Assessing Community Resilience to Urban Flooding in Multiple Types of the Transient Population in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors combined two existing resilience assessment frameworks to explore community resilience to urban floods in three different types of transient communities in Wuhan, China. They developed an analytic hierarchy process–back propagation neural network and analyzed the effects of changes in the prioritization of key resilience indicators under different environmental, economic, and social factors. They suggested their method could help decision makers in identifying the areas that are lagging behind and those that need to be prioritized.
This manuscript is well written. It potentially contributes to advancing resilience assessment to Urban Flooding. Thereby, I would like to support this manuscript be published in Water after minor revisions.
My main concerns are: 1) Could the results from the case study in Wuhan be generalized in other cities, for example, other cities along the Yangtze river? 2) When was the questionnaire survey taken? There was severe flood this year. Was the questionnaire survey taken before or after the flood? Will it affect the results?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents the methodology of prioritization of key resilience indicators under different environmental, economic, and social factors across the three communities. An analytic hierarchy process–back propagation neural network (AHP-BP) model is developed. In my opinion the article could be published after some improvements.
Please discuss the resilience concept in wider perspective of the socio-environmental systems. Refer to the newest (2020) publications on socio-environmental and sustainability studies, please.
The paper is presenting indicator-based methods mainly. Please go beyond that and enhance the review the papers presenting the modern location intelligence tools developed for resilience assessment and mapping of socio-environmental issues;
The quality of life in study sites is described vaguely: “mostly poor environmental conditions, restricted internal space, inadequate public services and facilities”, please provide some number wherever it is possible. Consider to enrich the description by the key socio-economic data.
Line 217: format the references according MDPI standards, please
Please consider to present table3 as well as figures 7 to 12 in appendix rather than in text body;
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
