Reconstruction as an Opportunity to Reduce Risk? Physical Changes Post-Wildfire in Chilean Case Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important topic with strong empirical foundations; however, its core conclusion suffers from inadequate measurement and validation. The authors' claim about resilience deterioration relies on descriptive patterns rather than quantifiable metrics, while lacking quasi-experimental logic to establish causal connections between interventions and outcomes.

Methodological gaps highlight this weakness: manual georeferencing lacks inter-rater reliability statistics and positional accuracy measures, currency conversion assumptions remain unclear, and maintenance assessments need systematic validation through administrative records rather than observational claims. The analysis requires pre/post trend examination with uncertainty bands, consistent figure formatting, and clear linkage between institutional failures and observed outcomes.

Careful revisions should define resilience indicators, report mapping validation statistics, implement basic causal inference frameworks, and strengthen outcome assessment methods. The paper's contribution potential justifies revision effort, but current methodological deficiencies undermine the validity of its central claims.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor issues with repetition, article usage, and complex sentence structures. Manuscript would benefit from a light native-speaker copyedit.

Author Response

We appreciate your suggestions on our work. We carefully revised and expanded all sections of the manuscript to address your comments and those of other reviewers. We believe these changes have greatly improved the manuscript, bringing it up to the journal's and this Special Edition's standards. In particular, we addressed your comments as follows. 

 

Comment 1:

This manuscript addresses an important topic with strong empirical foundations; however, its core conclusion suffers from inadequate measurement and validation.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. To enhance the logical flow of the paper and better foreground our empirical evidence, we have fully revised the manuscript.

The Results section closes its synthesis by systematically presenting three consistent cross-case findings that emerged from the analysis of the reconstruction interventions across the eight established categories: the trend towards densification, the proliferation of informality, and the decline in infrastructure maintenance [lines 400-413].

This revised structure allows the Discussion section to focus on interpreting the significance of these empirical findings [lines 606-695]. We believe this approach provides a clearer and more robust validation for our core conclusion.

 

Comment 2:

The authors' claim about resilience deterioration relies on descriptive patterns rather than quantifiable metrics, while lacking quasi-experimental logic to establish causal connections between interventions and outcomes.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this point. To move beyond descriptive patterns and provide more quantifiable metrics, we have restructured the Results section [lines 400-413]. It now closes its synthesis by systematically presenting three consistent, cross-case findings, such as the quantified increase in housing density in Valparaíso from 4,273 to 4,740 units. To establish clearer causal connections, the analysis is framed as a pre- versus post-disaster comparison. Building upon the quantifiable findings now presented in the Results, the Discussion section [lines 638 - 676] has been revised to draw more explicit links between specific reconstruction 'interventions' (e.g., rapid rehousing policies) and their observed 'outcomes'. We believe this revised structure provides a stronger, more data-driven causal argument that addresses both aspects of the reviewer's comment.

 

Comment 3:

Methodological gaps highlight this weakness: manual georeferencing lacks inter-rater reliability statistics and positional accuracy measures.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this methodological point. While formal inter-rater reliability and positional accuracy statistics were not computed, we have revised the Methods section (2.3) to clarify the rigorous quality control protocol that was implemented. The text now specifies that all manual georeferencing was conducted by a single, trained analyst to ensure consistency, thereby minimizing inter-rater variability [lines 315- 317]. Furthermore, it details how the dataset was validated through triangulation, by cross-referencing with official damage assessments and systematic in-situ verification [lines 329- 333]. We are confident this clarification addresses the noted concern.

 

Comment 4:

Currency conversion assumptions remain unclear.

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. We improved the explanation of the currency conversion, in lines 303-306, as follows: “To ensure consistency, this conversion to US dollars used the average annual exchange rate for the year in which each project's budget was reported or executed. For amounts specified in CLP, they were first converted to UF using the average UF rate for the year.”

 

Comment 5:

Maintenance assessments need systematic validation through administrative records rather than observational claims.

Response 5:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While the assessment was always grounded in systematic in-situ evidence, we have enhanced the manuscript to better articulate this rigor. The Methods section [lines 258-260] has been updated to clarify that our fieldwork included a "comprehensive photographic inventory" to systematically document the condition of DRR infrastructure. Furthermore, the Discussion section now explicitly states that our assessment of poor maintenance is based on this direct physical evidence, which is then triangulated with our review of planning documents [lines 669– 695].

We believe these clarifications make the original validation protocol more transparent.

 

Comment 6:

The analysis requires pre/post trend examination with uncertainty bands, consistent figure formatting, and clear linkage between institutional failures and observed outcomes.

Response 6:

We thank the reviewer for the detailed feedback on the analysis and presentation. In response to the points raised:

1. While a statistical trend analysis with uncertainty bands is beyond the scope of this mixed-methods study, the manuscript’s longitudinal design—analysing multiple post-disaster snapshots against a pre-disaster baseline—provides a systematic pre/post trend examination, as detailed in our Methods section [lines 317-319, and Table 2 on line 335].
2. Regarding figure formatting, the varied terminology is a deliberate choice reflecting the unique, non-standardized nature of each reconstruction process. A new explanatory note in the Methods section now makes this rationale explicit to ensure clarity [lines 319 – 323].
3. The Discussion section [lines 669-695] has been enhanced to draw a clearer linkage between institutional failures—such as the policy focus on speed or the lack of maintenance planning—and the observed negative outcomes.

 

Comment 7:

Careful revisions should define resilience indicators,

Response 7:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly present the consistent cross-case findings from our analysis that serve as measures of long-term resilience. As previously indicated, we further developed the cross-case analysis in the Results section [lines 300-413], and we thoroughly revised the Discussion section to convey our arguments more strongly.

 

Comment 8:

Careful revisions should report mapping validation statistics

Response 8:

We thank the reviewer for the comment regarding mapping validation. In response, the Methods section [lines 329 – 333] now makes the rigorous validation protocol explicit. The text clarifies that the dataset’s accuracy was ensured through a triangulation of the georeferenced data against official damage assessments (FIBE) and systematic in-situ verification.

 

Comment 9:

Careful revisions should implement basic causal inference frameworks

Response 9:

We thank the reviewer for this recommendation to make our causal reasoning more explicit. In response, we have revised the manuscript to better articulate the study's analytical approach.

Our study is structured around a comparative, longitudinal case study design, which provides a solid basis for inferring causal connections in two ways:

1. It relies on a pre- versus post-disaster comparison, using our multi-snapshot temporal analysis to establish a baseline and track the evolution of outcomes over time, as detailed in our Methods section [lines 317-319, and Table 2 on line 335].
2. Building on this temporal comparison, the Discussion section [lines 669-695] now draws more explicit links between specific reconstruction 'interventions' (e.g., policy choices) and their quantifiable 'outcomes' (e.g., increased density, infrastructure decay).

We believe this approach clarifies the causal logic underpinning our claims in the robust manner the reviewer suggested.

 

 

Comment 10:

Careful revisions should define and strengthen outcome assessment methods.

Response 10:

We thank the reviewer for the recommendation to define and strengthen our outcome assessment method. In response, we have clarified our approach throughout the manuscript. As now detailed in the Methods section [2.3 Data analysis; lines 327-329], our assessment method involves systematically presenting three consistent cross-case findings in the Results section [lines 300-413]. These findings are: (1) the trend towards settlement densification, (2) the proliferation of informality, and (3) the declining operational status of response infrastructure.

This data-driven approach allows the Discussion section [lines 669-695] to focus on establishing clearer causal links between policies and these observed outcomes. We are confident this provides the robust and well-defined assessment method the reviewer suggested.

 

Comment 11:

The paper's contribution potential justifies revision effort, but current methodological deficiencies undermine the validity of its central claims.

Response 11:

We are grateful to the reviewer for their encouraging assessment of the paper's potential contribution and for the constructive feedback required to realize it. In response, we have undertaken a thorough revision to systematically address the methodological deficiencies noted.

The manuscript's validation has been significantly strengthened across three areas.

1. First, the Results section [lines 400-413] now presents a direct, data-driven assessment based on consistent cross-case findings.
2. Second, the Discussion section [lines 669-695] now enhances the causal logic by explicitly linking policy interventions to their quantifiable outcomes.
3. Finally, all methodological protocols [lines 301-333] have been clarified to improve transparency and replicability.

We think these comprehensive revisions provide the robust validation required to support the paper's central claims.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached please find the comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate your suggestions on our work. We carefully revised and expanded all sections of the manuscript to address your comments and those of other reviewers. We believe these changes have greatly improved the manuscript, bringing it up to the journal's and this Special Edition's standards. In particular, we addressed your comments as follows. 

 

Comment 1:

Although four cases with different administrative regions and reconstruction models were selected, they are all from Chile. Its governance system, geographical environment, and wildfire context are specific, which may limit the international generalization of the research conclusions. It is necessary to further explain the boundary of the reference value of these cases for other countries or regions.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing out the need to explain further the boundary of reference, as all four case studies are from Chile. To address this concern, (1) we included further details in the case study selection subsection about the rationale for selecting these cases; (2) we included a sentence in the limitations of the study “It is also important to point out that the case studies’ results reflect contextual conditions that are not directly generalizable to reconstruction processes in other places or communities”; and (3) we added a sentence in a new paragraph about further research: “More case studies that analyse the physical DRR measures implemented in post-wildfire reconstruction processes in various locations, like Portugal, France, or California, should be conducted to either confirm or expand on the exploratory findings of this research.”

 

Comment 2:

For the newer cases, the observation period for their reconstruction evolution is relatively short, making it difficult to fully verify the long-term resilience effect and the sustainability of measure maintenance, which may lead to inaccurate judgments on the long-term performance of such cases.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this comment, highlighting an important contextual aspect of our research design. We agree that the shorter observation period for the newer cases is a limitation when drawing definitive long-term conclusions about them.

However, we wish to contextualize this limitation within Chile's recent history of this type of disaster. Large-scale wildland-urban interface fires are a relatively new phenomenon in the country, with the 2014 Valparaíso fire being the first of this magnitude. As such, any longitudinal study on this topic is inherently constrained by the 11-year maximum timeframe since this inaugural event. To make this historical context explicit, we have added a sentence to the 2.1 Case Selection subsection [lines 176-179] clarifying this temporal constraint.

This context is precisely why we adopted a comparative longitudinal design that included cases at different stages. We argue this is a strength of the study, as it allows for a unique analysis of how reconstruction mechanisms and public policies have evolved, ostensibly in response to lessons learned from earlier events. As this is an emerging field of study in Chile, we believe this longitudinal perspective—even with its temporal constraints—offers enriching and timely insights for public policy.

Nevertheless, we agree with the reviewer that this is an important constraint to make explicit, and we have also incorporated this point into the Limitations section of the manuscript [lines 735-740].

 

Comment 3:

The paper points out that informal housing and extensions are key factors hindering the improvement of resilience, but it fails to deeply explore the underlying socio-economic driving factors or propose targeted solutions, resulting in insufficient depth of analysis.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment, pushing for a deeper analysis. We agree that exploring the socio-economic drivers of informality and proposing more targeted solutions significantly strengthens the manuscript.

In response, we have made the following revisions:

1. To explore the underlying socio-economic drivers, we have enhanced the Case Selection section (2.1) to better contextualize each case. The text now specifies the pre-existing conditions of high housing informality in Valparaíso and highlights the socio-economic reality of "doubled-up households" (allegados) in Punta Lavapie as key factors driving post-disaster informal construction.

 

2. While a full policy proposal is beyond the study's scope, we have strengthened our recommendations in the final paragraph of the Discussion (Chapter 4) to be more targeted. The text now moves beyond general suggestions to propose concrete solutions, such as creating dedicated technical assistance programs and specific subsidies for safe housing extensions, to better manage the risks associated with informality driven by socio-economic needs.

We believe these additions provide the depth of analysis the reviewer suggested.

 

Comment 4:

The study finds that poor maintenance of measures affects long-term effectiveness, but it does not clarify the division of maintenance responsibilities among governments at all levels, communities, and residents, nor does it analyze the defects of the existing maintenance mechanisms, leading to the lack of operability of relevant suggestions.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. In response, we have revised the Discussion section to address this. The text now clarifies that a central defect of the existing mechanism is the ambiguous and unfunded transfer of maintenance responsibilities from national entities to under-resourced local municipalities, as detailed in our analysis of infrastructure upkeep [lines 669-676]. Building on this analysis, our concluding recommendations have been enhanced to be more operable, explicitly suggesting that future reconstruction plans include legally binding maintenance agreements and dedicated multi-year operational budgets [lines 688–695]. We believe these revisions provide the necessary analysis of institutional defects and offer a more concrete path forward, as suggested.

 

Comment 5:

The paper mentions that DRR measures need to form a complementary system, but it does not conduct quantitative or qualitative analysis on the synergistic or conflicting relationships between different types of measures, making it difficult to clarify which combination of measures can more effectively improve resilience.

Response 5:

We appreciate this comment and believe it is a very relevant issue; however, thoroughly establishing the synergistic or conflicting relationships between complementary measures to clarify which combination of measures is more effective is beyond the scope of our research. Accordingly, we included this as a part of the future research paragraph: “While the need to address wildfire DRR based on a comprehensive system of complementary measures is acknowledged in this study, further research could also analyse the synergistic or conflicting relationships between different types of measures to clarify which combination of measures can more effectively improve resilience.”

 

Comment 6:

Although the budget allocation for different measures is listed, it does not evaluate the rationality of budget input in combination with the actual effect of the measures, nor does it explore whether insufficient budget or unbalanced allocation are key factors leading to incomplete measures and poor maintenance.

Response 6:

Thank you for your comments. Considering your suggestions, we have incorporated the average percentages for various budget categories and specific measures into the text in Section 3 (Results).

 We agree that evaluating the rationality of the budget and analysing whether it was insufficient or unbalanced is an interesting area for further study. While this was beyond the scope of our current investigation, we have incorporated it into the Conclusion section as a suggestion for future research.

 

Comment 7:

The references should be expanded. Some new literatures might be help the authors to further deepen the understanding of reaction mechanism as well as newest developing in this field (Separation and Purification Technology, 379 (2025) 134939 Study on the regulation of performance and Hg0 removal mechanism of MIL-101(Fe)-derived carbon materials DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2025.134939; Separation and Purification Technology, 372C (2025) 133463 Efficient Removal of Gaseous Elemental Mercury by Fe-UiO-66@BC Composite Adsorbent: Performance Evaluation and Mechanistic Elucidation DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2025.133463)

Response 7:

We considered the suggestion of the reviewer, however the papers suggested were not included as their topics are out of the scope of this research: they investigate the calcination conditions and their effect on the structural characteristics of carbon materials to establish a link between their microscopic properties and their effectiveness in removing mercury, with one paper specifically focusing on the use of an Fe-UiO-66@BC composite adsorbent.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the manuscript not clearly reflect its contentes. The title should be more objective and avoid repeating words. The word "Reconstruction" appears twice.

The abstract should be reviewed. It doesn’t have sufficiently informative, especially when read in isolation. It should clearly state the research question and objectives of the study.

The text needs revision. There is repetition of words in successive paragraphs. For example, "Furthermore" in lines 541 and 544.The text in lines 654–656 and lines 657–659 is the same.

There is a repetition of the article's objective at the beginning of Chapter 2 - Materials and Methods, which is unnecessary. The first paragraph of this chapter should be revised to avoid repetition.

The contribution of the research should be explained more clearly at the end of the paper. I would suggest explicitly emphasizing the innovation of the research.

Author Response

We appreciate your suggestions on our work. We carefully revised and expanded all sections of the manuscript to address your comments and those of other reviewers. We believe these changes have greatly improved the manuscript, bringing it up to the journal's and this Special Edition's standards. In particular, we addressed your comments as follows.

Comment 1:

The manuscript not clearly reflect its contents. The title should be more objective and avoid repeating words. The word "Reconstruction" appears twice.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We improved the title and changed from “Reconstruction as an Opportunity to Reduce Risk? Physical Changes and Long-Term Outcomes in Chilean Post-Wildfire Reconstruction” to: “Reconstruction as an Opportunity to Reduce Risk? Physical Changes Post-Wildfire in Chilean Case Studies”

 

Comment 2:

The abstract should be reviewed. It doesn’t have sufficiently informative, especially when read in isolation. It should clearly state the research question and objectives of the study.

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment. We thoroughly revised the abstract to make it more informative. We included the secondary objectives associated with the primary aim.

 

Comment 3:

The text needs revision. There is repetition of words in successive paragraphs. For example, "Furthermore" in lines 541 and 544. The text in lines 654–656 and lines 657–659 is the same.

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out. The text was thoroughly revised to avoid those types of repetition. Furthermore, the examples pointed out were eliminated.

 

Comment 4:

There is a repetition of the article's objective at the beginning of Chapter 2 - Materials and Methods, which is unnecessary. The first paragraph of this chapter should be revised to avoid repetition.

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. We erased the primary aim of the research from this paragraph, as suggested, and we fully revised the paragraph to avoid other repetitions.

 

Comment 5:

The contribution of the research should be explained more clearly at the end of the paper. I would suggest explicitly emphasizing the innovation of the research.

Response 5:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion to emphasize the research's contribution and innovation more explicitly. To address this, we have revised the Conclusion section to better articulate the novelty and significance of our work. The revised text highlights our primary theoretical innovation—providing robust, longitudinal evidence that challenges the 'window of opportunity' theory [lines 731-734]. We have also sharpened the language to emphasize the novel empirical evidence base, provided by our systematic documentation and the practical value of our analysis for policymakers [lines 684 – 695].

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It provides an excellent overview of four major fires that occurred in Chile. The fires took place between 2014 and 2023, and government institutions responded very differently in each case. Above all, the very different government reconstruction measures are well described, and the reader is given a good overview of the very different solutions in the four major fire areas. Readers who are completely unfamiliar with the situation in Chile are given a comprehensive overview of the various local approaches to solving the problem.

One question that arises for me and could also be answered in this paper is whether anything has changed nationwide, for example in the fire service. In very large cities, a professional fire department could be established that also deals with health emergencies. In Europe, every municipality also has volunteer fire departments that are alerted in the event of a fire and respond with vehicles. More detailed information on this would be interesting.

The paper provides a good description of the measures taken after major fires, but the assessment of the various activities should be strengthened somewhat.

Editorial comments:

Table 4 should be written/created in a more space-saving manner.

Line 357: The color markings in the image should be arranged in a space-saving manner.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate your suggestions on our work. We carefully revised and expanded all sections of the manuscript to address your comments and those of other reviewers. We believe these changes have greatly improved the manuscript, bringing it up to the journal's and this Special Edition's standards. In particular, we addressed your comments as follows.

 

Comment 1:

One question that arises for me and could also be answered in this paper is whether anything has changed nationwide, for example, in the fire service. In very large cities, a professional fire department could be established that also deals with health emergencies. In Europe, every municipality also has volunteer fire departments that are alerted in the event of a fire and respond with vehicles. More detailed information on this would be interesting.

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment. We addressed this concern in the introduction by including a new paragraph about ways in which disasters in Chile have led to governance and regulatory changes. Furthermore, we revised the topic sentence of the following paragraph, which introduces the gap that this research aims to address more clearly.

 

Comment 2:

The paper provides a good description of the measures taken after major fires, but the assessment of the various activities should be strengthened somewhat.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and for the valuable suggestion to strengthen the assessment of the reconstruction activities. We agree with this point, and in response to the feedback from the entire review panel, we have undertaken significant revisions to shift the manuscript from a descriptive to a more robust analytical assessment.

The assessment has been strengthened in several key areas:

1. The Results section [lines 400-413] has been expanded and reorganized to present a data-driven evaluation based on three consistent cross-case findings (densification, informality, and poor maintenance) that emerged from our analysis across the eight established categories.
2. Building on this empirical foundation, the Discussion section [lines 669-695] now provides a deeper analysis by drawing explicit causal links between policy interventions and these outcomes, identifying the specific institutional failures at the root of the problems.
3. Finally, this stronger assessment has allowed us to make our concluding recommendations more targeted and operable, proposing concrete solutions like creating subsidies for safe structural extensions and requiring legally binding maintenance agreements in future projects [lines 668-669].

We are confident that these comprehensive enhancements provide the analytical depth and strengthened assessment that the reviewer suggested.

 

Comment 3:

Editorial comments: Table 4 should be written/created in a more space-saving manner.

Response 3:

Thank you for your comment. We revised Table 4 and saved some space in it. We were cautious about making greater changes, as the journal's official template limits the layout. We hope that during the editorial and production process, this can be further improved.

 

Comment 4:

Line 357: The color markings in the image should be arranged in a space-saving manner.

Response 4:

Thank you for your suggestion. We revised Table 5 and saved some space in it associated with the colour markings. Similarly to Table 5, we were cautious about making greater changes, as the journal's official template limits the layout. We hope that during the editorial and production process, this can be further improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a well written paper having substantial background and examples.

The authors should explain the difference between "physical "and "structural" measures.

It is not clear why it is desirable to return to preexisting conditions. Please justify it.

Early warning of ignition would be a desirable measure.

The political will and direction is necessary to effect all changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We appreciate your suggestions on our work. We carefully revised and expanded all sections of the manuscript to address your comments and those of other reviewers. We believe these changes have greatly improved the manuscript, bringing it up to the journal's and this Special Edition's standards. In particular, we addressed your comments as follows.

 

Comments 1:

The authors should explain the difference between "physical "and "structural" measures.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We included an explanation about this in the method section: “It is important to point out that we refer to these interventions in a broader way as ‘physical measures’ because they encompass structural measures for wildfire DRR, as well as other wider physical changes introduced during the reconstruction” (lines 167-170). Furthermore, we revised the text to make this more evident, including examples in the paragraph that introduces the concept of structural measures (lines 61-62) and other minor clarifications (lines 294; 699).

 

Comments 2:

It is not clear why it is desirable to return to preexisting conditions. Please justify it.

Response 2:

We appreciate your comment. We do not believe that returning to preexisting conditions is always desirable, especially from the perspective of wildfire DRR. To clarify this in the manuscript, we made two additions to the text. We included in the method section the following sentence:  “It is important to note that these categories (e-h) that emerged from the case studies' observations and analysis do not necessarily represent an ideal of any kind, unlike categories (a-d), which do aim to showcase the range of wildfire DRR applicable and desirable structural measures for DRR” (lines 294-297). We also added the following sentences to the results section: “Acknowledging the social and political needs and forces that influence reconstruction processes, it is important to point out that restoring preexisting conditions and improving other liveability aspects without thorough consideration of wildfires can challenge DRR. Especially, restoring previous conditions without serious mitigation actions might not be desirable from the perspective of risk reduction” (lines 394-399).

Comments 3:

Early warning of ignition would be a desirable measure.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that early warning systems are a desirable measure, and the Valparaíso 2014 reconstruction provides a compelling case in point. An early warning siren system was indeed installed, but it exemplifies the long-term maintenance and governance challenges central to our paper's argument: our fieldwork confirmed that the system's effectiveness is critically undermined, as only one of the eight sirens was operational, and its activation protocol is highly centralized. This example strongly corroborates our conclusions, and we have added a brief mention to the Discussion to incorporate this valuable point.

 

Comments 4:

The political will and direction is necessary to effect all changes.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree entirely that political will is a crucial factor influencing the outcomes of reconstruction. To reflect this, our analysis in the Results section explicitly acknowledges "the social and political needs and forces that influence reconstruction processes" [line 395], which can often challenge ideal DRR implementation. Furthermore, our Discussion now explicitly indicates: “recognising that political will and direction are necessary to effect these changes.” (lines 678-679). We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this critical aspect of post-disaster recovery.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the manuscript can be published in its present form.

Author Response

Comment 1: I think the manuscript can be published in its present form.

Response: We appreciate your comment and revisions; they contributed to improving our work. 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the changes are acceptable.

 

the paper can be published 

Author Response

Comment 1: I think the manuscript can be published in its present form.

Response: We appreciate your comment and revisions; they contributed to improving our work.