New Digital Field of Drawing and Survey for the Automatic Identification of Debris Accumulation in Flooded Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled ‘New digital field of drawing and survey for the automatic identification of debris accumulation in flooded areas’ presents a methodology for mapping and monitoring the areas affected by floods and landslides by remote sensing. Overall, this paper seems like a report on floods, and I think it is important for the post-flood analyses, such as the flood's impact and assessment. Especially in section 2 of Materials and Methods, I suggest the authors add a flow chat that could be easily understood by the readers to know the data, data processing process, and methods. In section 3, Results and Discussion, I suggest the authors add some subtitles which describe the consequences in reasonable and logical conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Floods are highly destructive natural disasters. How to mitigate the impact of flooding is meaningful. This research work presents a method for mapping and monitoring flood- and landslide-affected areas through remote sensing to provide decision support for emergencies caused by flooding events. The paper has a certain innovation. The writing is good, and the logic is clear.
Other comments include:
1. Is the method general and can it be used in other flood disaster areas?
2. Please describe in detail the use of hyperspectral remote sensing data to extract flood areas, steps, and related parameters.
3. After a flood, how long does it take to extract the flooded area? Whether it can meet the timeliness requirements.
4. Several recent papers, some in high-impact journals, describing methods related to flood hazards, landslides, and geology should be included.
Thomas, A.V., Saha, S., Danumah, J.H. et al. Landslide Susceptibility Zonation of Idukki District Using GIS in the Aftermath of 2018 Kerala Floods and Landslides: a Comparison of AHP and Frequency Ratio Methods. J geovis spat anal 5, 21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-021-00090-x
Shaikh, M., Yadav, S. & Manekar, V. Accuracy Assessment of Different Open-Source Digital Elevation Model Through Morphometric Analysis for a Semi-arid River Basin in the Western Part of India. J geovis spat anal 5, 23 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-021-00089-4
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The article discusses the possibilities of using hyperspectral imaging for mapping the consequences of floods. It includes many essays describing the problem in general and many classifications of the procedures. Finally, practical results of processing the imagery of a specific area are presented.
Overall assessment:
The article is a kind of mix between a review article (but there is no comparison of procedures and results of different authors) and a practical study (but there is no description of the experiment, no description of the processing procedure and finally no verification of the result). Although many of the essays are educational, I find nothing in them that is new or interesting from the point of view of science. Even from the point of view of applying known procedures to new problems, I do not find a benefit, because the paper does NOT describe how the processing was done at all (no software, no settings). A specific hyperspectral sensor is described, but nothing else. The structure of the paper is also poor: the "Materials and methods" paragraph must contain all the information on the experiment performed and its evaluation so that another researcher can repeat the experiment. This information is missing in the entire article. The "Results" then contains only the results obtained.
Overall comments:
1. In many figures the caption is doubled by the the text in the figure and in the caption itself. moreover in figure 4 there are some emblems and characters in the upper right part that should not be there.
2. Sustainability journal basic structure of the article is not followed - see teplate on mdpi website, including a detailed specification of the content of the paragraphs.
Selected specific comments:
L 247: stronger signal (+ next line "longer") than what?
L 251: the sentence revels in superlatives, as if copied from promotional materials.
L 370: Sentence "The real geometric dimensions of the pixel and therefore the degree of sintering of the reflected electromagnetic components are a function of the parameters of planning and flight performed." is not true - not a function of planning, but only a function of flight performed.
L 336: [39] is in my opinion not an adequate DSM or DTM acquisition reference (name of the article: "A survey on LiDAR scanning mechanisms").
L 348: not GPS, but GNSS
L 355: "measured every second" - just GNSS, other sensors much more often, to bridge the long time between GNSS information.
L 532: Please provide detailed flight parametres, e.g. height of flight.
L 616: "excelent result"? In article I haven't found any information, evidence, evaluation.
L 617: No information about sofware, procedure, setting.
L 627: There is no description of the evaluation process. I can't believe the results, since I do not know anything about it. There is many general terms and definitions, but nothing specific. And no information on the validation of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors wrote a very large article with a huge review. This is a rare case when the amount of text harms the understanding of the essence of the article. The authors of the article confirm everything with links, even the damage from floods!
However, the essence of the method is revealed very modestly. The authors used only the spectral angle method? And this method provided such good results? How exactly was the method verified? How thoroughly has the terrain been investigated for the presence of debris by ground methods? The authors carefully hide all this. Also, an assessment of the accuracy of the definition is not given at all! And this is the main criterion for evaluating the method. Based on everything written, we can say that there is no scientific novelty in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
* Introduction: very good section, however, authors should need to update this section with more recent examples and I suggest developing the Introduction chap. also based on some projects results/official reports.
* The research questions should be more developed.
* Make sure to discuss your Conclusions in relation to other international studies hypotheses.
*The connection between results and some research projects could also be approached this could lead to an interesting and policy-relevant discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
all my comments have been accepted in principle, so I agree with the publication of the article.
just one more comment to resolve:
line 513 - 524 - the paragraph is written in Italian
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have significantly improved the text of the article.
In my opinion, the verification of the adequacy of the method should be deeper. But you can also publish it in its present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript is acceptable in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
