Measuring Livelihood Resilience in Multi-Hazard Regions: A Case Study of the Khuzestan Province in the Persian Gulf Coast

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Within their study, the authors measured hazard exposure and livelihood resilience of the counties of Khuzestan Province. Specifically, they measured hazard exposure to earthquakes, flooding, and drought using decision-making techniques in the geographic information system (GIS), as well as used a multi-criteria decision-making technique with 8 indicators to calculate the integrated livelihood resilience indicator of the counties.

This area of research is timely and very important within the scientific urban debate, but the paper presents some weaknesses that need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication. They can be summarized as follows:

-          The paper's objectives and research questions are not sufficiently explained and not fully addressed. The authors should underline the scope of their research, and they should also define the main research questions at the basis of their work. The authors should also clarify if they consider “hazard” or “exposure” as they refer to different meanings;

-          The contribution of the proposed research within the urban research and practice area is not identified. To this end, the authors should explain why they have undertaken such research and what is their novel contribution to their work;

-          The methods, even though present some innovative elements, are not well defined. For example, the relationship between “exposure” and “livelihood resilience” is not clear when defining the approach that the authors propose. To reach this aim, a methodological flowchart explaining both methods and their relationship would be useful for readers to understand such a method. I think that the main weakness of the proposed research is the definition of two methods not related to them;

-          The experimental results, even if well described, do not highlight the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed approach within the urban research and practice. The authors state that the method they suggest is an “effective decision support system”, but it is not clear how it could support urban planning.

- Discussion and conclusions should be adapted by considering the above-described comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer's Response Letter

We sincerely thank the esteemed reviewers for dedicating their time to carefully evaluate and critique this article. Their constructive and valuable feedback has significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of this research. Following the suggestions and criticisms provided, we have made every effort to implement the necessary revisions comprehensively and address the weaknesses of the manuscript. We hope that the changes made have increased the scientific value of the article and met your satisfaction.

The paper's objectives and research questions are not sufficiently explained and not fully addressed. The authors should underline the scope of their research, and they should also define the main research questions at the basis of their work. The authors should also clarify if they consider “hazard” or “exposure” as they refer to different meanings;

Response:

The present study sought to evaluate the multi-hazard index and livelihood resilience in different regions in Khuzestan Province. The focus of the study was on the identification of numerous climate hazards and the analysis of the livelihood resilience in cities when faced with these hazards. To better explain the scope of the study, two basic points should be noted: First, the difference between "hazard" and "exposure" has been identified in the research framework:

A hazard refers to an event or phenomenon that has the potential to cause harm and damage, such as earthquake, flood, or storm. Exposure means the degree to which human societies or assets and environments have contact with hazards without any protection. Focusing on the concept of "exposure", this study calculates the multi-hazard index to identify the areas with the highest severity of hazards. This study also investigates the degree to which cities are exposed to hazards. Thus, the main concept addressed in this study is exposure.

Second, the main questions addressed in this study are stated as follows: (1) How can the multi-hazard index be evaluated at the regional level to identify the regions with the greatest intensity of climate hazards? (2) How is the livelihood resilience of the counties in Khuzestan Province against climate hazards? These questions clearly define the framework and scope of the study.

-The contribution of the proposed research within the urban research and practice area is not identified. To this end, the authors should explain why they have undertaken such research and what is their novel contribution to their work;

Response:

This study aimed to to investigate livelihood resilience against multiple natural hazards, especially on a regional scale, in Khuzestan Province using a combination of multi-criteria decision making and GIS techniques. The innovative aspect of this study project is the use of multi-hazard analysis instead of focusing on individual hazards that have been predominantly addressed in previous studies. This approach identifies the areas with the highest exposure to hazards and assesses livelihood resilience in Iran, especially in Khuzestan province as one of the hazard prone areas in the country.

Another strength of this study is that, in addition to the analysis of multiple hazards, it analyzes livelihood resilience on a spatial scale and provides a tool for planners and managers for hazard reduction and sustainable regional development. This study not only contributes to enriching the literature on livelihood resilience against natural hazards, but by focusing on Khuzestan Province, especially on climatic domains, it can help in practice to improve risk reduction strategies and increase resilience in these areas.

It is worth mentioning that this study highlights the importance of a simultaneous analysis resilience against multiple hazards. Only examining the rate of occurrence of natural hazards alone cannot provide a complete picture of the threats and vulnerabilities of the community. Instead, in this study, in addition to identifying and analyzing the severity of various hazards, also evaluates the capabilities of local communities to deal with and adapt to these hazards.

-The methods, even though present some innovative elements, are not well defined. For example, the relationship between “exposure” and “livelihood resilience” is not clear when defining the approach that the authors propose. To reach this aim, a methodological flowchart explaining both methods and their relationship would be useful for readers to understand such a method. I think that the main weakness of the proposed research is the definition of two methods not related to them;

Response:

The link between two concepts such as exposure and livelihood resilience lies in the theoretical and operational aspects of risk management, as detained in the manuscript. These two concepts are two separate but complementary concepts, just as the concepts of social vulnerability and social resilience are related and complementary concepts of exposure and hazard. Hazard is considered an undesirable feature for the community and livelihood resilience is a desirable feature. This, to calculate a composite index for each county, we used MCDM techniques, and given that hazards have a spatial dimension, we used VIKOR in ArcGIS. Since the data in the second phase were separated, we used VIKOR calculations in Excel.

- The experimental results, even if well described, do not highlight the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed approach within the urban research and practice. The authors state that the method they suggest is an “effective decision support system”, but it is not clear how it could support urban planning.

Response:

Thanks for your constructive comment. It should be noted that this study has focused on a regional scale and urban planning, and rural and local planning are addressed in the next stage of risk planning. How to use hazard assessment in urban planning needs to be investigated separately for each city.

- Discussion and conclusions should be adapted by considering the above-described comments.

Response:

Per your comment, the necessary revisions and adaptations were made in different parts of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript considers an interesting issue related to hazard exposure and livelihood resilience in the counties of Khuzestan Province. The findings from this potential paper hold significant potential for aiding decision-makers. However, prior to publication, several modifications are necessary. 

- The reviewer recommends adding a term related to the case study to the Keywords, such as "Khuzestan Province" or "Persian Gulf Coast."

- If the references are numbered, please ensure the citations within the text are corrected accordingly. 

- There are currently two Figures numbered as 1. Could you please correct the figure numbering? Additionally, figures need to be cited in the text before they are presented.   

- Line 122: Please use a correct citation, instead of "Ellis".

- In the 3.2. Procedure section, kindly include a brief explanation of the MCDMs (Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods) applied in this potential paper.

- Placing Figure 1 (Data analysis using MCDM and spatial analysis) at the beginning of the section would make it easier to understand the potential paper structure.

- It would be great if the authors could provide definitions of indicators in Table 2, including any sub-indicators or relevant factors.

- It would be greatly beneficial for potential readers if the authors could clarify why certain indicators, such as population density, were not included in their study.

- It seems this sentence "This study was the first attempt to assess livelihood resilience using a multi-hazard assessment approach." needs to be completed by noting "in this county". 

- Please shorten the Conclusion section by removing sentences that are not directly derived from this potential paper. Additionally, it would be beneficial to enhance the future studies section by addressing the related issues that were not considered in this potential paper.

Author Response

- The reviewer recommends adding a term related to the case study to the Keywords, such as "Khuzestan Province" or "Persian Gulf Coast."

Response:

Per your comment, the necessary revisions were made.

- If the references are numbered, please ensure the citations within the text are corrected accordingly. 

Response:

Following your comment, the references were modified.

 

 

- There are currently two Figures numbered as 1. Could you please correct the figure numbering? Additionally, figures need to be cited in the text before they are presented.   

Response:

Following your suggestion, the numbering of the images was corrected.

 

- Line 122: Please use a correct citation, instead of "Ellis".

Response:

Following your suggestion, it was applied to the manuscript.

 

- In the 3.2. Procedure section, kindly include a brief explanation of the MCDMs (Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods) applied in this potential paper.

Response:

Given the word count in the manuscript, we have only addressed the VIKOR method and skipped the DEMATEL.

 

- Placing Figure 1 (Data analysis using MCDM and spatial analysis) at the beginning of the section would make it easier to understand the potential paper structure.

Response:

Following your suggestion, it was applied to the manuscript.

 

- It would be great if the authors could provide definitions of indicators in Table 2, including any sub-indicators or relevant factors.

Response:

Following your suggestion, it was applied to the manuscript.

 

- It would be greatly beneficial for potential readers if the authors could clarify why certain indicators, such as population density, were not included in their study.

Response:

First, an analysis of livelihood resilience focuses more on the economic, social, and environmental capabilities of households to deal with crises and economic fluctuations. Accordingly, indicators such as access to livelihood resources, job diversity, and household income are more important.

Second, population density does not directly affect livelihood resilience. Although population density may affect access to public services and natural resources, other indicators such as economic resources, employment opportunities, and the ability to adapt to crises are more influential.

 Finally, the population density index is mainly associated with social vulnerability. This is to argue that the more the population density increases in an area, the more the population is at risk.

 

- It seems this sentence "This study was the first attempt to assess livelihood resilience using a multi-hazard assessment approach." needs to be completed by noting "in this county". 

Response:

Following your suggestion, it was applied to the manuscript.

- Please shorten the Conclusion section by removing sentences that are not directly derived from this potential paper. Additionally, it would be beneficial to enhance the future studies section by addressing the related issues that were not considered in this potential paper.

Response:

 

Following your comment, it was applied to the manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer thanks the author for considering the comments and making changes to the manuscript. To improve the scientific soundness and the quality of the presentation of the manuscript, the reviewer recommends the following suggestions:

1. The authors should reorganize the materials and methods section of the paper. The authors can put together the study area and the data collection in the section Study area and dataset, for example. The rest of the materials and methods section that describes the methods employed within the paper can be included in another Section, named, for instance, "The Methodological Approach". It is recommended to put the Figure 2. Research process at the beginning of the Section, after summarizing the methodological approach.

2. In the Results section, the authors can omit the procedure to calculate the hazard assessment as they have already described it in the methodological approach section (i.e. lines 417-423; 438-441).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

 

Answers to Reviewer  

Dear Reviewer,

We very much appreciate of your positive statements regarding our manuscript. It appears us you kindly spent significant time on this manuscript and we are grateful for the detailed comments. In fact, you brought up interesting aspects and we believe that these comments and our respective reactions to them will improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript significantly. Based on your constructive comments on early version and the comprehensive revisions on the manuscript, we are very confident that you will find this revised version now worthwhile to get published. 

Comments to authors and replies 

1. The authors should reorganize the materials and methods section of the paper. The authors can put together the study area and the data collection in the section Study area and dataset, for example. The rest of the materials and methods section that describes the methods employed within the paper can be included in another Section, named, for instance, "The Methodological Approach". It is recommended to put the Figure 2. Research process at the beginning of the Section, after summarizing the methodological approach.

Thank you. We reorganized the sections as you kindly proposed. We also change the position of the Fig. 2 (See section 3 and Fig. 2).

2. In the Results section, the authors can omit the procedure to calculate the hazard assessment as they have already described it in the methodological approach section (i.e. lines 417-423; 438-441).

We removed these parts as you suggested (See Results section).

3. Minor editing of English language required.

Done.

 

Sincerely yours,

Authors