A Novel Loss Model to Include the Disruption Phase in the Quantification of Resilience to Natural Hazards
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Title: “A novel Loss model to consider Disruption Phase in the assessment of Resilience to Natural Hazards”
Manuscript number:
Comments:
Overall, the authors put forward a loss model with application to disasters triggered by natural hazards; in particular, the model considers the role of disruption phase by considering three levels of redundancy. However, it is unclear whether the proposed model is sufficiently generic to be applied to other natural hazards, e.g., volcanic eruptions (there is evidence of the devastating economic consequences when flights are interrupted), earthquakes (although it is mentioned, but it was unclear to me if the approach is applicable), hurricanes. Hence, it is important to be more explicit on the type of natural hazards for which the proposed model is adequate. Furthermore, the title of the paper implies all natural hazards. Kindly, discuss.
In Tables 1&3, what does r mean? Where the assigned values of 3, 6 & 10 came from? Moreover, why not 1, 5, or 8? (The same questions applied for the r values shown in Table 1). The authors should be explicit on the considerations made in their study.
Author Response
Many thanks for your time and effort.
Please see the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks for the great effort on this interesting topic.
Definition of the resilience and how it's related to this topic hasn't described well.
Although the intention of the authors was to distinguish theirs work from existing literature, sufficient literature has not been discussed and their shortage was not clear enough. In another word, the necessity for this topic has not presented vividly.
On the other stream, application of the survey data collection was not presented in a systematic approach and need to present a methodology for that.
In addition, referring to other journals in disruption of lifeline service (like household service disruption/ hospital service disruption/ or other studies) , assessing disruption in resilience, and compare this methodology and outcomes with could be beneficial.
It was not easy to specify the authors' intention to present a qualitative vs quantitative approach to measure the resilience in landslide events.
It's recommended to restate the title for this paper.
Good luck!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Need a minor revisions.
Author Response
Many thanks for your time and effort to improve the paper. Please see the attached file. Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please See the General and Specific Comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A lot of the statements are not descriptive enough and the paper requires revision for grammatical inconsistencies.
Author Response
Many thanks for your time and effort in improving the paper.
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It has been improved significantly.
A solid literature review of the previous literatures depicts the lack of their models and provides a good insight about the proposed framework.
I would suggest a couple of papers especially in that region after a natural hazard:
-Rachunok, B., & Nateghi, R. (2020). The sensitivity of electric power infrastructure resilience to the spatial distribution of disaster impacts. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 193, 106658.
- Moradi, S., Vasandani, V., Student, B. S., & Nejat, A. (2019). A review of resilience variables in the context of disasters. Journal of emergency management, 17(5), 403-432.
- Rouhanizadeh, B., Kermanshachi, S., & Dhamangaonkar, V. S. (2020, March). Reconstruction of critical and interdependent infrastructure due to catastrophic natural disasters: lessons learned. In Construction Research Congress 2020 (pp. 895-904). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
- Nazarnia, H., Sarmasti, H., & Wills, W. O. (2020). Application of household disruption data to delineate critical infrastructure resilience characteristics in the aftermath of disaster: A case study of Bhaktapur, Nepal. Safety science, 121, 573-579.
- Chester, M., El Asmar, M., Hayes, S., & Desha, C. (2021). Post-disaster infrastructure delivery for resilience. Sustainability, 13(6), 3458.
Figure 3 has some numbers on the map which makes it hard to read. Legend should be sufficient enough. I believe you could use double maps with different scale. The larger scale includes legend, and the one with contours could be drawn larger.
Table 2 is too crowded and couldn't convey its message. Maybe adding some info on a tagged map would improve.
Figure 1 and 2 could be redrawn.
Figure 7: legend's hatch is hard to find. Reduce the capacity of the ortho map. it helps to see the hatched areas better.
Thanks for opportunity to review the manuscript.
Good luck
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It needs minor revision.
Author Response
Many thanks for the effort and time devoted to our paper. Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have adequately addressed the reviewer's comments
Author Response
Many thanks for the effort and time devoted to our paper.
