An Alternative Risk Assessment Model of Urban Waterlogging: A Case Study of Ningbo City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting manuscript with a sound methodology. However, I have three points that prevent me to accept the manuscript in its current version.
First: The authors see waterlogging as a risk posing multiple challenges to cities and the urbanization process but do not state which kind of challenges as well as their implications for urbanization dynamics. I think this can be performed in two stages: First, in the state of the art and relevant literature and in particular in the case study. Planning implications of this phenomena matter because you argue this challenge affects the urbanization process and patterns in the case study arae.
Second: When I move from the introduction to the methodology, I miss the theoretical foundation of the research. Although at the end of the introduction you point out the risk elements (dangerousness, sensitivity, and vulnerability), the relevant literature of this theoretical foundation in different contexts to different risks is missing. The authors mention that they assess the risk of urban waterlogging risk by a set of indicators and provide the primary indicators in two dimensions. However, I think the intended methodology is based on a composite index that consists of different procedures starting from the selection/development of a sound theoretical foundation (please have a look at the following sources):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420917302364?via%3Dihub
http://www.ciesin.org/documents/Design_Use_of_Composite_Indices.pdf
Third: I would also argue that the authors may validate their findings. Good research with strong methodology deserves validation of its methodological and empirical findings.
Author Response
- Comment one: The authors see waterlogging as a risk posing multiple challenges to cities and the urbanization process but do not state which kind of challenges as well as their implications for urbanization dynamics. The authors need to enrich further the background. The objectives are not explicitly stated
Response one: Thank you for your suggestion. In the context of global climate change and rapid urbanization, China is one of the most countries prone to floods. Due to the change of natural hydrological processes and the increase of extreme precipitation events in urban areas, waterlogging occurs more and more frequently. The waterlogging disaster has caused huge economic losses and unstable factors of urban development, and through the economic losses, the number of people affected, the safety of residents, health and other aspects to explain the challenge and impact on the process of urbanization. In this paper, the study area is one of the areas with the highest risk of waterlogging disaster in China. in order to clarify the specific scope and grade of regional risk, the risk of waterlogging is assessed in order to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the city and reduce the negative impact on the lives of residents.
- Comment two: What is the novelty of this work?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In this work, combined with the characteristic selection index of coastal cities, the waterlogging risk assessment model is optimized. This study area is a coastal city, which shows the subtle changes of land use types and topography through high-resolution remote sensing images and high-precision digital elevation model; considering that urban waterlogging is caused by stagnant water caused by factors such as the increase of impervious water surface and poor drainage, the flow of pumping station is introduced in the selection of indicators. At the same time, road density and other indicators are also added to build a large-scale optimization risk assessment model to evaluate the waterlogging risk more comprehensively.
- Comment three: When I move from the introduction to the methodology, I miss the theoretical foundation of the research.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In the aspect of methodology, it complements the description of natural disaster risk system in disaster theory, and this paper studies it with the support of its theory.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is interesting. Nevertheless, it needs some further improvement before being accepted for publication. In general, there are still some occasional grammar errors throughout the manuscript, especially the article ‘’the’’, ‘’a’’ and ‘’an’’ is missing in many places; please make a spellchecking in addition to these minor issues. The reviewer has listed some specific comments that might help the authors further enhance the manuscript's quality.
- Specific Comments
Please include a list of acronyms and abbreviations.
- Introduction
- The objectives are not explicitly stated.
- The authors need to enrich further the background; please highlight the importance of renewable energy sources development in achieving sustainability goals. The following literature might be useful in this regard << Flood susceptibility modelling using advanced ensemble machine learning models>>, <<Seasonality shift and streamflow flow variability trends in central India>>, and << Human–Environment Natural Disasters Interconnection in China: A Review>> you may review other additional relevant references as well.
- What is the novelty of this work?
- Methods
- I would suggest showing the methodological approach through a flowchart
- Methodology limitations should be mentioned.
- All variables should be explained.
- Please justify why your model-approach is feasible?
- What was the data resolution used in the computations?
- Please increase the text size of the figures and resolution.
- Results
- This section is well written.
- Please increase the text size of the figures and resolution.
- Discussion
This section is missing. The discussion should summarize the main finding(s) of the manuscript in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any limitations of the study or results that conflict with other published work.
Author Response
- Comment 1: I would suggest showing the methodological approach through a flowchart? What was the data resolution used in the computations?
Response: Thank you for your comment. The flow chart of the method is made on the basis of text description, and the resolution of the specific data is marked in Table 1. The accuracy of DEM is 2m, the population data is calculated on the basis of street, and the resolution of remote sensing image is 0.5m.
- Comment 2: Please justify why your model-approach is feasible?
Response: Thank you for your comment. The construction of the evaluation model is supported by the theory of natural disaster system, and the research results are verified and compared with the historical waterlogging disaster data of the study area, which proves that the research results are consistent with the historical data, so the model method is feasible.
- Comment 3: Discussion section is missing. The discussion should summarize the main finding(s) of the manuscript in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any limitations of the study or results that conflict with other published work.
Response: Thank you for your comment. In the last part of the article, the innovation and practical significance of this study are summarized, and it shows that the study has some limitations, and the follow-up research will continue to be carried out in the future.
- Comment 4: Please include a list of acronyms and abbreviations.
Response: Thank you for your comment.
|
DEM |
Digital Elevation Model |
|
SCS-CN |
Soil Conservation Service Curve Number |
|
AHP |
Analytic Hierarchy Process |
- Comment 5: Please increase the text size of the figures and resolution.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The text size of the figures and resolution has been increased.
- Comment 6: Methodology limitations should be mentioned.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Human factors are seldom considered in waterlogging risk assessment, and the risk factors, disaster losses and disaster prevention mechanism of waterlogging need to be further studied.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Well done.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our paper!
