Conceptual and Analytical Framework as Flood Risk Mapping Subsidy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) In fig 1 watershed might be helpful to understand the extent of the hydrographic network, augmenting the importance of the risk management
2) Which GIS environment-software was used
3) Can you provide in the text data accuracy and resolution?
Author Response
The responses are presented in the file attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript proposed a framework that refines the development of flood risk analysis at a local scale using GIS techonology and hydro-models. The research is technological sound, and the experiments are clear. Here are my concerns:
(1) Section 3, the data used in this manuscript shoud be listed in a table, including building dataset, DEM data, etc.
(2) Did the reason of the seasonal reservoir considered in this manuscript?
Author Response
please see the PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research particularly deals with flood risk analysis and it is quite vital for alternative approaches to be performed in flood sites such as the study area you investigated in your study. Consequently, overall, such research is always valuable.
There are some certain points I would like to underline.
- In the Discussion section:
- Indeed, uncertainty is an important aspect that we need to account for in such risk analysis approaches. What measures are taken to account for the uncertainties whether it is unexpected external parameters, noise in the data or simply missing information
- Continuing with the previous questions are there any assumptions or interpolations that you are including the study for uncertainties.
- For the conclusion section:
- A clearer statement regarding the advantages of your study compared to other risk analysis approaches, how your work related to the state-of-the-art approaches and how it takes us a step further must be placed. Although you mention a lot there, the contribution is not that apparent.
I had two articles I had in mind when I was evaluating your research:
- Amarnath, G., Umer, Y. M., Alahacoon, N., and Inada, Y.: Modelling the flood-risk extent using LISFLOOD-FP in a complex watershed: case study of Mundeni Aru River Basin, Sri Lanka
- Hadimlioglu, I.A.; King, S.A.; Starek, M.J. FloodSim: Flood Simulation and Visualization Framework Using Position-Based Fluids. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020
So you can read and cite these articles as well. Now for the first one, it is including the parameter of 'population' for risk estimation. As you are dealing with risk mapping, wouldn't you consider population to be an important aspect? This way, the city would know where to focus on in an event of a disaster. Perhaps you can mention a few things about it.
Second article is dealing with 3D flood simulation and visualization using an SPH-based position-based fluids technique. With such approaches it is also possible to estimate how the waters move from one spot to the other. Any insight on the simulation methods? Perhaps you can underline this research or similar others and underline why your choice is suitable in your case.
Especially for the introduction portion, please recheck the language. There are sentences with no proper ending like: "From resistance to resilience, from protection/control to management/governance." Perhaps can merge with the previous sentence somehow? or "In addition to the challenge of still absorbing anthropogenic changes, such as environmental degradation and accelerated urbanization." So in addition to the challenge, then what? Do you mean "In addition,..." or "In addition to...",
I believe with these changes included, the paper would look much better.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I reviewed the updated version of your manuscript and I believe you put enough effort to improve the content and clarify the ambiguities. Consequently, I believe the paper can be accepted in its current form. Congratulations.
