Urban Flood Risk Assessment Based on a Combination of Subjective and Objective Multi-Weight Methods
, Hong Zhou 1,2, Qian Wang 3, Liangliang She 4, Dandan Qing 3 and Chunyan Cao 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer compliments authors on their investigation as the analysis of urban flooding is of great importance for hydraulic engineering. However, the authors should consider the following remarks in their next revision.
** General remarks
1. English should be improved. E.g. first sentence in the Abstract isn't very clean: "...the risk situation regarding flooding in plain cities..." and this applies to the manuscript as a whole. Another example is "Figure 3. Exposure distribution of the disaster-pregnant environment." so authors should use appropriate terms in the manuscript.
2. Title isn't specific enough and from reading it it isn't very clear what is the aim of the article. e.g. "combined multi-wight methods" is very broad term and can mean a lot of different things.
3. Introduction should provide readers with the enough material to understand the subject and present them research questions that are the topic of the manuscript.
4. Authors might want to reorder sections in the manuscript. E.g. It is unusual to write of the study area before presenting the methodology. Reviewer suggests that authors follow a classic IMRAD format.
5. Methodology should be presented in a logical way with the explanations and references where possible. E.g. section 3.2 should be rewritten so that it is more clear and that it can be reproduced by other researchers.
6. Authors chose not to make data available (which is ok), but should make clear to the reader whether the input data are available (e.g. inputs that authors used for data analysis).
7. Conclusions are site-specific and do not provide researchers with appropriate answers related to the methodology. What new insights did the presented methodology gave to researchers?
** Specific remarks
1. Abstract should include only the most significant conclusions, repeating all the conclusions here might confuse the reader.
1. English should be improved. E.g. first sentence in the Abstract isn't very clean: "...the risk situation regarding flooding in plain cities..." and this applies to the manuscript as a whole. Another example is "Figure 3. Exposure distribution of the disaster-pregnant environment." so authors should use appropriate terms in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study takes Liaocheng City as the research object and constructs a regional flood risk assessment model based on hazardousness of disaster-causing factors, exposure of disaster-conceiving environment, and vulnerability of disaster-bearing body. The results demonstrate that the multi-weight combination method, which incorporates expert experience and objective data, provides more accurate decision-making results and scientifically evaluates urban flood disaster risks. Overall, I found this paper is interesting and valuable. I have the following comments for the authror's consideration:
1. The introduction could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive background on the significance of urban flood risk assessment and the need for innovative methods.
2. The review of existing methods for flood risk assessment is thorough. It would be beneficial to include a more detailed comparison between the proposed multi-weight method and other existing methods, highlighting the advantages and potential limitations of the proposed approach.
3. more details on the criteria for selecting experts for the AHP subjective weights and the process of determining the CRITIC-entropy weights would enhance the reader's understanding of the methodology.
4. The paper concludes with the significance of the study for disaster prevention and mitigation in plain cities. Expanding on the practical implications of the findings for urban planning and policy-making, such as specific recommendations for flood risk management in Liaocheng City, would make the paper more impactful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper takes Liaocheng City as the research object and constructs a regional flood risk assessment model based on the combined multi-weight methods. The overall structure and writing meet with the journal’s approval. I suggest the publication of this article after a minor revision based on the following comments: (1) In the Overview of Study Area and Data Sources section, the article lacks a detailed analysis of historical flood events in Liaocheng City, which is crucial for understanding the city's flood risk. To improve the study, it is recommended to include a more comprehensive examination of past flood events, including their frequency, severity, and impact on the city. (2) In the Target Layer and Criteria Layer section, the article does not provide a clear explanation of how the weights for different indicators were determined. This lack of transparency can affect the credibility of the flood risk assessment model. To enhance the study, it is suggested to provide a detailed rationale for the weight determination process for each indicator, including the methodology used and the experts involved in the decision-making. (3)In the Conclusions section, while the article summarizes the findings of the flood risk assessment model, it lacks specific recommendations for disaster prevention and mitigation in Liaocheng City. To make the study more impactful, it is advisable to include actionable insights based on the assessment results, such as infrastructure improvements, early warning systems, or community preparedness initiatives. (4)Some most recent publications which are related to this article are recommended to be reference: 1.Asiri M M, Aldehim G, Alruwais N, et al. Coastal Flood risk assessment using ensemble multi-criteria decision-making with machine learning approaches[J]. Environmental Research, 2024, 245: 118042. 2.He R, Zhang L, Tiong R L K. Flood risk assessment and mitigation for metro stations: An evidential-reasoning-based optimality approach considering uncertainty of subjective parameters[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2023, 238: 109453. 3.Efraimidou E, Spiliotis M. A GIS-Based Flood Risk Assessment Using the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Approach at a Regional Scale[J]. Environmental Processes, 2024, 11(1): 9. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage can be further improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for their efforts in responding and editing the paper.
- Add unit in Tab.1 to the DEM resolution (12.5 m??)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe mansucrpt is publishable
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
