A Simple GIS-Based Model for Urban Rainstorm Inundation Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "A Simple GIS-based Model for Urban Rainstorm Inundation Simulation", by X. Meng, M. Zhang, J. Wen, S. Du, H. Xu, L. Wang and Y. Yang, presents an interesting work.
In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication but some serious problems must be repaired prior to publication. It needs some significant improvement. Some suggestions are as follows:
Please follow the journal author instructions. It would be useful for the reader to follow the classical text structure (i.e. Introduction-methodology-results-discussion-conclusions).
The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker. It is suggested to the authors to take the assistance of someone with English as mother tongue.
It would be useful to be described the aim of this paper.
My main objection is the following. Generally, when we have intense rainfall in urban areas, the sewer and pipeline network cannot drain the rainwater, and so we have flood events. Please justify.
So I think that this model is too theoretical. Which is the model validation?
Which the uncertainty?
You could enrich the scientific literature.
Make a discussion for the uncertainty of the model. See the following publications:
- Bathrellos, G.D., Skilodimou, H.D., Chousianitis, K., Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, B. (2017): Suitability estimation for urban development using multi-hazard assessment map. Sci Total Environ, 575: 119 – 134.
- Skilodimou, H.D., Bathrellos, G.D., Chousianitis, K., Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, Β. (2019): Multi-hazard assessment modeling via multi-criteria analysis and GIS: A case study. Environ Earth Sci, 78 (2): 47.
Correct references in the text and the reference list according to the journal’s format. Please format the references’ list by using the correct journal abbreviations.
See the following link: http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOK46/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html
In Fig 6, you could use smaller letters.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript entitled "A Simple GIS-based Model for Urban Rainstorm Inundation Simulation",by X. Meng, M. Zhang, J. Wen, S. Du, H. Xu, L. Wang and Y. Yang, presents an interesting work. In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication but some serious problems must be repaired prior to publication. It needs some significant improvement. Some suggestions are as follows:
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the positive assessment of our paper.
Point 2: Please follow the journal author instructions. It would be useful for the reader to follow the classical text structure (i.e. Introduction-methodology-results-discussion-conclusions).
Response 2: Done. The structure of the paper has been changed to follow the classical text structure of Sustainability.
Point 3: The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker. It is suggested to the authors to take the assistance of someone with English as mother tongue.
Response 3: The language has been edited by Language Editing Service.
Point 4: It would be useful to be described the aim of this paper.
Response 4: Following the suggestion of reviewer we have described the aim of this paper as “The aim of this research is to develop a simple and efficient urban rainstorm inundation simulation method with limited input data. A semi-physical distributed hydraulic model based on a GIS platform, named urban rainstorm inundation simulation (URIS), was developed.” See line 89–91 of the revised manuscript.
Point 5: My main objection is the following. Generally, when we have intense rainfall in urban areas, the sewer and pipeline network cannot drain the rainwater, and so we have flood events. Please justify.
Response 5: The reviewer is quite right that the cause of urban flooding is not only the lack of drainage capacity of sewer, as we have already discussed in the original manuscript, but also due to the blocking of sewer outlet, as pointed out by the reviewer, that mostly due to the high water levels in rivers during heavy precipitations, thus flooding can’t be drained. However the purpose of this research is to develop and test a simple model that coupling urban surface flow and drainage flow in a isolated system. In this study 45 surveyed outlets located around the margin of the study area were used to drain the rainwater. In order to produce the situation of drainage failure by outlet blocking, we may need to delete some of the outlets or reduce the diameter of outlets so that the drainage capacity is restricted. Nevertheless, we agree that isolated modeling of the study area with surrounding environment (rivers) has limitations. Following the suggestion of reviewer, we have discussed this in the paper as “In addition, isolated modeling of the Jing’an district has limitations in that the underground drainage of the study area is connected to that of the neighboring districts and rivers, and therefore, the drainage flow should be influenced by riverine water level variations. A high river water level during rainstorm may block sewer outlets and therefore restrict drainage. In order to produce the situation of drainage failure by outlets blocking, we may need to delete some of the outlets or reduce the diameter of pipelines immediately connected to the outlets so that sewer conveyance capacity is restricted.”, see line 441-447.
Point 6: So I think that this model is too theoretical. Which is the model validation? Which the uncertainty? You could enrich the scientific literature. Make a discussion for the uncertainty of the model. See the following publications:
- Bathrellos, G.D., Skilodimou, H.D., Chousianitis, K., Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, B. (2017): Suitability estimation for urban development using multi-hazard assessment map. Sci Total Environ, 575: 119 – 134.
- Skilodimou, H.D., Bathrellos, G.D., Chousianitis, K., Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, Β. (2019): Multi-hazard assessment modeling via multi-criteria analysis and GIS: A case study. Environ Earth Sci, 78 (2): 47.
Response 6: Thanks for the references, we have further discussed the uncertainty of the model based on the references. In our opinion, the uncertainty of the modeling result is mainly related to the conflict between DEM resolution and calculation efficiency. We have added the following discussion. “The URIS simulates the urban flooding process based on a semi-physical distributed hydrological model; the uncertainty of the modeling result is mainly related to the DEM resolution and calculation efficiency [60-61]. These two aims (accuracy and efficiency) are often in conflict with each other [62]. On one hand, recent development of RS technology (like LiDAR) has increased the availability of high-resolution DEM. Therefore, data availability no longer represents a significant limitation to the reduction of modeling uncertainty [62]. On the other hand, the distributed hydrological model needs a long computation time to carry out simulation with high-resolution spatial DEM [63]. Usually, a compromise solution is taken to coarsen the DEM resolution to a reasonable degree, which reduces the number of grid cells, and as a consequence, the number of time steps required for the temporal process is also reduced. Generally, the coarsened DEM may not have an obvious influence on the changes of flooding patterns as shown in Figure 7; however, it will have a significant impact on small-scale flooding features, e.g., a low-resolution terrain map may result in a neglect of the small-scale inundation zones that the flooding area illustrated in Figure 5 were reduced from 0.63 km2 to 0.59 km2 and 0.58 km2 when the DTM resolution was coarsened from 2 m to 10 m and 20 m, respectively. Moreover, some small rainwater retaining facilities such as depression structures, and some micro-reliefs of artificial structures such as road shoulders will also influence the urban flooding propagation. Therefore, a high-quality DEM with reasonable resolution is important to reduce the uncertainty of modeling, which significantly reduces simulation times while providing reasonable simulation results for planning purposes.”. See line 412–430 of the revised manuscript.
Point 7: Correct references in the text and the reference list according to the journal’s format. Please format the references’ list by using the correct journal abbreviations.
See the following link: http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOK46/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html
Response 7: We have updated the references according to the journal’s format.
Point 8: In Fig 6, you could use smaller letters.
Response 8: We have corrected the size of letter in both Figure 6 and Figure 7.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper titled “A Simple GIS-based Model for Urban Rainstorm Inundation Simulation” presents an innovative approach for urban rainstorm inundation simulation method, implemented in a GIS system.
The proposed approach is innovative, the paper is well structured in a good English style. The results appear to be good if compared with the simulation data provided by other models of with the real case examined. In general, my personal advice is to consider this work valid for publication with some minor revision.
Moreover, some general aspect should be considered in the revised text. The CN values showed in table 1 need to be better described. It is not clear the approach used to estimate these values in urban areas. In addition, the CN values strongly influence the runoff, therefore, a sensitivity analysis on CN values can help the work reproducibility and drive the correct selection of the CN.
Some detailed modification here:
Row 52: add the citation De Rosa et al., 2019
Row 113-121: add the CN details as explained above
Row 112: add the citation Cronshey, 1986
Row 187: it is not clear what is the letter “m”
Equation 9: this equation is derived from a paper? In case add the reference. If not, you have to explain better how you get to the expression
Row 311: You have to explain what is the DTM resolution. You explained that an ordinary kriging method was used but the resolution is missing. Moreover here you state that the DTM quality is important for the final result. Can you add a results comparison by using several DTM resolution: for instance a global DTM (such as the SRTM or ASTER GDEM) and a local DTM (even a LiDAR DTM if available).
Row 320; add the reference for the formula “Outdoor Drainage Design Standard‐GBJ14287”
Equation 15 and Equation 16 are identical? It this correct?
Row 342: can you address the reasons for the overestimation?
Row 345: how do you select the 20K control points?
Row 424: are the pump drainage the causes of the overestimation?
Cronshey, R., 1986, Urban hydrology for small watersheds. 2nd edition, Technical Report: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division.
De Rosa, P., A. Fredduzzi, A. Minelli, and C. Cencetti, 2019, Automatic Web Procedure for Calculating Flood Flow Frequency: Water, v. 11, no. 1, p. 14.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The paper titled “A Simple GIS-based Model for Urban Rainstorm Inundation Simulation” presents an innovative approach for urban rainstorm inundation simulation method, implemented in a GIS system. The proposed approach is innovative, the paper is well structured in a good English style. The results appear to be good if compared with the simulation data provided by other models of with the real case examined. In general, my personal advice is to consider this work valid for publication with some minor revision.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the positive assessment of our paper.
Point 2: Moreover, some general aspect should be considered in the revised text. The CN values showed in table 1 need to be better described. It is not clear the approach used to estimate these values in urban areas. In addition, the CN values strongly influence the runoff, therefore, a sensitivity analysis on CN values can help the work reproducibility and drive the correct selection of the CN.
Response 2: The SCS model with the CN value as input is a well established method, having been widely accepted for use in the United States and other countries (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996; Van Mullem, 1991). The origins of the CN value sensitivity test can be traced back to the thousands of infiltrometer tests carried out by SCS in the late 1930 and early 1940 (Mockus, 1949; Sherman, 1942; Sherman, 1949). The objective has been either to verify the CN values given in the standard tables, or to extend the methodology to soil-cover complexes. The verification of CN value applied in the urban area has been studied since the release of “Urban hydrology for small watersheds” (1986). In the Tech. Release several ways to determine the CN value were introduced. The standard method, referred to as the “annual flood series” is to select daily rainfall P and its corresponding runoff volume Q for the annual floods at a site. The suggested CN values in urban area are presented explicitly in this book. In the present research we strictly follow the suggestion by this book to determine the CN value in urban area. However, in order to be more clear about the approach used to estimate the CN values in urban area, we have specifically addressed this as “Based on the land use maps interpreted from an RS image and soil classification standard of the “Shanghai Soil” provided by the Shanghai Soil Census Office, soil types of the study area were divided into four classes (i.e., A, B, C, and D, in the order of decreasing permeability). Moreover, according to the Antecedent Moisture Condition (AMC) of different soil types, each soil class can be further divided into three categories, namely, dry (AMCI), average (AMCII), and wet (AMCIII). The standard method, referred to as the “annual flood series”, was used to determine the CN values of different underlying surfaces [43,45]. In this research, the CN values of nine land use types in an urban environment were determined following the suggestion by Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, as shown in Table 1 [43].”. See line 118-126 of the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Row 52: add the citation De Rosa et al., 2019
Response 3: Done. Thanks for the reference.
Point 4: Row 112: add the citation Cronshey, 1986
Response 4: Done. Thanks for the reference.
Point 5: Row 187: it is not clear what is the letter “m”
Response 5: The letter “m” is the unit of meter. In order to be more clear, the format is changed to “(unit: m)”, and it has been applied to all the cases throughout the paper.
Point 6: Equation 9: this equation is derived from a paper? In case add the reference. If not, you have to explain better how you get to the expression
Response 6: We derive the equation from a paper. The reference has been added.
Point 7: Row 311: You have to explain what is the DTM resolution. You explained that an ordinary kriging method was used but the resolution is missing. Moreover here you state that the DTM quality is important for the final result. Can you add a results comparison by using several DTM resolution: for instance a global DTM (such as the SRTM or ASTER GDEM) and a local DTM (even a LiDAR DTM if available).
Response 7: Following the suggestion of reviewer we have added the missing information about the resolution performed in the model. The revised manuscript is “Kriging interpolation, which provides a best linear unbiased predictor of values at unsampled points, was used to generate the Digital Terrain Model (DTM). A DTM resolution of 2 m was used to describe the land surface elevation and building base elevation.” See line 313-316 in the revised manuscript.
It is a pity that LiDAR DTM is not available in this study area, although 1:500 terrain map used in this research is of high accuracy. A global DTM (such as the SRTM or ASTER GDEM) is not applicable to study the urban flooding simulation, because SRTM or ASTER GDEM is a DSM model that describes the surface elevation including the trees and buildings. As a result DSM will significantly underestimate flooding in the urban area. In order to fulfill the reviewer’s interest we have resampled the original resolution of 2m terrain map DTM to the different versions of 10m and 20m resolutions DTM (similar to the SRTM resolution). Modeling with the same boundary forcing during Typhoon Matsa in 2005 was rerun to test the effect of DTM resolution coarsening. The results show that the area of flooding depth > 375px is continuously decreasing with the coarsening of DTM resolution, partly because of the neglecting of small scale inundation areas in a low-resolution DTM, as shown in Figure R-1. We have discussed this in the paper as “On one hand, recent development of RS technology (like LiDAR) has increased the availability of high-resolution DEM. Therefore, data availability no longer represents a significant limitation to the reduction of modeling uncertainty [62]. On the other hand, the distributed hydrological model needs a long computation time to carry out simulation with high-resolution spatial DEM [63]. Usually, a compromise solution is taken to coarsen the DEM resolution to a reasonable degree, which reduces the number of grid cells, and as a consequence, the number of time steps required for the temporal process is also reduced. Generally, the coarsened DEM may not have an obvious influence on the changes of flooding patterns as shown in Figure 7; however, it will have a significant impact on small-scale flooding features, e.g., a low-resolution terrain map may result in a neglect of the small-scale inundation zones that the flooding area illustrated in Figure 5 were reduced from 0.63 km2 to 0.59 km2 and 0.58 km2 when the DTM resolution was coarsened from 2 m to 10 m and 20 m, respectively.” See line 414–426 in the revised manuscript.
< I can not attach the figure, and I have send this figure to the handling editor>
Figure R1 Comparison of flooding area change when the resolution of terrain map DSM is coarsened from (a) 2m to (b) 10m and (c) 20m.
Point 8: Row 320; add the reference for the formula “Outdoor Drainage Design Standard‐GBJ14287”
Response 8: Done.
Point 9: Equation 15 and Equation 16 are identical? It this correct?
Response 9: Thanks a lot for pointing out the mistake, we have corrected the wrong equation.
Point 10: Row 342: can you address the reasons for the overestimation?
Response 10: The real situation of urban environment is much more complex than the simplified model. However in order to perform a high efficiency simulation with limited input data, the URIS is established based on some simplified assumptions. For example, as have we discussed in the section 4 of the original manuscript that “owing to the complexity of urban drainage structures, some important drainage facilities like pump stations were not considered, and the drainage flow was treated as the gravity flow in pipelines. However, pump drainage is an important flooding mitigation measure during rainstorm, and ignoring enforced sewer discharge by pumps will lower drainage capacity.” We admit this is the main cause of overestimation. In order to explain the problem of overestimation more explicitly we have discussed the reason in the revised manuscript as “This may be the reason that caused the overestimation of the flooding area illustrated in Figure 5 compared to the 39 reported flooding streets during Typhoon Matsa in 2005.” See line 439-441 of the revised manuscript.
Point 11: Row 345: how do you select the 20K control points?
Response 11: The 20,000 control points are randomly generated. The sentence is revised as “A random distribution of 20,000 sample points was generated and compared.”, see line 349 of the revised manuscript.
Point 12: Row 424: are the pump drainage the causes of the overestimation?
Response 12: Yes it is, and we have explained that the ignoring of pump drainage is the main causes of the overestimation of flooding.
References:
Mockus, V., 1949. "Estimation of total (and peak rates of) surface runoff for individual storms" Interim Survey Rep. Grand (Neosho) River Watershed, Exhibit A in Appendix B, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Ponce, V.M. and Hawkins, R.H., 1996. Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity? Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 1(1): 11-19.
Sherman, L.K., 1942. "Hydrographs of runoff" physics of theEarch, IX, Hydrology, O.E. Meinzer, ed., McGraw-Hill, New york, N.Y.
Sherman, L.K., 1949. "The unit hydrograph method" Physics of the Earth, O.E. Meinzer, ed., Dover Publicatoins, Inc., New York, N.Y., 514-525.
Urban hydrology for small watersheds, 1986. Tech. Release No. 55, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Van Mullem, J.A., 1991. Runoff and Peak Discharges Using Green‐Ampt Infiltration Model. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 117(3): 354-370.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article A Simple GIS-based Model for Urban Rainstorm Inundation Simulation (article ID 489976) presents an efficient urban rainstorm inundation simulation method, which is able to produce inundation models based on limited input data.
At this stage, I would recommend a minor revision. The article is well written and well argumented. The problem is well discussed in the introduction section, the method(s) are well described in the methodology section, and the results and discussions are also very understandable and presented in an easy manner. The overall English of the manuscript is good, maybe with some minor spelling errors and some sloppy expressions, which I have detailed below.
L16: delete “kind of”
L35: correct is “urban areas”
L46: correct is “models are based”
L51: I think you meant “researchers”, or “research”
L75: do you mean “water conservation”?
L99: try using “equation” instead of “formula”; this goes for the rest of the manuscript
L132: maybe try using “combining” instead of “coupling”
L150-162: there are too many paragraphs; usually, a paragraph has at least 3 phrases.
Figure 2: try using coordinates in WGS84 (degrees, minutes, seconds), and not the local coordinate system
L299: “is 2.48 m”; however, in Figure 3 it is 2.38 m. Which one is correct?
L310: why did you used Kriging interpolation and not another method?
L346: what about the standard deviation?
The references are not formatted according to the journal style. Please, correct.
Good luck with the revision!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: At this stage, I would recommend a minor revision. The article is well written and well argumented. The problem is well discussed in the introduction section, the method(s) are well described in the methodology section, and the results and discussions are also very understandable and presented in an easy manner. The overall English of the manuscript is good, maybe with some minor spelling errors and some sloppy expressions, which I have detailed below.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the positive assessment of our paper.
Point 2: L16: delete “kind of”
Response 2: Done.
Point 3: L35: correct is “urban areas”
Response 3: Done.
Point 4: L46: correct is “models are based”
Response 4: Done.
Point 5: L51: I think you meant “researchers”, or “research”
Response 5: Done.
Point 6: L75: do you mean “water conservation”?
Response 6: Done.
Point 7: L99: try using “equation” instead of “formula”; this goes for the rest of the manuscript
Response 7: Done. We have replaced “formula” with “Equation” in the revised manuscript.
Point 8: L132: maybe try using “combining” instead of “coupling”
Response 8: Done.
Point 9: L150-162: there are too many paragraphs; usually, a paragraph has at least 3 phrases.
Response 9: Done. See line 149-158 of the revised manuscript.
Point 10: Figure 2: try using coordinates in WGS84 (degrees, minutes, seconds), and not the local coordinate system
Response 10: Done. See Figure 2 of the revised manuscript.
Point 11: L299: “is 2.48 m”; however, in Figure 3 it is 2.38 m. Which one is correct?
Response 11: 2.48 m is the average depth of the total 2,872 pipelines. However 2.38m in Figure 3 is just an example of a specific pipeline. In order to avoid confusing, we have deleted the depth information shown in Figure 3.
Point 12: L310: why did you used Kriging interpolation and not another method?
Response 12: We use Kriging interpolation instead of other interpolation methods due to the advantages of Kriging method in the domain of geostatistics and spatial analysis. Whatever the data distribution, Kriging will provide a best linear unbiased predictor of values at unsampled points. Following the suggestion of reviewer we have explained the usage of Kriging interpolation in the revised manuscript as “Kriging interpolation, which provides a best linear unbiased predictor of values at unsampled points, was used to generate the Digital Terrain Model (DTM). A DTM resolution of 2 m was used to describe the land surface elevation and building base elevation.”. See line 313-316.
Point 13: L346: what about the standard deviation?
Response 13: the standard deviation (SD) is 0.12, and we have added this information to the revised manuscript. See line 350.
Point 14: The references are not formatted according to the journal style. Please, correct.
Response 14: We have corrected the reference format.
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an important paper on urban rainstorm inundation simulation. The authors have done significant amount of data processing and modeling. The resulting maps look good. The paper, however, can be improved in a number of ways. Please see below some shortcomings as identified by this reviewer and some suggestions:
1) The "Sustainability" journal appeals to various types of professionals, not only civil/water resources engineers. Currently, the paper is too technical for a diverse audience. This style would be more applicable to profession-specific journals. The authors, however, can easily modify the tone of the paper if they want to and, therefore, can make the paper appealing to a diverse audience. The authors have used a lot of jargon which they can try to minimize. They have introduced a number of technical concepts without any explanation. These changes may be easy for them.
2) Urban planner read this journal and this topic is very suitable for urban planning professionals. The Abstract also claims that by saying "It is useful for urgent urban flood inundation estimating and applicable for other cities in supporting emergency rescue and sustainable urban planning." In reality, the term "planning" has been used only in one section (conclusion) and it is not enough to justify the claim presented in the Abstract. The authors can decide to delete this reference to "planning" but my suggestion would to be keep it and rather expand on this concept a little bit. Why and how such modeling efforts may help urban planners. This is GIS-based paper but authors need to elaborate a little bit more on its potential real-world implications. A good reference paper would the following where these authors explained the whole project and tied to urban planning in a nice, coherent fashion.
Meenar, M., Fromuth, R., & Soro, M. (2018). Planning for watershed-wide flood-mitigation and stormwater management using an environmental justice framework . Environmental Practice, 20(2-3), 55-67.
3) The Discussion section primarily is a summary of previous section. Readers may want to hear more about the interpretation of results and potential implications.
4) The paper needs a good round of copy-editing. Some formatting can be improved as well.
All the best!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: This is an important paper on urban rainstorm inundation simulation. The authors have done significant amount of data processing and modeling. The resulting maps look good. The paper, however, can be improved in a number of ways. Please see below some shortcomings as identified by this reviewer and some suggestions:
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the positive assessment of our paper.
Point 2: 1) The "Sustainability" journal appeals to various types of professionals, not only civil/water resources engineers. Currently, the paper is too technical for a diverse audience. This style would be more applicable to profession-specific journals. The authors, however, can easily modify the tone of the paper if they want to and, therefore, can make the paper appealing to a diverse audience. The authors have used a lot of jargon which they can try to minimize. They have introduced a number of technical concepts without any explanation. These changes may be easy for them.
Response 2: We agree that the description of the model is of technical. We have tried to make a change of the tone of the paper to be more understandable. Following the suggestion of reviewer we also explained the general usage of the model in the discussion. Moreover, some technical concepts such as “AMC”, “RS”, “GIS”, “ArcGIS”, “ARC”, “CAD”, “Kriging interpolation”,” DTM” and “Outdoor Drainage Design Standard-GBJ14287”, et cetra have been explained or referenced to be more understandable. Hope this fulfils the reviewer’s request.
Point 3: 2) Urban planner read this journal and this topic is very suitable for urban planning professionals. The Abstract also claims that by saying "It is useful for urgent urban flood inundation estimating and applicable for other cities in supporting emergency rescue and sustainable urban planning." In reality, the term "planning" has been used only in one section (conclusion) and it is not enough to justify the claim presented in the Abstract. The authors can decide to delete this reference to "planning" but my suggestion would to be keep it and rather expand on this concept a little bit. Why and how such modeling efforts may help urban planners. This is GIS-based paper but authors need to elaborate a little bit more on its potential real-world implications. A good reference paper would the following where these authors explained the whole project and tied to urban planning in a nice, coherent fashion.
Meenar, M., Fromuth, R., & Soro, M. (2018). Planning for watershed-wide flood-mitigation and stormwater management using an environmental justice framework . Environmental Practice, 20(2-3), 55-67.
Response 3: Thanks for the reference. We have explained the potential real-world implications of the model, especially for the urban planners. The added paragraph is “Overall, the URIS is a useful tool for urban rainstorm inundation simulation and emergency preparation because of its time-efficient performance and low input and hardware requirements. Moreover, reliable risk area estimation with high potential of serious flooding can help authorities to produce management strategies for urban planning, such as designing disaster control structures to cope with flooding (e.g., underground drainage projects) [11]; it can also help with producing and implementing of sustainable flood-mitigation measures [64-65] and assist in decision making for flood insurance [66] and facilitating emergency preparedness, and thus help to alleviate risks and losses of life and property [67].” See line 478–485 of the revised manuscript.
Point 4: 3) The Discussion section primarily is a summary of previous section. Readers may want to hear more about the interpretation of results and potential implications.
Response 4: Following the explanation of the potential real-world implications for the model advised by Point 3, we have further explained the interpretation of the results, such as:
“Therefore, a high-quality DEM with reasonable resolution is important to reduce the uncertainty of modeling, which significantly reduces simulation times while providing reasonable simulation results for planning purposes.” is used to explain the importance of DEM quality for urban planner. See line 428–430 of the revised manuscript.
“detecting the restrictive pipelines and then increasing their diameters is key to improvements of overall drainage efficiency in old town rebuilding.” is used to explain the possible most efficient way of improving the overall drainage capacity in old town rebuilding. See line 470–472 of the revised manuscript.
“Therefore, in addition to the drainage system, other low-impact development measures, such as increasing the concave green land, should also be included as comprehensive measures to treat the waterlogging caused by heavy precipitations.” is used to introduce other possible solutions for waterlogging mitigation when flooding is not able to be drained by underground sewer system. See line 474–477 of the revised manuscript.
Point 5: 4) The paper needs a good round of copy-editing. Some formatting can be improved as well.
Response 5: The format of references has been updated. The structure of the paper is also changed to follow the classical text structure of Sustainability.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “A Simple GIS-based Model for Urban Rainstorm Inundation Simulation”, by X. Meng, M. Zhang, J. Wen, S. Du, H. Xu, L. Wang, and Y. Yang, presents an improved and good work.
In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication in the present form.
