Evaluating the Dynamic Comprehensive Resilience of Urban Road Network: A Case Study of Rainstorm in Xi’an, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, authors proposed an SR-PR-FR comprehensive resilience evaluation model to evaluating the dynamic comprehensive resilience of urban road network with the help of GIS and SUMO, the results seems interesting. This paper could be published with some details revised as below.
(1) Parameter b appears in eq1 eq2 eq3 and eq 6, but the meaning is different and that needs to be clarified.
(2) Line 245, this paper chooses 15cm as the flooding depth threshold, however in eq 6, the value of a is 7.5 cm, what is the deference between the two value?
(3) The order of Table 2 and Table 3 needs to be adjusted;
(4) Line 381, the paper mentioned the city administrative region of the data source, and it is suggested to supplement the administrative division map, which can more visually display the analysis results of each region mentioned in the paper;
(5) The article analyzes the simulation results of typical areas of the case city. Is it possible to provide some more detailed results, such as which roads are more worthy for managements' attention in these areas? Such results may be even more meaningful to city managers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction of manuscript explains the general importance of urban road network resilience, but it doesn't give enough specific context about Xi'an. It would be helpful to describe the city's challenges during rainstorms in more detail. This would make the relevance of the research clearer.
The manuscript mentions using GIS and SUMO for simulating storm impacts, but it lacks details on how the models were calibrated and which criteria were used for parameter selection. Adding this information would improve clarity and allow others to repeat the study.
There's also not enough explanation of how traffic and rainfall data were collected and verified for accuracy. This lack of detail could lead to biased results.
The results are well-organized, but the authors need to connect their findings more directly to the theoretical resilience model. They should show how the data supports or challenges their framework.
The conclusions summarize the findings, but they lack specific action steps for improving infrastructure and strategies in Xi'an. The authors could provide clear, practical recommendations based on their findings.
The manuscript could also benefit from comparing its results with studies from other cities or regions. This would highlight the unique conditions in Xi'an and give more context.
There are a few grammar mistakes and inconsistent formatting throughout the paper. A careful review of language and formatting would improve the professionalism of the manuscript.
Recommendations:
- Expand the introduction with specific challenges Xi'an faces during rainstorms.
- Add details on the simulations, including calibration and data accuracy checks.
- Link the results more clearly to the theoretical framework and show their impact.
- Provide specific steps for improving the city’s infrastructure based on the results.
- Correct grammar and formatting issues to maintain a professional appearance.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has innovative approach combining OSM, SUMO, GIS in experiment and providing a new resilience evaluation model for the urban road network. The research gap was found through critical literature review. The references are appropriate and relevant to this research.
It was written that "the road network data downloaded from OpenStreetMap (OSM) is imported into SUMO, and road speed limits are adjusted in accordance with the actual situation, but it is not clear on which date (weekday or holiday), season and weather condition. The limitations of methodology and used methods are not explained.
There are a lot of results and Discussion part is a bit modest The case study is Xi'an in Chine and maybe it could be explained in Discussion how to generalise the results, and how we can implement the guidelines to other cities in the other parts of the world. Is it possible to use the same model for experiment or it should be adjusted and how? Some pro-and-cons argumentation is missing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is necessary.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
