casual graph without y-axis and poor style (figure 6), wrong front size and format (e.g., 159-162, 302-219).
Author response: Thank you for pointing out. We appreciate to hear your comments. We have carefully improved the writing style after the editing and proofreading process. Thank you for your consideration.
- Besides these basic issues, the manuscript also lacks important contents, such as sample size, time of data collection, data source, ethical statement.
Author response: Thank you for your comments. All data for calculating SROI Ratio are collected from the public statistics yearbook or white paper on disaster management from 2017 to 2020, which present combined with data sources in the footnotes to the tables. Thank you for your consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presentation style is really not clear. The authors should make everything clear to the reader. It is questionable that if the reader will understand the footnote is related to the data source. In typical cases, we will have a dedicated paragraph to describe this kind of important information, not just hiding at the footnote.
Moreover, the authors should tell the reviewers explicitly where are the amendments so that the reviewers are not required to find out the difference between the old and updated versions.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
- The manuscript presentation style is really not clear. The authors should make everything clear to the reader.
Author response: Thank you for pointing out. We appreciate to hear your comments. We have carefully improved the writing style after the editing and proofreading process. This paper contains 6 parts: 1) introduction to show the background and methodology required, 2) literature review to describe the application of the IoT in disaster risk management and point out the role of IoT Taiwan, 3) methodology to introduce the structure of SROI, 4) analysis process to demonstrate the step-by-step process of collecting data and calculating SRIO ratio, 5) discussion to give feedback for improving the SROI model and the second phase of IoT Taiwan, and 6) conclusion to display the importance of IoT Taiwan. Thank you for your consideration.
- It is questionable that if the reader will understand the footnote is related to the data source. In typical cases, we will have a dedicated paragraph to describe this kind of important information, not just hiding at the footnote.
Author response: Thank you for your comments. We do understand the footnote is related to the data source. All data for calculating SROI Ratio are collected from the public statistics yearbook or white paper on disaster management from 2017 to 2020, which present combined with data sources in the footnotes to the tables. The analysis process of SROI display step-by step from line193 to line 273. We explain what kind of data were collected and calculated in this paper in Tables 2-7 and illustrate the disaster damage and loss in Figure 6. Thank you for your consideration.
- Moreover, the authors should tell the reviewers explicitly where are the amendments so that the reviewers are not required to find out the difference between the old and updated versions.
Author response: Thank you for your comments. We have improved the writing style and revised some typos. A minor revision regarding explanation of the process of calculating SROI ratio display in some parts (i.e., lines 212-220, lines 226-232, lines 237-248, lines 260-261, lines 268-270). Thank you for your consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
