Impact Assessment of Flood Damage in Urban Areas Using RCP 8.5 Climate Change Scenarios and Building Inventory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A BRIEF SUMMARY
The paper titled “Impact Assessment of Flood Damage in Urban Areas Using RCP 8.5 Climate Change Scenarios and Building Inventory” presents a interesting topic for readers of this Journal.
Hovewer, some open questions remain after reading the paper. Below is the list of some questions that need to be addressed.
- Why the references is so few? Probably a more accurate references research could help to add value for this topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper. I have indicated suggestions (some published on this Journal during 2020) for specific section of paper, but more can be added to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.
- Annis, A.; Nardi, F.; Petroselli, A.; Apollonio, C.; Arcangeletti, E.; Tauro, F.; Belli, C.; Bianconi, R.; Grimaldi, S. UAV-DEMs for Small-Scale Flood Hazard Mapping. Water 2020, 12, 1717.
- Petroselli, A.; Florek, J.; Młyński, D.; Książek, L.; Wałęga, A. New Insights on Flood Mapping Procedure: Two Case Studies in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8454.
- Merwade, V.; Olivera, F.; Arabi, M.; Edleman, S. Uncertainty in Flood Inundation Mapping: Current Issues and Future Directions. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2008.
- Armenakis, C.; Nirupama, N. Estimating spatial disaster risk in urban environments. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2013, 4, 289–298.
- Huizinga, J.; de Moel, H.; Szewczyk, W. Global flood depth-damage functions—Methodology and the database with guidelines. Joint Res. Center 2017.
- Adnan, R.M., Petroselli, A., Heddam, S. et al.Comparison of different methodologies for rainfall–runoff modeling: machine learning vs conceptual approach. Nat Hazards 105, 2987–3011 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04438-2
- Paragraph 2.6. I suggest to read https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051466
- Paragraph 3.4: DEM resolution? It is a crucial information for this type of study. Please, Can you specify DEM resolution used for hydraulic modelling?
- In your opinion, can you improve this study with a continuous hydrological modeling? I suggest to read https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125664.
- You have to specify the boundary conditions used for hydraulic modelling.
- In conclusion, the authors have to specify the novelty of the proposed approach and the future improvements.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
Keywords: I suggest adding: “hydrological modelling” and “Hydraulic modelling”
Figure 1: You have to replace Figure 1. It is not clear.
Formulas: Take attention, it is not right format.
Figure 4. It is not necessary. You can only cite Flo2d manual. Please, remove the figure 4.
Figure 5. It is not necessary. Please, remove the figure 5.
Figure 12. Can you increase axis label size?
Figure 13. CN values are not visible.
Figure 14: lacks time unit on x-axis.
Figure 15: legend is not in English language. Please, replace Figure 15.
Figure 15: in the caption correct “period”
Figure 17: legend is not in English language. Please, replace Figure 17.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
» It is based on the file water-1115581 that is applied to the tracking function.
Point 1: Why the references is so few? Probably a more accurate references research could help to add value for this topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the “part 1 (introduction)” of the paper. I have indicated suggestions (some published on this Journal during 2020) for specific section of paper, but more can be added to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.
Response 1: I added the references mentioned by the reviewer to the Inroduce ([2], [18], [30], [37], [38], [39]).
Point 2: resolution? It is a crucial information for this type of study. Please, Can you specify DEM resolution used for hydraulic modelling?
Response 2: I modified it to lines 359–360.
Point 3: In your opinion, can you improve this study with a continuous hydrological modeling? I suggest to read https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125664.
Response 3: We believe that the flood damage amount can be improved by using continuous hydrological modelling, and we write it as a future study.(line 452-454).
Point 4: In conclusion, the authors have to specify the novelty of the proposed approach and the future improvements.
Response 4: I modified it to lines 418–420.
Point 5: Keywords: I suggest adding: “hydrological modelling” and “Hydraulic modelling”
Response 5: I modified the keyword part.
Point 6: Figure 1: You have to replace Figure 1. It is not clear.
Response 6: I modified it.
Point 7: Formulas: Take attention, it is not right format.
Response 7: I modified the equation format.
Point 8: Figure 4. It is not necessary. You can only cite Flo2d manual. Please, remove the figure 4.
Response 8: I removed figure 4.
Point 9: Figure 12. Can you increase axis label size?
Response 9: I increased axis label size.
Point 10: Figure 13. CN values are not visible.
Response 10: I modified Figure 13.
Point 11: Figure 14: lacks time unit on x-axis.
Response 11: I modified it.
Point 12: Figure 15: legend is not in English language. Please, replace Figure 15.
Response 12: I modified the legend written in Korean into English.
Point 13: Figure 15: in the caption correct “period”
Response 13: I modified it.
Point 14: Figure 17: legend is not in English language. Please, replace Figure 17.
Response 14: I modified the legend written in Korean into English.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Draw a flowchart from your work flow that briefly shows the process and in the Discussion section. 2. Compare your results with the results of other researchers. 3. The literature review part may be further improve. 4. In abstract and conclusion, authors need to add some numerical results. 5. Description of the figures should be more complete 6. Improve the English. 7. The conclusion should include more details. 8. Please improve the Conclusion section, this section need to more details and more explain. 9. Please refer to new paper about this field.Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
» It is based on the file water-1115581 that is applied to the tracking function.
Point 1: Draw a flowchart from your work flow that briefly shows the process and in the Discussion section.
Response 1: I modified a flow chart and work flow process was written in line 420-425.
Point 2: Compare your results with the results of other researchers.
Response 2: There were no flood damage studies under the same conditions as this study, and a prior study by this author was added to line 292-294[45].
Point 3: The literature review part may be further improve.
Response 3: I improved the literature review and applied tracking function so that the reviewer can check.
Point 4: In abstract and conclusion, authors need to add some numerical results.
Response 4: I made additional modifications to line 24-26 and line 431-433 regarding the numerical results.
Point 5: Description of the figures should be more complete
Response 5: I modified it line 288-290, 368-369, 399-400.
Point 6: Improve the English.
Response 6: I checked the terminology and grammar as a whole by reflecting the reviewer's comments.
Point 7: The conclusion should include more details. Please improve the Conclusion section, this section need to more details and more explain.
Response 7: I modified Novelty, result, future study, etc. in the conclusion part.
Point 8: Please refer to new paper about this field.
Response 8: I modified new paper ([2], [6], [7], [8], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [30], [37], [38], [39], [45], [46]).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the introduction, authors should mention the possibility of using, for the selected area, Stochastic Rainfall Generators (Blenkinsop et al. 2013; Burton et al. 2010; De Luca et al. 2020), in order to investigate effects of climate changes at the finest hydrological scales.
- Blenkinsop, S., Harpham, C., Burton, A., Goderniaux, P., Brouyère, S. and Fowler, H.J. (2013) Downscaling transient climate change with a stochastic weather generator for the Geer catchment, Belgium. Climate Research, 57(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01170
- Burton A, Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S, Kilsby CG (2010) Downscaling transient climate change using a Neyman-Scott rectangular pulses stochastic rainfall model. J Hydrol 381(1-2), 18−32
- De Luca, D.L.; Petroselli, A.; Galasso, L. (2020). A Transient Stochastic Rainfall Generator for Climate Changes Analysis at Hydrological Scales in Central Italy. Atmosphere2020, 11, 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121292
Moreover, references about Copula are missed. Specifically, for hydrological purposes, the following works can be cited:
- De Luca, D.L.; Biondi, D. Bivariate Return Period for Design Hyetograph and Relationship with T-Year Design Flood Peak. Water2017, 9, 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090673
- Nelsen, R.B. An Introduction to Copulas, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
- Salvadori, G.; De Michele, C. Multivariate multiparameter extreme value models and return periods: A copula approach. Water Resour. Res.2010, 46.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
» It is based on the file water-1115581 that is applied to the tracking function.
Point 1: In the introduction, authors should mention the possibility of using, for the selected area, Stochastic Rainfall Generators (Blenkinsop et al. 2013; Burton et al. 2010; De Luca et al. 2020), in order to investigate effects of climate changes at the finest hydrological scales.
Response 1: I modified a Introduction part and added cite the papers([7], [8], [19], [20], [21], [22]).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved and in my opinion it is ready for the publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is acceptable.
