Flood Susceptibility in the Lower Course of the Coyuca River, Mexico: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript may be potentially interesting for the readers of "Sustainability" and in my opinion it presents the solution of the research topic in a methodically correct way.

However, I have a number of comments (mainly of a technical and linguistic nature) which I have listed in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

 

For a better understanding of the text, we have decided to edit the English language of the manuscript at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

some comments and suggestions have been made in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

For a better understanding of the text, we have decided to edit the English language of the manuscript at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.

Please see the attachment

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript. Number.: Sustainability-1910675

Title: Flood susceptibility in the lower course of the Coyuca River, Mexico: a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis model

 

Major revisions are needed for this manuscript to be published in the Sustainability.

 

Introduction

1.      What is the main innovative aspect of the research study? How is it different and important from similar studies?

2.      The original texts are written rather haphazardly. Paragraphs are poorly connected. Improve it again.

3.      The above punctuation in the sentences is messy. Line-62, line 65, line-89, etc.Study area

4.      Line-125 Figure 1 or line 136 Fig.1? should be of the same type.

5.      Line-133 km2 to fix.

6.      Line-139 write the name of the picture more clearly.

Materials

7.      Where is the data used in your research? What is the source?

Results

8.      Why citations in the results section? Rewrite lines 408-420.Conclusion

 

9.      Rewrite the conclusion section?. The logic is out of order. Some quantitative results should be included.

Author Response

For a better understanding of the text, we have decided to edit the English language of the manuscript at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.

Please see the attachment

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript well-organized and well-presented. 

Author Response

We appreciate your valuable comments on our manuscript.
We inform you that as a result of the comments of the reviewers. the manuscript was submitted to MDPI's English language editing services (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english)

Best regards

Reviewer 5 Report

I suggest focusing on the main advantages of your method, for presenting the novelty of your works. I would be inclined to consider publishing only if the above changes are made. Many studies previously have used machine learning methods in this field. I think a better review of the literature could provide a significant contribution to improving scientific knowledge. There are many studies that could be attentioned such as: "A step toward considering the return period in flood spatial modeling"; "Evaluating urban flood risk using hybrid method of TOPSIS and machine learning"; "Urban Flood-Risk Assessment: Integration of Decision-Making and Machine Learning"; "Towards a flood vulnerability assessment of watershed using integration of decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory, analytical network process, and fuzzy …"; 

Author Response

For a better understanding of the text, we have decided to edit the English language of the manuscript at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.

Please see the attachment

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my observations were adressed. The manuscript looks better and can be now accepted.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: English language and style is ok/minor spell checker required.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable comments that are of great help in improving our manuscript. In this regard we comment the following. The manuscript was reviewed and corrected by the MDPI publisher's English language editing service.
Based on your comments, we ask for a new review on this, but due to workload issues for the editing service, the review will not be ready before Thursday.

Therefore, we have reviewed the manuscript on our own and have made some changes for a better understanding of the English language, the changes are found in the following lines:

(59-60) The statement was paraphrased to read as follows; The last declarations were issued on September 2013 due to the flooding caused by hurricanes Ingrid and Manuel.

(67-69) The word grouping was replaced by the word categorize to read as follows; Flood susceptibility maps are tools for identifying flood-prone areas and categorize them into susceptibility levels in order to design prevention and/or mitigation strategies.

(120-121) The statement was paraphrased as follows; . Fernandez et al. [63] applied MCDA in conjunction with GIS, determining the social vulnerability to flood risk in a municipality in Portugal (2016).

(143-144) In the statement, the phrase “the critical strains” was replaced by the phrase “which critical tie rods”, as follows; The use of remote sensing techniques with UAVs allowed us to obtain highly detailed maps that, in conjunction with the hydraulic modeling of different return periods, can provide detailed information on the identification of flood risk zones: which critical tie rods can lead to the flooding, the respective flood levels in the area and potential flooding points.

 

Best regards

 

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have improved the paper. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

Point 1: English language and style is ok/minor spell checker required.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable comments that are very helpful in improving our manuscript. In this regard we comment the following. The manuscript was reviewed and corrected by the MDPI publisher's English language editing service.
Based on your comments, we ask for a new review on this, but due to workload issues for the editing service, the review will not be ready before Thursday.
Therefore, we have reviewed the manuscript on our own and have made some changes for a better understanding of the English language, the changes are found in the following lines:

(59-60) The statement was paraphrased to read as follows; The last declarations were issued on September 2013 due to the flooding caused by hurricanes Ingrid and Manuel

(67-69) The word grouping was replaced by the word categorize to read as follows; Flood susceptibility maps are tools for identifying flood-prone areas and categorize them into susceptibility levels in order to design prevention and/or mitigation strategies.

(120-121) The statement was paraphrased as follows; . Fernandez et al. [63] applied MCDA in conjunction with GIS, determining the social vulnerability to flood risk in a municipality in Portugal (2016).

(143-144) In the statement, the phrase “the critical strains” was replaced by the phrase “which critical tie rods”, as follows; The use of remote sensing techniques with UAVs allowed us to obtain highly detailed maps that, in conjunction with the hydraulic modeling of different return periods, can provide detailed information on the identification of flood risk zones: which critical tie rods can lead to the flooding, the respective flood levels in the area and potential flooding points.

 

Best regards