Research on the Disaster Management of China’s Ethnic Minority Autonomous Regions in the Development of Modernization Construction—Taking Mabian Yi Autonomous County in Southern Sichuan as an Example
, Haikuan Wu 2, Shun Kang 2 and Tingyue Zheng 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper provides a good overview of risk assessment methods for geohazards.
The authors conducted a comprehensive research on the disaster management of China's Mabian Yi Autonomous County.
In general, the article is performed at a high level and can be recommended for printing. However, there are several remarks that the authors should take into account in future work
However, when building any mathematical models, the most important thing is to define the factor space and rank them by the degree of influence. Here geological factors are considered simultaneously with anthropogenic factors and their influence is not convincingly separated. In addition, the model does not describe and does not take into account the mutual influence of factors or their combination, and this is very important and affects the final assessment.
The recommendations in the conclusions are rather speculative, unsupported by anything. And the value of any model lies in the fact that you can change this or that factor and analyze it to get the best result, conducting a so-called "mathematical experiment". And then the proposed decisions on the management of the authorities of the situation is reasonable. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and it would greatly increase the value of the research.
Author Response
However, when building any mathematical models, the most important thing is to define the factor space and rank them by the degree of influence. Here geological factors are considered simultaneously with anthropogenic factors and their influence is not convincingly separated. In addition, the model does not describe and does not take into account the mutual influence of factors or their combination, and this is very important and affects the final assessment.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion.This paper mainly gives the policy recommendations of Mabian Yi Autonomous County in the development of modernization. Therefore, when selecting factors, it is mainly based on local policies and the government 's five-year development plan. At the same time, it also draws on the factors considered by the government of the region in the past in the development of modernization. Therefore, this paper does not consider the interaction of other factors and combinations in combination with the local actual situation.
The recommendations in the conclusions are rather speculative, unsupported by anything. And the value of any model lies in the fact that you can change this or that factor and analyze it to get the best result, conducting a so-called "mathematical experiment". And then the proposed decisions on the management of the authorities of the situation is reasonable. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and it would greatly increase the value of the research.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion.There is no perfect government and no perfect policy in this world. The Chinese government adopts a five-year plan to explore the best policies at present. This article is based on the research and discussion of historical data, and then give the government some relevant suggestions, it must not be the most perfect. At the same time, the government is the rule of man, and the implementation effect of the policy depends on the officials ' understanding of the policy. So the suggestion in the conclusion is perceptual.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript focuses on disaster management research in Mabian Yi Autonomous County, southern Sichuan. The research objective has strong practical significance. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed and supplemented by the author:
1. Summary, lines 29-30. Is the expression 'geological hazard risk evaluation, geological disaster risk evaluation' repeated?
2. This manuscript mainly explores disaster management in the research area. Can important conclusions on disaster management be provided in the abstract?
3. Paragraphs 4-7 of the introduction discuss geological hazard risk and geological environmental carrying capacity by citing numerous scholars' research. However, the focus and innovation of this study were not explained, and there was no description of the research methodology system. How did the author conduct research on regional geological hazard assessment? What are the advantages of using this method? The above questions need to be briefly and clearly stated in the introduction. Provide evidence and persuasiveness for the research methods and content at the end of the manuscript.
4. The font and graphics in Figure 1 are too small. Moreover, the topographic map in Figure 1 lacks altitude values, and the black and white colors need to be optimized. Try to use color to represent terrain and increase the professionalism and readability of manuscript charts. The fonts in the entire text are very small.
5. In the Characteristics of Study Area section, please add data sources and references on natural conditions such as terrain and climate in the study area.
6. What is the basis for selecting the three primary vulnerability elements in 3.2.1? Why not include other aspects.
7. In the Methodology section, the author introduced various models and methods, but the relationships between the models were not clearly expressed. It is suggested that the author create a flowchart of these models and methods according to the research ideas to improve the logical coherence of the manuscript.
8. The conclusion is too broad. Can you provide some quantitative conclusions?
9. Please supplement the shortcomings of the research in the conclusion section.
10. I am concerned about the innovation of the manuscript. The keywords' Identify and predict disasters' exist, but no relevant research analysis is found in the article.
11. The English description of the manuscript has traces of translation software, and you can find a native English speaker to polish the language of the manuscript.
12. Please add recent research literature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
- Summary, lines 29-30. Is the expression 'geological hazard risk evaluation, geological disaster risk evaluation' repeated?
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have revised the manuscript.
- This manuscript mainly explores disaster management in the research area. Can important conclusions on disaster management be provided in the abstract?
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have provided important conclusions on disaster management in the abstract.
- Paragraphs 4-7 of the introduction discuss geological hazard risk and geological environmental carrying capacity by citing numerous scholars' research. However, the focus and innovation of this study were not explained, and there was no description of the research methodology system. How did the author conduct research on regional geological hazard assessment? What are the advantages of using this method? The above questions need to be briefly and clearly stated in the introduction. Provide evidence and persuasiveness for the research methods and content at the end of the manuscript.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have already revised paragraph 7 of the introduction.
- The font and graphics in Figure 1 are too small. Moreover, the topographic map in Figure 1 lacks altitude values, and the black and white colors need to be optimized. Try to use color to represent terrain and increase the professionalism and readability of manuscript charts. The fonts in the entire text are very small.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have revised Figure 1.
- In the Characteristics of Study Area section, please add data sources and references on natural conditions such as terrain and climate in the study area.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have added data sources of natural conditions to the ' Characteristics of Study Area ' section.
- What is the basis for selecting the three primary vulnerability elements in 3.2.1? Why not include other aspects.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have added the relevant basis in 3.2.1.
- In the Methodology section, the author introduced various models and methods, but the relationships between the models were not clearly expressed. It is suggested that the author create a flowchart of these models and methods according to the research ideas to improve the logical coherence of the manuscript.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have been supplemented and revised in the introduction.
- The conclusion is too broad. Can you provide some quantitative conclusions?
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have supplemented and revised in the conclusion part.
- Please supplement the shortcomings of the research in the conclusion section.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have supplemented and revised in the conclusion part.
- I am concerned about the innovation of the manuscript. The keywords' Identify and predict disasters' exist, but no relevant research analysis is found in the article.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have deleted this keyword.
- The English description of the manuscript has traces of translation software, and you can find a native English speaker to polish the language of the manuscript.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. The manuscript has been polished by English experts.
- Please add recent research literature.
Response: We are very grateful for the good suggestion. We have added recent research literature to the first and second paragraphs of the introduction.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy suggestions have been addressed by the author.
