Socio-Economic Impact of the Brumadinho Landslide: A Hybrid MCDM-ML Approach

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: - the text is too long: the reader loses interest and attention weakens as the results are presented.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have shortened the text to make it more concise and focused. The text has been revised

by MDPI professional English editing service to eliminate redundancies and present the results more directly and engagingly.

Comments 2: - the use of a hybrid methodology may not be necessary, or at least it is not clear to me, during the discussion, how the use of an integrated approach improves the quality of the results and what additional information it provides.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the use of a hybrid methodology in our study. We acknowledge your point that the necessity and added value of the integrated approach could be further clarified. In response to your comment, we have revised the manuscript to more explicitly highlight the benefits of combining MCDM and ML techniques. In section 3.4, we have emphasized that the

"Total MEHI, a composite socio-economic performance index derived from our hierarchical MCDM model, was considered as the dependent variable. This integration of MCDM-derived metrics into ML models exemplifies the hybrid nature of our approach."  Furthermore, we have added a discussion highlighting the distinct contributions of each technique within the hybrid framework: "The hybrid MCDM-ML approach employed in this study has been instrumental in uncovering these nuanced relationships, going beyond traditional analyses to reveal key findings that would have otherwise remained hidden. For example, the hierarchical TOPSIS model allowed for a comprehensive assessment of well-being across multiple dimensions, while transfer entropy exposed feedback loops between socio-economic factors. Additionally, the application of LASSO regression enabled the isolation of the most critical predictors of socio-economic outcomes, offering insights into the specific factors that most significantly influence the recovery process."

We believe these revisions clarify the rationale for using a hybrid approach and demonstrate how it enhances our understanding of the complex socio-economic impacts following the Brumadinho tragedy.

We appreciate your insights and hope that these changes have adequately addressed your concerns.

Comments 3: - it is necessary to specify which database the analyzed data was taken from;

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting the need to specify the source of our data. We revised the manuscript to ensure clarity in this regard. We have added the following footnote to Table 2: "All data came from Fundação João Pinheiro (FJP). Retrieved from https://fjp.mg.gov.br/"

Comments 4: the conclusions in the current version are not very useful. I suggest the authors better highlight the qualitative analysis of the general results in a summary and schematic table/figure. In my opinion, an actual general conclusion is missing. I suggest to the Authors a schematic list of points, such as the following:

The analyses conducted have highlighted that: 

-...

- ...

- ...

Response 4: Agree. We have revised the conclusions to better highlight the qualitative analysis of the general results and included a summary. These changes can be found on page 25, paragraph 2, lines 906-948.

Comments 5: - Finally, I invite the authors to clarify the research's limitations and generalize the conclusions to make helpful research for subsequent applications in other contexts.

Response 5: Agree. We have clarified the research's limitations and generalized the conclusions to make the research more applicable to other contexts. These changes can be found on page 10, paragraph 1, lines 370-381; page 26, paragraph 1, lines 896-905; and page 27, paragraph 1, lines 949-962.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: There are several stylistic issues in the paper, for example ' w.r.t.' in line 172, where I am concerned about the editing of this work, as it is at once highly academic and yet uses informal language.  Please have an english editor rework it.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have shortened the text to make it more concise and focused. The text has been revised

by MDPI professional English editing service to eliminate redundancies and present the results more directly and engagingly.

Comments 2: Selection of Uberlândia as the control needs much more explanation as this selection is key to the eventual study findings, and a sentence on the control, without specific data is not enough.  The control selection must be explored more fully. Specifically, the paper must explore how the selection of this control may influence the outcomes ( appropriately or not).

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the selection of the control municipality. We acknowledge the importance of justifying this choice and explaining its potential influence on the study findings. In response to your comment, we have revised section 2.1 to provide a more detailed rationale for selecting Uberlândia as the control group. We now state that Uberlândia was chosen not only due to its geographical distance from Brumadinho and lack of direct exposure to the disaster but also because it is "the city with the second highest population and GDP in Minas Gerais." This additional information emphasizes the city's significance as a representative of non-affected municipalities with substantial economic activity. Furthermore, we have added a discussion of how the choice of Uberlândia as the control might influence the study's outcomes:

"While the specific choice of the control municipality does not fundamentally alter the overall conclusions of this study, it serves a crucial role as a reference point for policymakers and stakeholders. For instance, by comparing the socio-economic trajectories of the affected and neighboring municipalities to that of a non-affected, economically significant city like Uberlândia, decision-makers can gain a clearer understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities faced by each region. This comparative analysis facilitates the development of tailored recovery strategies that consider the diverse needs and characteristics of different municipalities, ultimately leading to more effective and equitable policy interventions."

Comments 3: - The discussion of the direct epicenter vs neighbor vs non affected is interesting and added to the analysis. The figures throughout the paper were well done and demonstrative of the aims of the work.

Response 3: Thank you for your positive feedback on the discussion of direct epicenter, neighbor, and non-affected municipalities. We are pleased that you found this analysis interesting and that it added value to our study. We also appreciate your kind words about the figures throughout the paper; we aimed to make them visually clear and demonstrative of the research aims. Your comments are very encouraging and validate our efforts to provide a comprehensive and insightful analysis

Comments 4: The analysis itself is solid work, however, the authors have not adequately explained the underlying assumptions that could have a major impact on the findings.  This explanation would be helpful to assess the overall work.  It could be that the assumptions are appropriate and the work carries through fine, or it could be that the assumptions used are not or are limited, but without further explanation, I cannot be sure.

Response 4: Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the analysis in our study. We appreciate your insightful observation about the need to better explain the underlying assumptions and potential limitations of our hybrid MCDM-ML model. In response to your comment, we have added a new section,"2.7. Assumptions and Limitations of the Hybrid MCDM-ML Approach," to the manuscript. This section discusses the key assumptions and limitations inherent in our modeling approach:

"The hybrid MCDM-ML approach utilized in this study offers a robust framework for analyzing complex socio-economic phenomena. However, like all models, it operates under certain assumptions and has inherent limitations that warrant consideration. Assumptions: The LASSO regression component of our model assumes a linear relationship between the predictors and the Total MEHI. While we have employed transformations and diagnostics to assess potential non-linearity, it is important to acknowledge that some degree of non-linearity may still be present. Additionally, the model assumes no omitted variable bias, implying that all relevant factors influencing the MEHI have been accounted for. However, unmeasured variables like individual resilience and community social capital could potentially play a role in socio-economic outcomes, and their exclusion may introduce some degree of bias. Limitations: The biannual frequency of certain indicators necessitates interpolation for monthly analysis, introducing potential uncertainty. Finally, the findings of this study are context-specific to the Brumadinho tragedy and the socio-economic and cultural landscape of Minas Gerais and Brazil. Generalizing the results to other disaster contexts requires caution, as the effectiveness of financial aid and recovery efforts can vary considerably based on regional and cultural factors. Despite these limitations, the hybrid MCDM-ML approach demonstrates its value in providing a nuanced understanding of the socio-economic impacts of the Brumadinho tragedy and the effectiveness of the financial aid program."

We believe that this new section addresses your concerns by transparently acknowledging the assumptions and limitations of our model.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required. 

Response: The text has been revised by MDPI professional English editing service.

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

Comments 1: The abstract provided is severely lacking in key aspects essential for a comprehensive research study. Firstly, the abstract neglects to present any study findings or results. A well-structured abstract should provide a concise summary of the key outcomes and discoveries derived from the research. Without this crucial information, readers are left uninformed and unable to understand the significance of the study. The absence of policy implications in the abstract is a significant drawback. A well-rounded study should have clear connections to practical applications and potential implications for policymakers. This not only helps bridge the gap between research and real-world impact but also highlights the importance of the study in driving meaningful change.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract to include the key findings, results, and policy implications. These changes can be found in the abstract section.

Comments 2: The introduction section appears excessively lengthy and fails to establish the theoretical necessity behind conducting this study. It lacks a compelling narrative that outlines the scientific thought process leading to the essential reasons for undertaking this research. Without a clear presentation of the theoretical underpinnings, this study becomes just another addition to the existing literature, devoid of any proven scientific contributions.

Response 2: Agree. We have revised the introduction to provide a clear and compelling narrative outlining the theoretical necessity for this study. These changes can be found on pages 1-2, paragraphs 1-8, lines 38-98.

Comments 3: - The current paper lacks a strong theoretical foundation, which is crucial for establishing the research aim and deriving specific research questions. Without a clear theoretical necessity, the absence of well-defined research questions becomes apparent, leaving readers without a guiding framework for the study. To address these shortcomings and enhance the paper's theoretical background, a robust literature review is necessary to identify gaps in the existing research and justify the importance of conducting this study.

Response 3: Agree. We have included a robust literature review to establish the theoretical foundation, identify research gaps, and justify the importance of this study. These changes can be found on page 2, paragraphs 3-8, lines 53-98.

Comments 4: Results sections should be arranged to follow the original order of research questions. It would clarify how this study accomplishes its objectives. The current format of the results is more like a quotation. Better to revise the results.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the organization of the results section. We have added the following text to accompany Figure 3, which now serves as a roadmap for the results section:

"Figure 3 shows the flowchart of the hybrid MCDM-ML framework employed in this study, outlining the specific research questions addressed by each methodological step." 

This figure now visually guides the reader through the results section, clearly indicating which analysis corresponds to each research question. We believe this change has improved the flow of the results and made it easier to follow how our study accomplishes its objectives. We appreciate your feedback and believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the organization and clarity of our results section.

Comments 5: The authors should divide the Conclusion into three core parts. Consider making one paragraph for each part. Part 1: Summary of this study. Part 2: Present key findings that answer each research question briefly. This is proof that this study accomplishes its objectives. Part 3: Suggest managerial/policy implications based on the key findings of this study.

Response 5: Agree. We have divided the conclusion into three core parts: a summary of the study, key findings that answer each research question, and managerial/policy implications based on the key findings. These changes can be found on pages 25-27, lines 887-962.

Comments 6: Ensure that all the references cited in the paper are included in the reference list at the end, according to the journal format.

Response 5: Agree. We have ensured that all the references cited in the paper are included in the reference list according to the journal format. These changes can be found in the reference section.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Extensive editing of English language required 

Response: The text has been revised by MDPI professional English editing service.