Proposal of a Socio-Ecological Resilience Integrated Index (SERII) for Colombia, South America (1985–2022)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

the subject of this manuscript paper is quite interesting and its approach is innovative . 

However, after reading the manuscript I suggest to review two sections of it.

The ”discutions” section needs to be more solid in afirmations and comments based on your results. For the readers is hard to understand what are the meanings of obtained results.

Also, ”conclusions” sections should be reorganised and rephrased. Conclusions are not very clear expresed.

In aditions, the quality of  ilustrations should be improved as well as the content of figure captions.

Other suggestions and recommendations were inserted into the text as comments. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for these comments. I've included the responses in detail below: 

Comment 1: The ”discutions” section needs to be more solid in afirmations and comments based on your results. For the readers is hard to understand what are the meanings of obtained results".

Reply 1. We have carried out a detailed review of the entire manuscript, adjusting not only the formal aspects but also the substantive aspects. In summary, to improve the manuscript, the following were added:

1. Methods: Lines 128 to 141. For better details, please see the scope of the comparison and this research.

2. Methods: Lines 257 to 268 detail the use of entropy and fuzzy logic for this research.

3. Results: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

4. Discussion: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

Comment 2: "Also, ”conclusions” sections should be reorganised and rephrased. Conclusions are not very clear expresed"

Reply 2. We have carried out a detailed review of the entire manuscript, adjusting not only the formal aspects but also the substantive aspects. In summary, to improve the manuscript, the following were added:

1. Results: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

2. Discussion: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

3. Consequently, the conclusion section (Lines 536-564) was also readjusted for greater clarity and coverage with all the background adjustments of the manuscript.

 

Comment 3: "In aditions, the quality of  ilustrations should be improved as well as the content of figure captions".

Reply 3. All figures have been improved in content, shape, and resolution (600 dpi). Thanks for this important comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a novel Social-Ecological Resilience Integrated Index (SERII) to assess the spatiotemporal changes in social-ecological resilience of Colombian provinces from 1985 to 2022. By integrating the interactions among ecological, social, and productivity subsystems, it explores the driving factors and management priorities. The research topic holds significant practical significance, especially against the backdrop of Colombia's long-standing challenges of ecological degradation, violent conflicts, and unbalanced development, providing a scientific basis for regional sustainable management.

The representation of weights in the form of Figure 2 and Figure 3 does not seem to be a good method. These images are neither aesthetically nor informative.

In discussing the spatiotemporal changes of ER, SR and PR from 1985 to 2022, statistical descriptions of numerical changes should be provided in brief along with the quotative description. Figure 4, 5, 6 and 7 only provided spatial distributions for 1985 and 2022 separately, and do not reflect any information on changes.

Because Management Score (MS) was proposed as a method for studying changes in section 2.4, the contents of 3.3 and 3.4 should be merged into one section titled something like “spatiotemporal changes of SERII”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for these comments. I've included the responses in detail below: 

Comment 1: "This paper proposes a novel Social-Ecological Resilience Integrated Index (SERII) to assess the spatiotemporal changes in social-ecological resilience of Colombian provinces from 1985 to 2022. By integrating the interactions among ecological, social, and productivity subsystems, it explores the driving factors and management priorities. The research topic holds significant practical significance, especially against the backdrop of Colombia's long-standing challenges of ecological degradation, violent conflicts, and unbalanced development, providing a scientific basis for regional sustainable management".

Reply 1: Thanks for this comment, this construction seeks: 1. The initial identification of the resilience dynamics of the subsystems for the Colombian territory between 1985-2022. 2. The evaluation of the historical trajectories of SER changes throughout a complex and widely diverse territory. 3. It identifies the driving forces that explain the transformation of SER between 1985 and 2022.

Comment 2: "The representation of weights in the form of Figure 2 and Figure 3 does not seem to be a good method. These images are neither aesthetically nor informative."

Reply 2: All graphs and figures have been improved for better presentation. New versions of these graphs are presented on lines 321 and 324 to facilitate understanding of the analyses performed.

 

Comment 3: "In discussing the spatiotemporal changes of ER, SR and PR from 1985 to 2022, statistical descriptions of numerical changes should be provided in brief along with the quotative description. Figure 4, 5, 6 and 7 only provided spatial distributions for 1985 and 2022 separately, and do not reflect any information on changes."

Reply 3: We have carried out a detailed review of the entire manuscript, adjusting not only the formal aspects but also the substantive aspects. In summary, to improve the manuscript, the following were added:

1. Results: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

2. Discussion: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

3. Consequently, the conclusion section (Lines 536-564) was also readjusted for greater clarity and coverage with all the background adjustments of the manuscript.

 

Comment 4: "Because Management Score (MS) was proposed as a method for studying changes in section 2.4, the contents of 3.3 and 3.4 should be merged into one section titled something like “spatiotemporal changes of SERII”.

Reply 4: Thanks for the pertinent comment; in line with it, the following structural changes were made to the manuscript:

1. Results: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

2. Discussion: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear all,

Respectfully, I believe that the article is poorly structured and written. There are many old references throughout the text, without necessarily being a consolidated concept or technique. The low amount of information in the geographic location figure of the work is striking. There is a large amount of information in tables, with inserted links, which makes reading difficult and confusing. There is a mismatch in the sources of the equations that should be corrected if the article is resubmitted. The few results generated were presented in low-resolution and low-quality figures, requiring great effort to read the labels. Therefore, my initial recommendation is to reject the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for these comments. I have included the responses in detail below:

Comment 1: "Respectfully, I believe that the article is poorly structured and written. There are many old references throughout the text, without necessarily being a consolidated concept or technique. The low amount of information in the geographic location figure of the work is striking. There is a large amount of information in tables, with inserted links, which makes reading difficult and confusing. There is a mismatch in the sources of the equations that should be corrected if the article is resubmitted. The few results generated were presented in low-resolution and low-quality figures, requiring great effort to read the labels. Therefore, my initial recommendation is to reject the article".

Reply 1: Thanks for this review. We have carried out a detailed review of the entire manuscript, adjusting not only the formal aspects but also the substantive aspects. In summary, to improve the manuscript, the following were added:

1. Methods: Lines 128 to 141. For better details, please see the scope of the comparison and this research.

2. Methods: Lines 257 to 268 detail the use of entropy and fuzzy logic for this research.

3. Results: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

4. Discussion: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

5. Consequently, the conclusion section (Lines 536-564) was also readjusted for greater clarity and coverage with all the background adjustments of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study constructs a socio-ecological resilience integrated index for Colombia-South America. It has good practical implications. This study is highly relevant to the topic of Sustainability journal. Compared with the existing resilience evaluation research, this study constructs a more diversified evaluation index system with three subsystems, which can expand the existing research to a certain extent. It helps to evaluate the social and ecological resilience more scientifically. 

However, further improvements are needed in the following areas:
(1) The research method is relatively simple, using fuzzy membership function method to assign weights to different indicators. The scientificity and rationality of this method need to be further evaluated. (2) This study categorizes socio-ecological resilience into incorporates ecosystem resilience (ER), social systems' resilience (SR), and production systems' resilience (PR). How these three subsystems are logically related and whether there is any overlap in connotation. It requires further clarification. 
(3) The consistency of conclusions and discussion needs to be further strengthened, and the focus of the study should be on the linkages between the three subsystems, which are not discussed in depth in the conclusions. 
(4) The references contain literatures from the last three years, but the formatting of the literature needs to be checked, e.g., literature [31] [33]does not have page numbers. 
(5) Tables 1 and 2 show that two sets of indicator systems were adopted for evaluation in different years 1985 and 2022, and the rationality of the comparison through two different indicator systems needs to be clarified. 
(6) Figures 4 and 5 only show the regional heat maps for 1985 and 2022, which are not sufficient to illustrate the spatial and temporal evolution patterns, and need to be supplemented with pictures for more years. 
(7) possibilities for applying this index in other countries and regions could be further developed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for these comments. I have included the responses in detail below:

Comment 1: "This study constructs a socio-ecological resilience integrated index for Colombia-South America. It has good practical implications. This study is highly relevant to the topic of Sustainability journal. Compared with the existing resilience evaluation research, this study constructs a more diversified evaluation index system with three subsystems, which can expand the existing research to a certain extent. It helps to evaluate the social and ecological resilience more scientifically"

Reply 1: Thank you for your comment. We truly value your opinion, which motivates us to move forward and improve.

 

Comment 2: "(1) The research method is relatively simple, using fuzzy membership function method to assign weights to different indicators. The scientificity and rationality of this method need to be further evaluated."  

Reply 2: Thanks for this review. We have carried out a detailed review of the entire manuscript, adjusting not only the formal aspects but also the substantive aspects. In summary, to improve the manuscript, the following were added:

1. Methods: Lines 128 to 141. For better details, please see the scope of the comparison and this research.

2. Methods: Lines 257 to 268 detail the use of entropy and fuzzy logic for this research.

 

Comment 3: " (2) This study categorizes socio-ecological resilience into incorporates ecosystem resilience (ER), social systems' resilience (SR), and production systems' resilience (PR). How these three subsystems are logically related and whether there is any overlap in connotation. It requires further clarification."

Reply 3: Thanks for this review. We have carried out a detailed review of the entire manuscript, adjusting not only the formal aspects but also the substantive aspects. In summary, to improve the manuscript, the following were added:

1. Methods: Lines 128 to 141. For better details, please see the scope of the comparison and this research.

2. Methods: Lines 257 to 268 detail the use of entropy and fuzzy logic for this research.

3. Results: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

4. Discussion: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

5. Consequently, the conclusion section (Lines 536-564) was also readjusted for greater clarity and coverage with all the background adjustments of the manuscript.

 

Comment 4: "(3) The consistency of conclusions and discussion needs to be further strengthened, and the focus of the study should be on the linkages between the three subsystems, which are not discussed in depth in the conclusions."

Reply 4: Thanks for this review. We have carried out a detailed review of the entire manuscript, adjusting not only the formal aspects but also the substantive aspects. In summary, to improve the manuscript, the following were added:

1. Results: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

2. Discussion: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

3. Consequently, the conclusion section (Lines 536-564) was also readjusted for greater clarity and coverage with all the background adjustments of the manuscript.

 

Comment 5: "(4) The references contain literatures from the last three years, but the formatting of the literature needs to be checked, e.g., literature [31] [33]does not have page numbers."

Reply 5: All references and citations were adjusted according to the Journal's guidelines. Thank you for your comment.

 

Comment 6: "(5) Tables 1 and 2 show that two sets of indicator systems were adopted for evaluation in different years 1985 and 2022, and the rationality of the comparison through two different indicator systems needs to be clarified. "

Reply 6: Methods: Lines 128 to 141. For better details, please see the scope of the comparison and this research.

 

Comment 7: "(6) Figures 4 and 5 only show the regional heat maps for 1985 and 2022, which are not sufficient to illustrate the spatial and temporal evolution patterns, and need to be supplemented with pictures for more years. "

Reply 7: The entire results section (lines 307-400) has been completely revised to present the changing trends in ER, SR, PR, and SERII (1985-2022). This has allowed us to present the results of this initial approach more clearly and conclusively.

 

Comment 8: "(7) possibilities for applying this index in other countries and regions could be further developed."

Reply 8: The wording of the entire discussion (lines 401-535) has been adjusted to present the results more conclusively. In addition to the previous review, the literature review has been completed to highlight the contrast of our results with the available literature (lines 446-468).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised submission, all my comments and suggestions have been well addressed. I do not have any critical comments and suggestions this time except for the following two concerns.

1) The fonts in the maps are too small to read.

2) The equations for ER, SR and PR , namely equation 8. 9 and 10, are identical! Please check the them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your prompt efforts in improving this presentation. Below are the responses to each of these comments:

Comment 1: The fonts in the maps are too small to read.

Reply 1: Thanks for this comment. By the Journal's guidelines, the figures have been submitted in edited (image) format with a resolution of 600 dpi. The figures in this format are included in this final presentation.

Comment 2: The equations for ER, SR, and PR, namely equations 8, 9, and 10, are identical! Please check them.

Reply 2: Thanks for this comment. Equations 8, 9, and 10 are the same but differ in the response variable, which is a calculation detail. In the final version of the manuscript, it reads as follows: Where Wj is the weight of the jth indicator of each system, Iij is the jth indicator of the ith assessment unit.

 

Many thanks

 

Cesar Ruiz 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear all,

I have noticed that substantial changes have been made to the article. I therefore recommend that you accept it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you so much for your time in improving this presentation. Below are the responses to each of your comments:

Comment 1: I have noticed that substantial changes have been made to the article. I think you should accept it.

Reply 1: I appreciate this comment. I am happy and proud of this contribution. Thanks for this review effort, which has made this presentation a robust piece for communicating knowledge.

Best regards, 

Cesar Ruiz