Hazard interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazard
methodologies

Gill, Joel C.; Malamud, Bruce D.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-659-2016

Articles | Volume 7, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-659-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-659-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 7, issue 3

Research article

|

23 Aug 2016

Research article |

| 23 Aug 2016

Hazard interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazard methodologies

Joel C. Gill and Bruce D. Malamud

Download

Final revised paper (published on 23 Aug 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 19 Jan 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'A few specific yet minor aspects to consider', Reik Donner, 25 Feb 2016
RC2: 'Review of the paper "Hazard Interactions and Interaction Networks (Cascades) within Multi-Hazard Methodologies"', Warner Marzocchi, 27 Feb 2016
AC1: 'Authors' Response to Reviewer Comments', Joel Gill, 14 Mar 2016

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Joel Gill on behalf of the Authors (11 May 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 May 2016) by Christian Franzke

RR by Reik Donner (20 May 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have carefully revised their manuscript according to the recommendations of both reviewers. I recommend its acceptance in its present form, but suggest considering whether the following points call for corrections in the published version (line numbers refer to the manuscript version without tracked changes):

• p.1, l.16: “hazard interaction matrices and hazard/process flow diagrams”
• The first sentences of abstract and introduction, respectively, are rather similar. The authors might think about rephrasing one of them a bit further.
• p.3, l.28: “is turn” => “in turn” (typo)
• p.4, l.127: “dependence of the number”
• p.5, l.15: “recognise that”
• p.5, l.16: “differ from”
• p.9, l.17: “suggest that it is”
• p.9, l.26: remove comma after “whereas”(?)
• p.10, l.13: “i.e., until the end of”
• p.10, last paragraph: maybe briefly relate your corresponding considerations here to the problem of “attribution”, which draws an explicit link to ongoing debates especially in the climate change impacts / extreme events community
• p.11, ll.26-29: The second sentence appears grammatically incomplete without being explicitly connected with the first one.
• p.13, ll.25-26: “…processes, relevant interactions can be identified…”
• p.14, l.19: “two of these”
• p.14, ll.19-20 mentions two theoretical case studies, while p.16, l.14 refers to three – please be consistent here
• p.16, l.11: “many other” (typo)
• p.16, l.17: “in the spatial and temporal extent”(?)
• p.18, l.3: two times “developed” in one sentence, maybe look for some synonym
• p.19, l.3: “examples… show all…” (typo)
• Section 5.4: Conceptually, I understand the term “network” as commonly being used for describing a “substrate” of “connections/interdependencies” between well-defined “units” on/between which dynamical processes (may) take place. In this context, I found some formulations like “during a network of hazard interactions” or “networks… propagating” a bit unusual. In my opinion, it is rather the hazards propagating along the network, and “during a network” (temporal perspective) might also be better rephrased as “along a network” (structural perspective) – due to the temporal ordering between primary and secondary hazards, both perspectives are of course equivalent here, but the corresponding sentences just read a bit uncommon to someone working with the concept of networks in different contexts. The authors may wish to reformulate these points or just leave them as they are,
• p.20, l.26: “assumption is made that each hazard”
• p.20, l.3: “may mean that they have”

Again, since I am not a native English speaker, so some of the suggested corrections might also just reflect my imperfect knowledge of the language.

Hide

RR by Warner Marzocchi (25 May 2016)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (25 May 2016) by Christian Franzke

AR by Joel Gill on behalf of the Authors (31 May 2016) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Understanding interactions between hazards and other processes can help us to better understand the complex environment in which disasters occur. This enhanced understanding may help us to better manage hazards and reduce the risk of disasters occurring. Interactions (e.g. one hazard triggering another hazard) are noted between (i) natural hazards, such as earthquakes; (ii) human activity, such as groundwater abstraction; and (iii) technological hazards/disasters, such as building collapse.