Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your interest in our research and the detailed comments provided, which have greatly contributed to improving the manuscript. In response to your feedback, we have made revisions to the manuscript, focusing primarily on the following three points

1. Study objective.

Based on the content of this manuscript, the purpose of the study should be corrected as follows: to develop a guide, that enables Critical Infrastructures stakeholders to build their specific indicators systems. This guide should provide practical steps on standard setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The title has been also corrected to “Critical Infrastructures Resilience: A Guide for Building Indicators Systems”.

1. Study methodology and structure.

A new section, for addressing the problem of study methodology and structure, has been added after the introduction. Furthermore, to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity, we have revised the titles and subheadings of various sections.

1. Discussion.

We have optimised the discussion section regarding the use of the developed guide and its limitations, to better relate the discussion to the objectives of the study. Additionally, the demonstration of resilience assessment has been relocated to the discussion section and appendixes, as it is not the primary focus of this study. Emphasis has been placed on designing practical steps for criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection, which are integral aspects of the study.

For details of the revisions, please refer to the last version of the manuscript that has been sent to the editorial support team. We trust that these revisions have addressed your concerns and enhanced the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards, 

Dear Reviewer,

During this final response phase, we would like to highlight three main revisions made based on the comments of other reviewers.

-             Paper’s structure

According to one of the suggestions of reviewer 2, the structure of this paper is unclear due to the step of “step designing”. We suggest combining sections for “key factors identification” and “step designing”. Thus, the designed steps, for the “Criteria & Indicators” setting and data analysis, could be presented directly with the identification of key factors (Criteria, indicators, and data). In the new version, the result of section 3 is therefore the development of a guide for building indicator systems. Section 4 shows then a big example for demonstrating the use of the developed guide. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.

 -            Use of some similar terms

The study is confusing in its use of ‘operationalisation’, ‘application’ and ‘implementation’. This paper wants to discuss two topics: the application of indicators-based assessment for critical infrastructure resilience; and the implementable actions identified through the Behind the Barriers model. However, the initial paper did not well distinguish these terms. This problem has been resolved in the new version. Since the focus of the paper is on indicator systems built by a developed guide, one discussion refers to the contribution of developed guide and indicator systems to the application of CIs resilience assessment. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.

-             Example demonstration

Some example demonstrations are not necessary. Therefore, in the reviewed version, there is only a big example that includes all the steps shown in the developed guide.

Please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (final response 1). The comments of other reviewers are in green and all highlighted revisions are in red. There are a very large number of revisions, so feel free to contact us if you have questions.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Looking forward to receiving your reply.

Best regards,

Authors.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments that bring us interesting perspectives on the content of the manuscript. We have thought carefully about your comments and summarised them in five points. Furthermore, our proposed solutions will also be demonstrated.

1. Paper’s structure

The structure of this paper is unclear due to the step of “step designing”. We suggest combining sections for “key factors identification” and “step designing”. Thus, the designed steps, for the “Criteria & Indicators” setting and data analysis, could be presented directly with the identification of key factors (Criteria, indicators, and data). In the new version, the result of section 3 is therefore the development of a guide for building indicator systems. Section 4 shows then a big example for demonstrating the use of the developed guide.

1. Use of some similar terms

We agree with you about the confused use of “operationalisation”, “application” and “implementation”. This paper wants to discuss two topics: the application of indicators-based assessment for critical infrastructure resilience; and the implementable actions identified through the Behind the Barriers model. However, the initial paper did not well distinguish these terms. This problem has been resolved in the new version. Since the focus of the paper is on indicator systems built by a developed guide, one discussion refers to the contribution of developed guide and indicator systems to the application of CIs resilience assessment.

1. Example demonstration

Some example demonstrations are not necessary. Therefore, in the reviewed version, there is only a big example that includes all the steps shown in the developed guide.

1. Figures’ illustration and description

The problem of unclear information in figures has been resolved. In addition, the corresponding texts have been added.

1. Unclear sentences.

We have improved the sentences noted that need to be rephrased.

Please find the detailed replies and revisions to points 1 to 4 in the attached document (revision 2). These revisions contain the rephrased sentences of point 5. All your comments are in green and all highlight revisions are in red.

Thanks again for your interest in our research and the valuable comments provided.

Looking forward to receiving your reply.

Best regards,

Authors.

Dear Reviewer 2,

During this final response phase, we would like to highlight three main revisions made based on the comments of other reviewers.

-             The focus of this manuscript.

According to reviewer 1, the focus and the title of this study should be redefined. Thus, the topic of the study has been corrected as follows: Critical Infrastructures Resilience: A Guide for Building Indicator Systems. The focus of this study is to develop a guide, which enables Critical Infrastructures stakeholders to build their specific indicator systems. This guide should provide practical steps on criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.

-             Study methodology and structure.

A new section, for addressing the problem of study methodology and structure, has been added after the introduction. Furthermore, to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity, we have revised the titles and subheadings of various sections. This revision of the paper’s structure has been presented in the first reply.

-             Discussion.

We have optimised the discussion section regarding the use of the developed guide and its limitations, to better relate the discussion to the objectives of the study. Additionally, the demonstration of resilience assessment has been moved to the discussion section and appendixes, as it is not the primary focus of this study. The Emphasis of this study has been placed on designing practical steps for criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.

Please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (final response 2). The comments of other reviewers are in green and all highlighted revisions are in red. There are a very large number of revisions, so feel free to contact us if you have questions.

Thanks again for your interest in our research and the valuable comments provided. Looking forward to receiving your reply.

Best regards,

Authors.

Dear Dr. Yuxuan Yao

Thank you very much for your interest in our study. In addition, we are very grateful for your suggestion to add the authors' work benefits in the introduction section.

The presented study aims to meet one current requirement for the indicators-based resilience assessment in practical management:  a guide for indicator systems building. Despite the existence of a large number of resilience assessment indicators, very little research develops guidance to help managers create specific indicators themselves. However, indeed, we did not point out how this presented study differs from other available research. Therefore, we have added this part as you suggested, and please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (revision 3). All your comments are in green and all highlight revisions are in red.

Thanks again for your valuable comments provided.

Looking forward to receiving your reply.

Best regards,

Authors.