Flood-Prone Area Delineation in Urban Subbasins Based on Stream Ordering: Culiacan Urban Basin as a Study Case
, Sergio A. RenterÃa-Guevara 3, Yaneth A. Bustos-Terrones 4, Zuriel D. Mora-Félix 2, Wenseslao Plata-Rocha 5 and Sergio Alberto Monjardin-Armenta 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A BRIEF SUMMARY
The paper titled “Assessment of Flood Risk in Urban Subbasins Based on Morphometric Characterization and Hydrologic Analysis: Culiacan Urban Basin as a Study Case”, presents a good topic for readers of this Journal. However, some lacks emerge after reading the paper. Below is the list of serious lacks. I suggest you to resubmit this interesting paper after a moderate revision.
Following some important issues that do not help reader to understand your research and the results out of it:
- Too little bibliography for this type of work, on a so broad topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.
- Conclusions are too much long. You have to summarize main novelty and results of your work. I suggest to replace it, because in my opinion this paragraph is the major problem of your paper.
In the meantime, I think that the authors should take into account some specific comments that follow, which, in my opinion, will improve the work for a future submission.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Figure 2: You have to replace this figure. In particular “labels” are not visible, I suggest to use larger fonts.
Line 49: You have to increase references. I suggest to cite following work (et not only):
- Recanatesi, F., Petroselli, A. Land Cover Change and Flood Risk in a Peri-Urban Environment of the Metropolitan Area of Rome (Italy). Water Resour Manage 34, 4399–4413 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02567-8
Lines 77-79: You have to increase references. I suggest to cite following work (et not only):
- https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8040112
Lines 110-117: You have to add more details on used DTM. In this type of research it is very important DTM choice. For example you could see this recent work (following reported), to better address this point.
- https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061717.
References paragraph: It is poor.
Author Response
Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no reservations
Author Response
Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading the improved manuscript - concerning the changed title and statement "... without carrying out complex hydraulic calculations." in the end of the abstract and some other changes I suggest to make revisions.
I recommend to discuss in more details the role of hydraulics calculations (modelling) in the delineation of flood prone areas and expected differences in such delineation using the simplified methodology. At this point I recommend to add further references, e.g. such as:
Zhou, Q. , Su, J. , Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K. A GIS-based hydrological modeling approach for rapid urban flood hazard assessment, (2021) Water (Switzerland), Volume 13, Issue 111 June 2021 Article number 1483. DOI 10.3390/w13111483
Duchan, D., Dráb, A,., Říha, J. Flood Protection in the Czech Republic, Springer Water, Pages 333 - 363, 2020. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-18359-2_14.
Van Dijk, E., Van Der Meulen, J., Kluck, J., Straatman, J.H.M. Comparing modelling techniques for analysing urban pluvial flooding (2014). Water Science and Technology, 69 (2), pp. 305-311. doi: 10.2166/wst.2013.699 etc.
Author Response
Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved following reviewer' suggestions.
Congratulations for your interesting work.
Author Response
Done
