Quantifying Medium-Sized City Flood Vulnerability Due to Climate Change Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: Case of Republic of Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
My decision regarding the revised manuscript is 'Accept in present form'. However, in the final version of the manuscript, you may consider leaving one chart in the manuscript as a showcase in Figure 4 and especially Figure 6, and the rest of the charts as supplementary material. 

Author Response

I attached my reply file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made by the authors are satisfactory to some extent, although a response sheet addressing the specific comments would have been helpful for a more detailed assessment. With a few minor adjustments, the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.

 

Mention whether the GCM precipitation datasets were downscaled or bias-corrected.

Furthermore, since the correlation between the criteria is not considered in the entropy method, and the problem of not addressing redundant information by weighting only based on variability may arise, it is believed that using CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method in future studies can yield reliable weights to the indicators (Manikanta et al. (2023)). Cite Manikanta et al. (2023)

 

Manikanta, V., Ganguly, T., & Umamahesh, N. V. (2023). A Multi criteria Decision Making based nonparametric method of fragments to disaggregate daily precipitation. Journal of Hydrology, 617, 128994.

Author Response

I attached my reply file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors need to improve the quality of article outputs. Determine the importance of effective measures and also prepare vulnerability maps.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

I attached my reply file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the manuscript and please allow me to make a few suggestions for the authors.

At the end of the introduction, all the other sections of the manuscript should be briefly discussed (The structure of the paper is organized as follows: ….)

Because the authors only briefly discuss the comparison of MCDM methods, and the evaluation rather lacks in-depth comparative analysis across a broader range of similar methodologies, I would suggest that the authors present a little bit more on the comparative analysis to provide the readers a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of their chosen methods.

I suggest that the authors provide a little bit more information about the sources of data, data collection methods, and any limitations in the dataset, so that the readers of this journal could understand better the quality of the analysis. Furthermore, the authors could also include details on the data and code availability.

The resolution of some of the figures seems rather low, therefore I recommend that the authors enhance the images inserted in the manuscript (because some of the figures like 1,3,7 etc. appear as “pixelated” in the pdf file received for review).

Although the manuscript has a robust list of references, I recommend that the authors present in a discussion section their own results versus (compared to) the results of other studies from other researchers, to better highlight their own contribution to the studied field.

I would like to read in the manuscript about further future research directions from the authors, because the manuscript falls short in providing sufficient such directions; for example, the inclusion of additional techniques (see the bulleted list bellow) or the inclusion of more dynamic environmental parameters etc.

Additionally, I suggest that the authors should also discuss the limitations of their study and potential challenges in real-world applications.

Perhaps again for their future research, I recommend that the authors include real-world case studies from various medium-sized cities, in order to validate the proposed methodology and to show the practical applicability in the real-world scenarios.

For their future research, the authors could also approach additional methodologies, such as:

·         the integration of machine learning, neural networks, Bayesian networks, deep learning algorithms for improved prediction and analysis of flood vulnerability in the studied urban areas,

·         the incorporation of remote sensing data and satellite imagery to improve the accuracy and precision of flood vulnerability assessments,

·         the application of further hybrid MCDM techniques that combine the strong point of various methodologies, fuzzy logic, neural networks, and genetic algorithms, for a better and reliable framework etc.

·         the integration of a Geographic Information Systems -based spatial analysis to capture the spatial variability of flood vulnerability within cities etc.

Author Response

I attached my reply file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major comments: 

1. What are the main academic contributions or innovations of this manuscript in comparison to other published works? This should be proposed based on the current research status in the introduction section 

2. In line 465, “As shown Figures S2 and 6”, S2 is not found in Figure’s name. 

3. Figures 3-5 are in low quality. Could the authors please improve the quality of Figures 3-5. 

4. Some variables mentioned in the text are not represented in italics. 

5. Why choose 28 indicators? Didn't explain it clearly 

6.The limitation of this study should be added to the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In its current state, the level of English throughout the manuscript needs language polishing. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully.

Author Response

I attached my reply file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Author Response

The opinion is 'Accept in present form'.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

 

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor revision 

1. Please write all variables in text and equations in same format (italic), for example line 265, 306, and etc. Please revise in whole paper. 

2. Add more literature review to the introduction like " Spatial and temporal patterns in nonstationary flood frequency across a forest watershed: Linkage with rainfall and land use types ".

Author Response

We attached the reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major comments: 

1. What are the main academic contributions or innovations of this manuscript in comparison to other published works? This should be proposed based on the current research status in the introduction section.

2. The structure of the manuscript might need a major adjusting for a better understanding. For example: Discuss should be a separate Section. 

3. Figures 3-5 are in low quality. Could the authors please improve the quality of Figures 3-5. 

4. Some variables mentioned in the text are not represented in italics. 

5. In line 465, “As shown Figures S2 and 6”, S2 is not found in the text. 

6. Why choose 28 indicators? Didn't explain it clearly

 7. The manuscript failed to attract the interest of the relevant researchers. The quality of the articles is not up to the requirements of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Written is very week. In its current state, the level of English throughout the manuscript needs language polishing. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript 'Quantifying Medium-sized City Flood Vulnerability to Climate Change Using Multi-Criteria Decision-making Techniques: Case of South Korea' deals with an up-to-date topic in a clear and understandable manner. The proposed systematic approach to quantifying city flood vulnerability related to climate change is applicable to highly organized societies where required input data are available.  The amount of collected and processed data is admirable, as well as the number of selected techniques to reveal the uncertainty issues.
The authors provided a full discussion of the results, including the question of using monthly precipitation in the applied GCM.
In future studies, the authors should consider using antecedent dry days among Environmental factors, and a more proper word instead of Environmental.
In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in its present form. Minor language and technical issues with long tables and Figure 6 will be resolved during the publishing process.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article on “Quantifying Medium-sized City Flood Vulnerability to Climate Change Using Multi-Criteria Decision-making Techniques: Case of South Korea’’ presents a systematic approach to assess city flood vulnerability related to climate change in medium-sized cities, employing various multi-criteria decision-making methods. The research addresses data uncertainty through techniques like weighted summation, TOPSIS, VIKOR, fuzzy- and grey-TOPSIS, incorporating expert surveys and the entropy approach for indicator weighting, ultimately highlighting the effectiveness of the Grey-TOPSIS technique in minimizing uncertainty. The following are my comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:

                                                                

Major Comments:

The introduction lacks a comprehensive literature survey on the indicators chosen for city flood vulnerability (CFV). The choice of indicators can significantly influence the study's results. Additionally, the research gap should be more clearly defined to provide a better context for the study's objectives.

The results of MCDM are significantly influenced by the choice of MCDM technique, normalization method, and allocation of objective weights. I recommend that the authors refer to the study by Anil et al. (2021), which discusses the role of subjectivity in MCDM approaches and employs various MCDM techniques and objective weight allocation methods.

Explain the methodology of the Entropy weighting method in more detail. Address the issue of NaN values resulting from the usage of logarithms in the entropy method when applied to values of 0. Clarify whether a smaller threshold was added to overcome this problem.

The entropy method does not take into account the correlation between criteria (inter-criteria correlation). Since it assigns weights based on entropy (variability) alone, it cannot address redundant information and may assign higher weights to criteria with redundant data. Considering this limitation, I recommend the authors to explore the CRITIC method as a potential alternative (Manikanta et al., 2023). If conducting the analysis with the CRITIC method is not feasible, it should be acknowledged as a limitation in the discussion and conclusions section.

Flood events are indeed short-term phenomena, typically unfolding over a span of days or even hours. Therefore, employing data with higher temporal resolution, such as hourly or daily data, is essential for precisely capturing the intricate dynamics of flood events. This includes accurately representing intense rainfall patterns, runoff generation, and flood peak timing. Monthly precipitation data, on the other hand, offers an average for an entire month and may not adequately convey the variability and intensity of rainfall during specific flood events. Such monthly data could potentially overlook crucial details essential for comprehensive flood vulnerability assessments, particularly when it comes to comprehending the underlying mechanisms driving flood risk. It would be beneficial to clarify why the authors opted for monthly data over daily data in their study.

Have the GCM precipitation datasets been downscaled or bias-corrected? If so, please provide clarification.

The results presented in Figure 5 require further detailed explanation, particularly in terms of how they relate to the vulnerability of the chosen study locations.

I recommend using bar plots instead of spider plots in Figure 5. The current subplots have overlapping CFVI values for all GCMs, making it challenging to interpret the results.

In the discussion and conclusion section, it is crucial to address potential policy implications and recommend future studies that should consider incorporating daily precipitation data from GCMs. This forward-looking approach acknowledges the potential for further refinement and improvement in flood vulnerability assessments. Additionally, it would be valuable to include a brief discussion on the limitations of the study, including any assumptions made or data constraints. Moreover, providing insights on how stakeholders' inputs were integrated into the Grey-TOPSIS method would enhance the transparency of the assessment process.

 

Minor comments:

L29: Change "has been increased" to "has increased".

L29: Specify a more precise term instead of "the symptoms" for clarity.

L30: Rephrase "beyond their highly growing population density and development" for improved clarity and coherence.

L33: Elaborate on key concepts like the "subjective and objective effects of city flooding" to ensure reader comprehension.

L46: Correct "las" to "last".

L56: Revise the sentence to ensure the term 'dose-response relationship' fits appropriately.

L57: Smooth out the transition from L56-57 to L57-58 to better establish the necessity and importance of MCDM techniques.

L85: Provide necessary information.

L107: Clarify that in fuzzy set theory, it is indeed possible to incorporate hesitation or uncertainty into membership degrees. This can be achieved through various extensions of fuzzy set theory, such as hesitant fuzzy sets or intuitionistic fuzzy sets, allowing for a more nuanced representation of uncertainty in membership values.

L102-105: Consider removing these sentences as they do not contribute meaningful insights to the problem statement.

L139: Replace 'research subjects' with 'study locations'.

L139-140: Correct the sentence 'Each city has 20 labels that begin with the letter A.' to state that "Each of the twenty cities is assigned a label starting with the letter 'A'."

L168-170: Eliminate redundant information for conciseness.

 

These are just a few minor mistakes. The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors. Therefore, I strongly recommend the authors to have the manuscript thoroughly proofread by a native English speaker. This will enhance the grammar and language aspects, ensuring better clarity and coherence.

 

References:

Anil, S., Manikanta, V., & Pallakury, A. R. (2021). Unravelling the influence of subjectivity on ranking of CMIP6 based climate models: A case study. International Journal of Climatology, 41(13), 5998-6016.

Manikanta, V., Ganguly, T., & Umamahesh, N. V. (2023). A Multi criteria Decision Making based nonparametric method of fragments to disaggregate daily precipitation. Journal of Hydrology, 617, 128994.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors. Therefore, I strongly recommend the authors to have the manuscript thoroughly proofread by a native English speaker. This will enhance the grammar and language aspects, ensuring better clarity and coherence.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my initial assessment, my decision was to reject the manuscript. However, I intend to reconsider my decision if the authors address the following issues. My suggestions are as follows:

1. The study does not address any aspect of the spatial vulnerability of floods; it merely compares the results of different methods.

2. The data collection process should not be mentioned in the results, and at least one city's criteria map should be displayed.

3. There is no explanation provided regarding how these methods have improved uncertainty.

4. Most of these methods are outdated; why haven't more recent approaches been utilized?

5. The research background regarding flood vulnerability is not well articulated.

6. Experts' opinions on criteria weighting are not adequately explained.

7. The results evaluation has not been conducted thoroughly.

I recommend that the authors revise the manuscript according to these points. If these issues are properly addressed, the paper can proceed to the next stage of the review process.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required