Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper reports an interesting and very in-depth review aimed at understanding what urban planning can do and how to reduce disaster risk and adapt to climate change.

The topic is certainly very current and concerns a global problem as well documented by the author.

The paper is well constructed, clear writing.

Reading is pleasant and the arguments presented are consistent.

The paper is original.

The scientific literature, being a review of scientific papers, specific reports,... is really well considered and analyzed as emerges from the final bibliography but also from the references reported in the Annex Table with the references retrieved according to the criteria in table 1.

The researcher's great expertise in the field emerges, demonstrated by his comprehensive critical reading of what is undoubtedly a very complex field.

I particularly agree with the first question.: “why despite the significant advancement of knowledge on extreme hazards and on good adaptation and mitigation practices, the translation into the everyday activity of planners and city man agers is still slow and fragmented”

and I agree with several of his statements, in particular:  “Resilience ca be a bridging concept between DRR and CCA ...  Integrating capacities and mandates of risk prevention and climate change adaptation would facilitate the work of cities managers, especially in cities exposed to multi-hazard conditions”:

“Urban planning has a role to play in each phase of the so-called disaster cycle, from prevention to emergency response, recovery and reconstruction”.

 

To further enhance this important work, I suggest introducing a specific paragraph, before the paper's conclusion, regarding the proposal for a framework/table that summarizes everything highlighted in the previous paragraphs. This includes the topics analyzed, the critical issues for each specific topic, who should be involved, how, and what possible actions are available, so as to provide even clearer answer into the critical issues highlighted in the research and more operational. I propose expanding on some aspects already addressed in the conclusions, but initially summarizing them in a table and then further explaining them, starting with (now read): “Practitioners may find the operationalization of urban resilience to streamline efforts towards adaptation… Policymakers may find useful, albeit challenging under current governance arrangements, the quest for cross sectoral frameworks to overcome current siloed interventions that often backlash one….”

What can or should the various stakeholders do: scholars (urban planners and experts in disaster and climate change studies), practitioners, and policy makers, etc.? Perhaps this way we could also find a fisrt answer to the first question? (Why, despite our knowledge...?)

Finally, I think the paper's Conclusion should be revised in light of the potential new paragraph introduced, including suggestions for future research in the field.

Author Response

Thank you for the review.

In the attached table the replies to your comments. A full English revision has been carried out

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well structure and clear.

 However, some aspects could be improved:

• All abbreviations (e.g., DRR, CCA, DH, ECHO) be clearly defined upon their first appearance in the text to ensure clarity for readers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds.
• Please consider specifying the source for each figure included in the manuscript. This will enhance transparency and allow readers to trace the origin of visual materials.
• While the review provides valuable insights, it currently focuses predominantly on European contexts, particularly Italy and EU-funded initiatives. Including more examples and perspectives from the Global South would enrich the analysis and broaden its applicability.
• The article would benefit from a more explicit engagement with the growing body of literature on blue-green infrastructure. As one of the most transformative approaches in contemporary urban planning—particularly in the context of climate adaptation and nature-based solutions—its integration would significantly enhance the review’s comprehensiveness and relevance.

Author Response

Thank you for the review. Attached the authors' reply, a full English revision has been carried out

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the role of urban planning in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, seeking to synthesize recent research developments in disaster risk management (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), and to explore their practical applications as well as the challenges encountered in their implementation.

- At the beginning of the introduction, the article lays considerable groundwork regarding the uncertainties and complexities faced by urban planning. However, the discussion is marked by dense citation of literature and repeated conceptual statements, which obscure the central issues. The text does not clearly focus on the key question of “how urban planning functions in DRR and CCA,” nor does it succinctly articulate the research question in a single sentence.

- The literature selection strategy is evidently subjective and lacks the rigor of systematic review standards. Although the authors repeatedly acknowledge that their approach is “non-systematic” and has limitations, they fail to address the potential bias introduced by such subjectivity. For instance, they do not specify concrete inclusion criteria, the time frame for literature retrieval, or methods for quality assessment. Furthermore, defining authoritative literature solely as works with an average citation count exceeding 1,000 appears arbitrary, as this criterion overlooks significant recent studies that may not yet have accumulated such high citation numbers.

- The article notes that only the top 30 search results were selected during the literature screening process. This approach is inherently limited, as Google Scholar’s search algorithms may overlook high-quality publications that do not perfectly match the chosen keywords. Such a method does not meet the standards of rigor required for a comprehensive review.

- Although the authors state that “all literature was carefully reviewed,” the article does not present any process or diagrams illustrating how the literature was organized and categorized. This lack of transparency and verifiability weakens the credibility of the review.

- In the third section, the article discusses the disaster impacts on large cities alongside those on small and medium-sized cities, but lacks a clear set of comparative dimensions or a classification framework. As a result, the comparison remains largely descriptive and anecdotal, without developing a generalizable theory or structure. Furthermore, while the authors mention the role of technologies such as geographic information systems and remote sensing in exposure assessment, they do not provide an in-depth discussion of the practical application processes, the potential errors, or the issues related to data insufficiency associated with these technologies.

- In Section 4, the authors enumerate numerous definitions of “resilience,” covering engineering, social, ecological, and other perspectives. However, they do not distinguish between the contexts and boundaries in which these concepts are applicable, resulting in a generalized use of the term and insufficient theoretical depth. The section repeatedly asserts that resilience can serve as a bridge between DRR and CCA, yet it fails to provide a mechanistic explanation—such as which planning tools, indicator systems, or institutional collaborations could facilitate this linkage—leaving the argument lacking in substantive support.

- The discussion of assessment indicators in this section is overly lengthy, introducing frameworks one by one—from Linkov to Arup—without comparing their respective strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, the section does not offer any recommendations regarding the selection of frameworks suitable for urban resilience planning. As a result, while the section contains a large amount of information, its practical value remains limited.

- Section 5 relies heavily on outdated case studies, which, while possessing some historical value, are not sufficiently linked to recent climate disasters or contemporary urban renewal practices. This diminishes the section’s relevance to current issues.

- Section 6 draws extensively on project and city-level case studies, but the overall presentation is rather fragmented. There is a lack of cross-case comparison or structural synthesis, resulting in a mere accumulation of disparate examples rather than a coherent analysis.

-Section 6.1’s discussion of land tenure focuses primarily on European and North American contexts, lacking consideration of situations in developing countries. This limits the generalizability of the conclusions.

-In the conclusion, although the authors attempt to differentiate among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers as target audiences, the statements remain highly generalized, lacking specificity and practical applicability.

- Moreover, the conclusion section primarily reiterates content from the main text, without offering any integrative claims or theoretical advancements that synthesize the findings of the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for the review, please find attached the replies in the attached table.

A full language revision of the text has been carried out

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made careful revisions and responses. I don't have any other comments.