The Benefits of Fit-for-Purpose Land Administration for Urban Community Resilience in a Time of Climate Change and COVID-19 Pandemic

The research design and methodology should be explained in a clearer way? About the data, are they gathered through interview? How many respondents were involved and how were they selected? How were the data analysed? What tool(s) used for the analysis?

The description of the research design and methodology has been expanded and included details of the data gathered in the UN-Habitat rapid covid assessment which we draw on.

2. In line 43-44: “CCA and DRR initiatives can result in eviction and resettlement that increases tenure insecurity.” I think this statement deserves a proper reference.

An additional sentence added in the Introduction "Climate impacts lead to human mobility (migration, displacement and resettlement) with impacts to tenure security [3]".

3. In Line 64-66: “There has been much literature on how fit-for-purpose land administration (FFP LAS) is an important approach in improving tenure security at scale, and recent literature 65 has illustrated the benefits of FFP LAS to support climate resilience efforts.” I think this statement also deserves a proper reference.

Two references added - Enemark et al 2016, Lengoiboni et al 2021.

4. Table 1 supposedly showing the interlinkages between land tenure and multiple stressors of climate and pandemic. However, sometimes I lost in the translation in seeing the link in a clear way. For instance, in the first raw, I can understand that the situation where urban planning is ineffective and potential for land disputes is increase would make more people exposed to climate impacts (concerning the climate change). But does the table also try to show that this situation could also increase their vulnerability to disease and exacerbates disease when there are limited ventilation between buildings? Perhaps the author can provide a better and easy way ow to read the table.

This issue is acknowledged. Table 1 is now broken up into 4 tables that build upon each other. To further clarify the link between effective land use planning and vulnerability to disease further text has been added in this row under land issues "Ineffective urban planning and lack of enforcement of building codes allows unplanned high-density development". Further, the final column has been amended to show (in order) the appropriate land governance response, how FFP LAS can help, and related land tools. Additional descriptive text has also been added after the table to further unpack and explain each column.    

Sometimes it is difficult to comprehend whether some statements are based on the findings from the case study or only based on the literature. For instance, in line 396-398 it mentioned that “Community profiling based on a multi-stressor VRA helps to design actions plans to build resilience so that both climate and pandemic responses are integrated into a broader resilience development process.” Does this statement is also supported by the findings in the case study area, or it is only based on the literature? 

This has been clarified with a reference added "Community profiling based on a VRA helps to design actions plans to build resilience so that both climate and pandemic responses are integrated into a broader resilience and urban development process (UN-Habitat (2020b). Given the similarity of vulnerabilities caused by pandemics and climate impacts, this approach also fits a multi-stressor approach". Further, other statements throughout the manuscript have been amended to clarify whether they are based on literature or case study experiences.

Also, the statement in line 408-410 mentioning that “A key component of FFP LAS is the large-scale spatial framework comprising mapping that identifies the buildings and land parcels across the continuum of land rights to support decisions on securing land tenure rights and land use control.” Does the author also find the evidence for this in the case study area? Other statements in section 5.2 and 5.3 also deserve similar explanation.

"A key component of FFP LAS is the large-scale spatial framework comprising mapping that identifies the buildings and land parcels across the continuum of land rights to support decisions on securing land tenure rights and land use control (Enemark, et al, 2016). In the Honiara case study, large-scale LiDAR imagery supported by small scale imagery from drones provided an important spatial framework to support land use planning, slum upgrading and the design of new subdivisions. This spatial framework also supported the community profiling and VRA". Further explanation has also been provided in other statements in section 5.2 and 5.3.

6. I think conclusion section should be number 6 instead of 5.

Amended as directed.

This paper has a very interesting review of land tenure, urbanization and COVID information. However, there are many aspects of this manuscript that are in draft.  For instance, on line 228 it still appears (Darryn and David to write)

Deleted as directed.

There is no method in this paper.  It refers to participatory planning and lessons from a current resilience building project…. But it isn’t clear if this is pre or post covid?  Conclusions are made regarding covid, but was data amassed during or after?  How were conclusions reached?  In Figure 4 no one is wearing a mask.  In lines 425 mention is made of stakeholder consultation… but again this is not in the methods and no timing or details provided.  In lines 435 it isn’t the people that recognize the need for secure land tenure but an international committee.

"The research methods include an extensive literature review of the interrelationships between land tenure, climate change and pandemics. The empirical data is drawn from two sources. Firstly, data is derived from participatory action research that commenced in 2012 under UN-Habitat ‘Cities and Climate Change Initiative’ and is continuing through the Climate Resilient Honiara (CRH) project support by the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund which commenced in 2018 [15]. The lessons from this engagement in Honiara include experiences prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Secondly, data is also derived from a recent rapid assessment of Covid-19 carried out by UN-Habitat which provides insights into the socio-economic impacts on residents in five communities across Honiara ([16]). This rapid assessment involved surveys with 100 households across four wards in Honiara during the period 17th – 31st August 2020. Respondents were randomly selected from informal settlements participating in the ongoing CRH project. The study examined 6 key areas: (1) livelihood security and household income, (ii) food security, (iii) access to health care, (iv) knowledge, attitudes and practices related to COVID-19, (v) climate related hazards and COVID-19, and (vi) tenure security ([16]).".

At lines 276+ mention is made of a CRH project, but it isn’t clear that this is the method informing this paper.  There is also mention of a COVID-19 survey, but no details presented.

See above.

Given there is no methodology in the paper, it is difficult to assess some of the findings.  For instance, in section 4 (Table 1??)  it appears land tenure and advancing FFP LAS as a tool is the main purpose of the research and study for the right-hand column links all issues and drivers to this tool. 

Firstly, a brief description of the key characteristics and components and typical approach to FFP LAS has been added in the introduction. This includes "The approach involves developing the core components of the spatial, legal and institutional frameworks. This paper focuses on the overall aim of tenure security at scale through responsible land governance, and on using high-resolution imagery rather than field surveys to develop the spatial framework component of FFP LAS [12]".

Although many of the issues have an intuitive and logical link, it isn’t as clear with “Informal settlement leaves some households without a formal identity”. Who identified this as an issue?  And how does in link to securing land tenure rights?  What about securing customary rights? Further livelihoods and food security may have more implications than tenure rights.

This has been amended to "Informal settlement occupants may not be included in DRR, CCA, resilience or disaster reconstruction programs". This follows on from the introduction where the issue of people without land records can be excluded from post-disaster reconstruction programs and grants.

This paper is about urban settlements, but Figure 3 identifies farming and fishing as a major adaptation, which arguably occurs outside the urban area.

We respectfully disagree as this involves findings from an UN-Habitat rapid assessment of Covid-19 in informal settlements in the Solomon Islands. Informal settlement households have various livelihood and food security strategies that include farming and fishing. These results illustrate the importance of access to land beyond the dwelling, and the heightened risk of land disputes through expanded land use - potentially onto State or customary land.

Although many problems may be remedied with a method section, there are several mentions that are unclear how they relate or why they are important.  On lines 462 the social tenure Doman Model followed by the Land Administration Domain Model. 

The following text has been added to expand on the brief description "The FFP LAS approach was piloted project in Nepal involving the post-earthquake data collection and recordation of customary and informal land rights using STDM. The documented land information was certified and used to inform decisions on the allocation or reconstruction grants, and supported land tools used to improve tenure security, as well as supporting the processes of relocation and reconstruction in four settlements in the Dolakha district in Nepal (Unger et al, 2019)".

I like this paper. I would suggest some revisions before acceptance. first, the ms needs a language check especially abstract and discussion. conclusions should be enriched outlining novelty and originality of the paper.

A thorough language check has been undertaken. The conclusions have been enriched and highlighted the novelty and originality of the paper.

I would also request a better discussion of the role of land tenure, land property and more generally, land rights.

Improved discussion on the role of land tenure, land property and more generally, land rights has been included throughout, especially in Sections 4 and 5.

motivations for the choice of this important issue of study should be definitely provided in the introduction.

This is elaborated in the expanded text on the research gap, objectives, and contribution to knowledge in Section 1.

bibliography seems z bit biased as far as geographical coverage and should be expanded significantly. thank you.

Additional global references have been added as per comments above. As the paper uses a case study to illustrate the conclusions of this paper, there is therefore some level of geographical bias. However, the majority of references are not from the South Pacific region.