Review Reports

Comments 1: [In the introduction, it seems necessary to discuss similar studies that have been conducted, which are relevant to the research conducted here (by the authors). The methods used and the results.]

Response 1: Thank you for the analytical comments. We have revised the introduction section through your given evaluation that has been explained in the general comments section. We have also deleted the authors citations that seem like similar results. It was conference abstracts, please check the deleted reference no. 19. Please refer to the introduction of the revised introduction section. Please check P1, L41-42, P2, L67-70 and 82-85.

Please also check the revised “2. Materials and Methods” highlighted section for clearly justify the rationality of the empirical study. Please refer to the revised introduction section. Please check P3, L133, 134, 136, 137, 139-141.]

Comments 2: [Line 205. There is a statement: "p = Estimated population proportion (use 0.5 if unknown for maximum variability)". Please provide a clear explanation, why it is set at 0.5, what is the reason.]

Response 2: Thank you so much sir for the valuable question. p is the proportion of population (generally taken as 0.5), for response variability, often use 0.5 (50%) as a conservative estimate to ensure the sample size adequately represents the population accurately under the chosen confidence level and interval. Therefore, we wrote “Estimated population proportion (use 0.5 if unknown for maximum variability)”. Thank you, sir, for marking the unknown variability. It could create difficulties for general readers. So, now we revise it as ”p = Estimated proportion of the population (0.5) and e = Margin of error (0.05)”. In the given equestion we have corrected the typing mistake, and the corrected equation is given in the updated manuscript as (equation 1):

Comments 3: [Figure 9. Perhaps it can be explained as clearly as possible in relation to Figure 9, why “Resilient Communities with Economic Security”, appears to be more severe than “Vulnerable Communities”.]

Response 3: Thank you so much for your insightful comments. We are sorry for the figure’s title was not meaningful. Therefore, we changed it as “Figure 9. Capacity differences between economic security-weighted resilient communities and financially unstable, vulnerable communities. Source: Authors, 2024.”

Comments 4: [Lines 484-487. There is a statement: "This study makes a significant contribution to the existing discourse on the subject by proposing a conceptual framework that establishes the relationship between economic security and disaster resilience [83]. Please be as clear as possible about the proposed “discourse”.]

Response 4: The term “discourse” here refers to the expanding body of academic research and policy dialogue focused on the importance of inclusive, bottom-up approaches to resilience that consider both the economic and environmental dimensions of vulnerability. We revised the section to clear the statement as possible in the discussion part. Please check the revised part in P14, L479-492.

Comments 5: [The proposed framework is based on community-based data and practices, thus offering a nuanced and contextualized perspective on the relationship between economic stability and disaster resilience. This approach is consistent with interim policy recommendations that prioritize participatory climate governance and local economic planning." Please be as clear as possible regarding the proposed "offering of a nuanced and contextualized perspective".]

Response 5: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified. Please check the revised part in P14, L504-545. Thank you so much.

Comments 1: [While the analysis is poor this topic could be of interest if more in depth analysis is performed.]

Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind support. Our empirical research was based on results. We agreed with your comments. Meanwhile we revised the manuscript, and we tried to enrich the discussion and conclusion section. Please referred to the revised manuscript.

Major issues

Comments 2: [The review protocol and the full questionnaire used should be included as a supplementary file in English.]

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you for asking about the availability of the full questionnaire. We have included it as a supplementary file with the response to you.

Comments 3: [Findings presented are very descriptive, some of them should be only mentioned as percent or frequencies in the manuscript: Eg. Figs. 4, 6, 7.]

Response 3: Agree. Therefore, we deleted Figs. 6 and 7 accordingly. But we keep Fig. 4 only. Please, sir, accept it. It is very difficult to draw new figures now. Consequently, in the revised manuscript, we rearrange the figure numbers and cited figures in paragraphs accordingly. Please check the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: [A most in-depth analysis is necessary that would use statistical group comparisons and (Pearson/Spearman) correlations.]

Response 4: Thank you sir, we have faced some difficulties in doing an in-depth analysis due to the research team members not being at PSTU. On the other hand, I have tried a lot to do it, but due to a lack of time and funding, it is very difficult for us. Please accept our apologies.

Comments 5: [Discussion: Need to expand the discussion section with reference to other works that confirm or differ from the findings reported in this manuscript.]

Response 5: Agree. We have revised the discussion section with reference to other works (Reference no. 28, 59-66). Please check the revised and highlighted part in 3.5. Discussion on Economic Security to Build Disaster Resilience and 3.6. A Conceptual Framework for Building a Disaster Resilient Community through a Sustainable Economic Security (P10, L386, P11, L396-401, P13, L 479-492).

Comments 6: [Conclusions: As it stands, it’s a continuation of the Discussion. The conclusions section should focus on the key findings and provide a brief overview of recommendations to key stakeholders and for future research. It should not have any subtitles or references.]

Response 6: Thank you, sir, for your insightful observation. We revised the conclusions section accordingly. Please check the revised manuscript’s highlighted part of the conclusions (P 13, L494-498, P14, L499-528).

Minor issues

Comments 7: [x-axis values of Figure 3 are not properly displayed]

Response 7: Corrected. Please check the revised Figure 3. Thanks much, sir.

Comments 8: [Add some text between “3. Results and Discussion” and “3.1. Socio-economic status of households”]

Response 8: Thank you for the recommendation. Please check the revised manuscripts highlighted texts in P8, L295-305.

Comments 9: [Remove phone number from corresponding author (+880-1710-023559)]

Response 9: We have removed it.

Comments 10: [2.2. Number the equation]

Response 10: Corrected with the equation number 1 (P5, L194).

Comments 11: [On first appearance state the equivalence in USD and € of the Bangladeshi Taka (BDT)]

Response 11: We made equivalence to USD.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 12: Thank you, sir, for accepting the English of the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you for evaluation.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you so much.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you for accepting our methods as it described adequately.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thank you so much. We have improved the results section. We have added Table 4. Statistical group comparisons and Spearman’s correlations between the status of disaster resilient community and sustainable economic security indicators

Please check the revised manuscript’s pages 12-13, Lines 432-456

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you so much.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Yes

Thank you.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The paper has been revised following reviewers' suggestions and comments.]

Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind support and helping us improve the manuscript.

Comments 4: [A most in-depth analysis is necessary that would use statistical group comparisons and (Pearson/Spearman) correlations.]

Response 4: Thank you sir, we have faced some difficulties in doing an in-depth analysis due to the research team members not being at PSTU. On the other hand, I have tried a lot to do it, but due to a lack of time and funding, it is very difficult for us. Please accept our apologies.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Thank you for your comments. We also improve it. Please check the highlighted sentences as changed. Therefore, please check P1, L41-42, P2, L66-70, and 82-85.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Thank you so much. We have revised the state of the art. Please check the revised introduction part.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Thank you so much. We have revised the data analysis part and added Spearman’s rank correlation analysis for describing Statistical group comparisons and Spearman’s correlations between the status of disaster resilient community and sustainable economic security indicators.

Please check the revised manuscript’s data analysis section: Pages 7-8, lines 288-302.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

We have revised, please check the revised manuscript.

Please check the revised manuscript: Page 8, lines 311-322; Page 12-13, lines 432-484, and Table 4.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Please check the revised manuscript.

Please check the revised manuscripts data analysis section: Pages 7-8, lines 288-302.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Can be improved

The figure and tables are checked and improved. Please check the revised manuscript.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 4: The following response to a comment is not what the viewers are expecting and what authors should report if they want their work to be published. My suggestion is to work on your paper to make it suitable for publication if not I cannot recommend acceptance.

[A most in-depth analysis is necessary that would use statistical group comparisons and (Pearson/Spearman) correlations.]

Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind support. Please check the revised manuscript: Page 12-13, lines 432-484, and Table 4.