Urban Resilience and Sustainability in the Perspective of Global Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic and War in Ukraine: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Improving the urban resilience of the built environment to many urban challenges are important to ensure urban sustainable development. This paper presents a systematic review on this topic, adding the strength of this paper. Moreover, the analysis is overall comprehensive and reliable, making it approach to acceptance. However, authors must see its shortcomings by only visiting the papers in 2019-2022. This does not convince me to suggest the acceptance of this paper.

Major comments

If authors focus on the most recent pandemic and war between 2019 and 2022, authors should identify this in the paper title. An urban resilience of the built environment is too broad and vague.

Moreover, authors have not presented a structured analysis of the urban resilience from its definition, scope, method and techniques to achieve them in either introduction or methodology section. Please address this issue. You may add one paragraph after line 55.

I suggest authors should move Figure 1 to a separate section before methods section. It is important to explain the conceptual framework and enable readers to understand their relationships. Only an image is not enough. Moreover, you define the research scope of this paper so that please explain this image thoroughly.

Figure 2, reports or records?

The method section is not sound, since it does not present how you will in-depth analyze the results.

Please move Table 1 to the appendix. It is not wise to have the original tables in the main text.

Please re-analyse Table 2, Table 3, to images to present the key information/findings according to different clusters.

This paper lacks a discussion section on implications and key results. The Section 3 in its current form is merely a result description. Far more work is needed.

Conclusion section is too long for reading. Please shorten to one paragraph.

Minor comments:

The references are not in the right form such as line 56.

Moreover, the authors have not reported the current urban resilience for extreme heat:

He, B. J., Zhao, D., Xiong, K., Qi, J., Ulpiani, G., Pignatta, G., ... & Jones, P. (2021). A framework for addressing urban heat challenges and associated adaptive behavior by the public and the issue of willingness to pay for heat resilient infrastructure in Chongqing, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103361.

He, B. J., Wang, J., Zhu, J., & Qi, J. (2022). Beating the urban heat: Situation, background, impacts and the way forward in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, 112350.

Carvalho, D., Martins, H., Marta-Almeida, M., Rocha, A., & Borrego, C. J. U. C. (2017). Urban resilience to future urban heat waves under a climate change scenario: A case study for Porto urban area (Portugal). Urban Climate, 19, 1-27.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer of the manuscript “Sustainability-2041296”!

We appreciate your time and effort dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and would like to thank you for your insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes in line with most of the suggestions and are pleased to resubmit the revised version of the manuscript. We highlighted the new text and corrections in blue. In the attachment, we send you a pdf version of all revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting study discussing the relationship between the urban resilience and sustainable development in the perspective of anthropogenic hazards, particularly the title is quite eye-catching. Overall, this manuscript is good in shape. I have some comments for revisions.

1. As an introduction the abstract section, please mention that why did you employ systematic review approach to analyze this topic?

2. In the introduction, the authors need to further explain why talk about the builting environment and urban resilience from the perspective of anthropogenic disaster. Then why we choose pandemic and war as the representative factors of anthropogenic hazard should be supplemented.

3. In my opinion, the method section mainly focuses on the process of literature selection, but it is not clear what the specific method is used to analyze these literatures. For example, what is the logic of the sequence of the three tables in the results and discussion section?

4. It is necessary to explain the basic logic of the results and discussion section of the analysis clearly in the second or third part, that is, how the analysis framework of the whole article is organized. Otherwise, the results will make readers feel difficult to understand.

5. It is suggested that the results and discussion section should organized separately to facilitate readers' better understanding.

6. The Conclusion should provide a high-level overview of the conclusion in the form of bullet points, and should point out the shortcomings of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer of the manuscript “Sustainability-2041296”!

We appreciate your time and effort dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and would like to thank you for your insightful comments. We have incorporated changes in line with most of the suggestions, and we are pleased to resubmit the revised version of the manuscript. We highlighted the new text and corrections in blue. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have well addressed all my concerns.