Flood Analysis Using Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Observations in Laos
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed a fully automated flood monitoring method based on the GEE platform, which used Sentinel-1,2 multi-temporal remote sensing images to calculate indices such as SDWI and NDWI, and used decision-level fusion to extract flood areas precisely. The flood risk level was assessed using the AHP method, and the study demonstrated exceptional performance with an average correlation coefficient of 0.7144 over five years. The spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of floods in Laos were comprehensively analyzed at various scales, and the study highlighted the robustness and applicability of the proposed method. However, the study also acknowledged certain shortcomings, such as the fragmentation of water body extraction and the limited availability of multi-source remote sensing data. The study suggested that machine learning methods could be adopted in the future to monitor flood distributions with higher accuracies.
I believe that this article does not have the potential to be published in the journal Remote Sensing in this form. Therefore, I suggest that a major revision be undertaken to address these issues and improve the overall quality of the article.
Comments:
Abstract:
The abstract does not explicitly mention any findings or conclusions of the study. However, it does state that the paper aims to analyze the influence of floods in Laos and presents a methodology for analyzing flood patterns and characteristics using multi-source data. It also describes the different methods employed in the study, such as flood area detection, macro-scale impact analysis, flood forecasting, and micro-scale comparison of optical images. The abstract suggests that the paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the impacts and characteristics of floods in Laos, but it does not explicitly state the specific findings or conclusions of the study.
- I would recommend that the authors revise the abstract to include a brief summary of their main findings and conclusions. This will provide a clearer idea of the specific contributions of their study and help readers determine whether the paper is relevant to their interests.
Introduction:
- Scientific support in the form of relevant literature should be added to the phrases in this paragraph for better credibility :
First paragraph of the introduction
Last paragraph of the introduction
- Additional information about Google Earth Engine (GEE) should be added to provide more context about the platform, the studies that use it, and their effectiveness.
Materials:
Study area:
- This sentence was repeated in the first and second paragraph “The northern and southeastern parts of the country are characterized by mountains and plateaus, while the plains region consists of large and small areas along the Mekong River”, please correct.
- Figure 1 should be more consistent, the hydrographic network of the area is not representative because you utilize just extraction from DEM, you should have represent the Mekong River, use the reel color of DEM and add Google earth background to the small carte with country the surround the Laos. I would recommend that the authors add photos of the floods and their location.
Data Source
- For added credibility, scientific support in the form of relevant literature should be added to this section
- Are you sure that a 90 m resolution DEM can provide a proper analysis of flooding in your study area?
Methods:
- The title of all tables should be placed on top of the table.
Results:
- The scales in figures 1,2 and 9 show some disorder, please verify and correct
- The first paragraph of the correlation analysis should be in the methodology section, adding also the equations and thresholds
- It would be more helpful if you provide more interpretation about the study
Discussion:
In the Discussion section, you will need to add:
- Summary of the main findings: This section should begin with a brief summary of the main findings of the study. It should highlight the key results and their significance.
- Comparison with previous studies: The discussion should compare the study's findings with those of previous studies. This comparison should highlight the similarities and differences between the results of this study and those of other studies.
English should be polished by a native speaker.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Re: Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2393628 and Title: Analysis of the Flood in Laos from Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Observations
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “remotesensing-2393628”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red in attachment.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Phonekham Hansana, Xin Guo, Shuo Zhang, Xudong Kang *, Shutao Li.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors.
I read your work, and I consider that it is of interest to the readers of the journal. However, it needs major revisions. Attached you will find a copy of the pdf with my notes. Here, I write down the most significant ones:
- The work needs validation. You can search for flooding maps obtained by hydraulic modeling or something similar. Then, you may provide a comparison of your work to validate it.
- Explain better the methodology: Your methodology is hard to follow, and it seems like some acronyms are not well defined.
- Better figures: Some figures must be improved.
- Better discussion section: the discussion is important. However, yours seems like a conclusion section and fails to provide a more depth analysis of your work.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Passive voice: almost all your work is written in passive voice. I recommend changing it to active voice instead. It will help to make it clearer to the readers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Re: Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2393628 and Title: Analysis of the Flood in Laos from Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Observations
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “remotesensing-2393628”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red in attachment.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Phonekham Hansana, Xin Guo, Shuo Zhang, Xudong Kang *, Shutao Li.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study of flood disasters has always been the focus of global scientists. It is of great scientific significance and practical value that the manuscript starts with the new method of flood monitoring. However, the verification of this method lacks scientificity and rationality. First, the source of the flood monitoring results used for verification is not stated in the manuscript. Second, it is unreasonable to only use the correlation coefficient as the only indicator of the verification results. Because the correlation coefficient can only be used as an indicator of the correlation between two groups of data, it cannot evaluate the accuracy of the data, and the correlation coefficient is only 0.7, which is difficult to support the conclusion.
It is recommended that the author work harder on the demonstration of the method results and add more convincing indicators. The manuscript must be major revised.
In Section 3.1.1 The determination of the detection threshold needs to be elaborated in detail to facilitate readers' understanding.
Please explain in detail the specific meaning of each variable in eq.(5).
Please explain in detail how CI and RI come from in eq.(6).
Figure 6. How the risk levels are classified is not stated in the manuscript.
Figure ?? What does it mean?
The source of the flood monitoring results is not stated in the manuscript
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Re: Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2393628 and Title: Analysis of the Flood in Laos from Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Observations
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “remotesensing-2393628”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red in attachment.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Phonekham Hansana, Xin Guo, Shuo Zhang, Xudong Kang *, Shutao Li.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe that the authors have addressed my comments and incorporated them into the final version of their manuscript. However, I believe that some further refinement is needed in terms of English language usage.
By taking these steps, your manuscript will be better positioned to reach a wider audience and have a stronger impact in the scientific community
I believe that the authors have addressed my comments and incorporated them into the final version of their manuscript. However, I believe that some further refinement is needed in terms of English language usage.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Re: Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2393628 and Title: Analysis of the Flood in Laos from Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Observations
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlights. The responses to comments are marked in red, in 'Response1.docx'.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Phonekham Hansana, Xin Guo, Shuo Zhang, Xudong Kang, Shutao Li.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciated the authors included a section showing a validation of their model. However, it cast doubts on me that the ground truth and the flood results look almost identical. I would like to see a map of the difference between both.
The authors included some additional text. However, I didn't notice significant changes in the text that was already there. I suggest the authors need to address grammar and style issues in the document (not only adding or removing text).
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Re: Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2393628 and Title: Analysis of the Flood in Laos from Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Observations
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlights. The responses to comments are marked in red, in 'Response2.docx'.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Phonekham Hansana, Xin Guo, Shuo Zhang, Xudong Kang, Shutao Li.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author spent a lot of time and energy revising the manuscript, and the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved. However, there are still some details that have not been explained.
In Figure 11， how the floods are classified is not stated.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Re: Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2393628 and Title: Analysis of the Flood in Laos from Multi-Scale Remote Sensing Observations
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlights. The responses to comments are marked in red, in 'Response3.docx'.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Phonekham Hansana, Xin Guo, Shuo Zhang, Xudong Kang, Shutao Li.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
