Next Article in Journal
Application of openBIM for the Management of Existing Railway Infrastructure: Case Study of the Cancello–Benevento Railway Line
Next Article in Special Issue
Are Global Environmental Uncertainties Inevitable? Measuring Desertification for the SDGs
Previous Article in Journal
Potential of NTFP Based Bioeconomy in Livelihood Security and Income Inequality Mitigation in Kashmir Himalayas
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing Education from Space: Using Satellite Earth Observation to Quantify Overcrowding in Primary Schools in Rural Areas of Nigeria
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Assessing Urban Vulnerability to Flooding: A Framework to Measure Resilience Using Remote Sensing Approaches

Sustainability 2022, 14(4), 2276; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042276
by Mercio Cerbaro 1,*, Stephen Morse 1, Richard Murphy 1, Sarah Middlemiss 2 and Dimitrios Michelakis 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2022, 14(4), 2276; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042276
Submission received: 21 December 2021 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 11 February 2022 / Published: 17 February 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general:

The article is thematically suitable for Sustainability magazine. It has a suitable structure, and the findings presented are beneficial. Formal editing of the article is mostly appropriate.

 

Partial comments:

  1. Five-point classification scales were used to evaluate the exposure and sensitivity of the evaluated area. The Adaptation assessment was performed differently (the classification scale was probably not used). The authors should specify in more detail in the article how Adaptation was evaluated.
  2. The Adaptation section shall take into account the presence of medical facilities, police stations, and fire stations. However, it is not only their presence that is important, but also their staff (eg larger or smaller) and technical equipment (eg larger or smaller). Have the authors considered these aspects? If not, would it not be appropriate to develop the presented Visual Indicator Framework for Resilience (VIFOR) method in this way?
  3. The horizontal axis of figure 7 is marked with the numbers 1 to 5 Score. The vertical axis of the image is labeled Count or Count of score. Why do the vertical axis designations of the images differ? The authors should better explain the meaning of the axes in the text. Figure 7 is not clearly visible. Authors should adjust the image format.
  4. The authors applied the VIFOR method to areas of 1 m2. I recommend that the authors present in a simple form the time and personnel complexity of the method with regard to its possible use for larger areas of cities.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article described a very good result and concept. Deserves to be published with a few additions. [1] Add in more detail about the urgency of the research; [2] If possible please also add the research flow diagram (research step)

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment "

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The theoretical aspects of vulnerability and flood management need to be improved.

The literature review of theories of vulnerability, exposure, resilience and flood management is weak. Need to include them.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment "

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop