Seismic Resilience Assessment Strategy for Social and Sustainability Impact Evaluation on Transportation Road Network: A Seismic Liquefaction-Induced Damage Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the seismic resilience strategy was assessed by applying geographical information system (GIS). The manuscript is well written and can be considered accepted but, some questions and suggestions are provided below to enrich the scientific level of the presented manuscript before its publication:

-       It is suggested to add the obtained results in the last sentences of the abstract.

-       Some of newly published papers could be added to the Introduction section. Here are some suggestions:

·      Leggieri, V., Mastrodonato, G., & Uva, G. (2022). GIS Multisource Data for the Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings at the Urban Scale. Buildings, 12(5), 523.

·      Bagheri, M., Chahkandi, A., & Jahangir, H. (2019). Seismic reliability analysis of RC frames rehabilitated by glass fiber-reinforced polymers. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(11), 1785-1797.

·      Ji, J., Cui, H., Zhang, T., Song, J., & Gao, Y. (2022). A GIS-based tool for probabilistic physical modelling and prediction of landslides: GIS-FORM landslide susceptibility analysis in seismic areas. Landslides, 1-19.

-       Please increase the quality of all presented figures. If they were captured from Arc Map software, the layout can help to add the coordinates grid.

-       It is suggested to divide the section Discussion and Conclusion to two sections. Conclusion section is better to be a short summary of the overall manuscript and the obtained results.

Author Response

In this manuscript, the seismic resilience strategy was assessed by applying geographical information system (GIS). The manuscript is well written and can be considered accepted but, some questions and suggestions are provided below to enrich the scientific level of the presented manuscript before its publication:

• It is suggested to add the obtained results in the last sentences of the abstract.

Authors: Thank you for the comment. The abstract has been reviewed with the aim to better explain the research methodology and the obtained results.

• Some of newly published papers could be added to the Introduction section. Here are some suggestions:
  • Leggieri, V., Mastrodonato, G., & Uva, G. (2022). GIS Multisource Data for the Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings at the Urban Scale. Buildings, 12(5), 523.
  • Bagheri, M., Chahkandi, A., & Jahangir, H. (2019). Seismic reliability analysis of RC frames rehabilitated by glass fiber-reinforced polymers. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(11), 1785-1797.
  • Ji, J., Cui, H., Zhang, T., Song, J., & Gao, Y. (2022). A GIS-based tool for probabilistic physical modelling and prediction of landslides: GIS-FORM landslide susceptibility analysis in seismic areas. Landslides, 1-19.

Authors: Thank you for the precious suggestions. The bibliography of the Introduction section has been thoroughly revised and expanded.

• Please increase the quality of all presented figures. If they were captured from Arc Map software, the layout can help to add the coordinates grid.

Authors: Thank you for the observation. Where possible, the quality of the figures has been increased. Where applicable the coordinates grid has been added.

• It is suggested to divide the section Discussion and Conclusion to two sections. Conclusion section is better to be a short summary of the overall manuscript and the obtained results.

Authors: Thank you for the suggestion. The section “Discussion and Conclusion” has been divided into two separate sections and the Conclusion has been revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Lines 42 – 54 require citations.

2. Section 2.1 needs justification for the approach (provide citations).

3. Figure 4 must be explained in detail. R² value doesn’t make sense in Figure 4(a).

4. Figure 5 is outdated. A recent graph is recommended.  

5. Provide Conclusions (be precise) as a separate section after Discussions.

6. Try to include a section on ‘Recommendations for future research’.

Author Response

1. Lines 42 – 54 require citations.

Authors: Thank you for the precious suggestions. The bibliography of the Introduction section has been thoroughly revised and expanded.

2. Section 2.1 needs justification for the approach (provide citations).

Authors: Thank you for the observation. Citations have been provided.

3. Figure 4 must be explained in detail. R2 value doesn’t make sense in Figure 4(a).

Authors: Thank you for the observation. The Authors agree with the comment, for this reason the Figure 4 has been explained and the R2 value has been conveniently replaced with the Pearson coefficient.

4. Figure 5 is outdated. A recent graph is recommended.

Authors: Thank you for the comment It should be noted that the Italian wage-education Curve has been developed with 2012 data, with the aim to be coeval with the seismic event.

5. Provide Conclusions (be precise) as a separate section after Discussions.

Authors: Thank you for the observation. The section “Discussion and Conclusion” has been divided into two separate sub-sections.

6. Try to include a section on ‘Recommendations for future research’.

Authors: Thank you for the comment. A paragraph for future development has been added in the Conclusion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper introduces the impact of earthquake disasters on the transportation network and proposes an evaluation model, which is innovative to a certain extent. However, some contents such as methods and results are unclear. In addition, the article has not mentioned the application value of the research. Specific recommendations are as follows:

Abstract:

Q1: A detailed description of the research methodology is recommended to aid in understanding the subject of the article. (Page 1, Line 18~23)

1. Introduction

Q2: The article mentions the hazards of natural disasters to transportation networks and power transmission systems. However, existing research instruments and evaluation methods were not investigated. This may result in the novelty of the article not being shown. It is suggested that the above studies be added to the introduction.More research papers should be investigated.

2. Methodology

Q3: Article structure in methodology may need to be corrected.

2.1. Assessment of socio‐economic losses: a simplified approach

2.1.1. Evaluation of indirect losses due to the increasing travel costs

Q4: A detailed introduction to TDFM is necessary to reduce reader confusion.

2.1.2. Evaluation of indirect losses due to the isolation of the inhabited and/or industrial/business center

3. Case Study

Q5: The source and accuracy of the data cannot be verified.

3.1. Liquefaction phenomenon and damage evaluation

3.2. Travel Demand Forecasting Model of Terre del Reno

3.3.Socio‐economical aspects of Terre del Reno district for indirect losses evaluation

4. Results

Q6: The validity and application value of the research cannot be assessed.

Q7: The article omits a lot of calculation process, which is also the reason for the confusion. It is recommended to supplement key calculation procedures and model parameter values.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

References

Author Response

This paper introduces the impact of earthquake disasters on the transportation network and proposes an evaluation model, which is innovative to a certain extent. However, some contents such as methods and results are unclear. In addition, the article has not mentioned the application value of the research. Specific recommendations are as follows:

Abstract:

Q1: A detailed description of the research methodology is recommended to aid in understanding the subject of the article. (Page 1, Line 18~23)

Authors: Thank you for the comment. The abstract has been reviewed with the aim to better explain the research methodology and the obtained results.

1. Introduction

Q2: The article mentions the hazards of natural disasters to transportation networks and power transmission systems. However, existing research instruments and evaluation methods were not investigated. This may result in the novelty of the article not being shown. It is suggested that the above studies be added to the introduction. More research papers should be investigated.

Authors: Thank you for the precious suggestions. The bibliography of the Introduction section has been thoroughly revised and expanded.

2. Methodology

Q3: Article structure in methodology may need to be corrected.

Authors: Thank you for the precious suggestions. A flow chart of the proposed methodological approach has been added in this section to better clarify the article structure.

2.1. Assessment of socio‐economic losses: a simplified approach

2.1.1. Evaluation of indirect losses due to the increasing travel costs

Q4: A detailed introduction to TDFM is necessary to reduce reader confusion.

Authors: Thank you for the observation. The Authors agree with the comment, for this reason a description of the Travel Demand Forecasting Model has been conveniently added in the section.

2.1.2. Evaluation of indirect losses due to the isolation of the inhabited and/or industrial/business center

3. Case Study

Q5: The source and accuracy of the data cannot be verified.

Authors: Thank you for the observation. It should be noted that the main aim of the proposed methodology is to provide reliable and satisfactory estimate of the economic losses due to a catastrophic event basing only on easily available data (as open-source database). For this reason, the data used in this paper have been directly obtained from National open-source database as:

Italian Institute of Statistic (ISTAT). Origin/Destination Commuting Matrix, year 2011. Online available at: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/139381.

Emilia Romagna Region. Web Site: https://servizissiir.regione.emilia-romagna.it/FlussiMTS/.

Italian Institute of Statistic (ISTAT). Population and households Census 2011. Online available at: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/104317.

Italian Institute of Statistic (ISTAT). Irpef taxable incomes (Ipef) – municipalities (Tax year 2012). Online available at: http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MEF_REDDITIIRPEF_COM.

BANK OF ITALY. Survey on Household Income and Wealth - 2012 Supplements to the Statistical Bulletin - Sample Surveys. on line available at: https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/indagine-famiglie/bil-fam2012/index.html.

3.1. Liquefaction phenomenon and damage evaluation

3.2. Travel Demand Forecasting Model of Terre del Reno

3.3. Socio‐economical aspects of Terre del Reno district for indirect losses evaluation

4. Results

Q6: The validity and application value of the research cannot be assessed.

Authors: Thank you for the observation. The validity and the application value has been assessed by applying the proposed methodology to a real case study that underwent to a seismic event with associated soil liquefaction phenomena.

Q7: The article omits a lot of calculation process, which is also the reason for the confusion. It is recommended to supplement key calculation procedures and model parameter values.

Authors: Thank you for the observation. It should be noted that the calculation process related to the economic losses (which is the main topic of the paper) consists mainly of 10 equations (completely reported and described in the text and integrated with liquefaction potential evaluation model). On the other hand, the geotechnical aspects, related to the liquefaction phenomenon and damage evaluation of Terre del Reno Municipality, although have been the subject of numerous works (the main have been mentioned) have been summarized with relevant relationships and calibrated parameters and therefore only the final results have been used in this paper (see Fig. 2).

5. Discussion and Conclusion

References

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did a good job; I don't have any comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been completely revised.