Response time to flood events using a social vulnerability index (ReTSVI)

Hofflinger, Alvaro; Somos-Valenzuela, Marcelo A.; Vallejos-Romero, Arturo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-251-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-251-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-251-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 1

Research article

|

28 Jan 2019

Research article |

| 28 Jan 2019

Response time to flood events using a social vulnerability index (ReTSVI)

Alvaro Hofflinger, Marcelo A. Somos-Valenzuela, and Arturo Vallejos-Romero

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 Jan 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Nov 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Dec 2017
- AC1: 'Responses to reviewer 1', Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela, 28 Feb 2018
RC2: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2018
- AC2: 'Responses to reviewer 2', Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela, 28 Feb 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (24 Apr 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela on behalf of the Authors (14 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 May 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (06 Jun 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Jul 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors responded accurately to almost all of the issues raised. However, several points need to be solved already.
(1) The authors used 0.3 and -0.3 in the factor loading. Can the authors justify their choice? Without seeing the other values, this choice is difficult to explain.
(2) I understand that advancing the research in social vulnerability is not on the scope of the current paper. However, the authors are using variables to explain people vulnerability to evacuation purposes. Thus, an approximate justification of those is necessary to address the aim of the paper. I still have some doubts about the association between types of jobs (with a difference in commerce, construction and manufacturing) with the evacuation vulnerability. The same is for renters and houses without electricity. I find instead proper the relation with strictly socio-demographic variables that are supported by the mentioned literature (Kusenbach et al., 2010, that however does not include marital status as addressed by the authors in the rebuttal). Pelling (1997) addresses the complex issue of disaster vulnerability without any mention of evacuation. He is referring to mitigation/preparedness actions instead (e.g. pg 216). Thus I think the authors should find references supporting the variables selection or strongly justify their choice. If authors are not able to do so, I might suggest to replace those variables or delete them. This issue has nothing to deal with the issue raised in the first round of revision when asking to set up a background for variables selection in Peru.
(3) Revise carefully the new statement at pg. 6 lines 20-26 since not all the mentioned literature is related to evacuation, at all.
(4) What’s the p-value obtained by Bartlett's test of sphericity?
(5) Did the authors perform a multicollinearity analysis before running the PCA to be sure that none of the variables has been taken twice?
(6) Can you discuss more in-depth table 1?
(7) Can you explain why three classes quartile has been chosen in classifying the Social Vulnerability index?
(8) I suggest providing some discussion related to the role of proximity to the river and the differences in SVI results.
(9) The discussion chapter is still not adequately addressed. There is a lengthy introduction that sums up the justification of the research and the methodology undertaken. The new chapter on page 17 lines 1-20 is a repetition of the introduction. Thus the discussion is still lacking of a new light to results. Discussions should include similarities and criticisms to findings. For all these reasons, I suggest rearranging this chapter again.
(10) Citations in the conclusions are not necessary.
(11) What’s quality of dwelling materials expressed in line 6 of page 18?
(12) Conclusions must give some critical final remarks about the “so what” of the paper for planners and risk managers. Limitations should be addressed in the discussion.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (12 Jul 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela on behalf of the Authors (23 Aug 2018)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Aug 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (13 Sep 2018)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (29 Oct 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela on behalf of the Authors (27 Nov 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Dec 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Dec 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (17 Dec 2018) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela on behalf of the Authors (17 Dec 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (08 Jan 2019) by Paolo Tarolli

AR by Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela on behalf of the Authors (15 Jan 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

In this work, we propose a novel methodology (ReTSVI) to integrate a social vulnerability index into flood hazard methodologies. ReTSVI combines a series of modules that are pieces of information that interact during an evacuation, such as evacuation rate curves, mobilization, inundation models, and social vulnerability indexes, to create an integrated map of the evacuation rate in a given location.