Geomatic-Based Flood Loss Assessment and Its Application in an Eastern City of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted research work aims to contribute a flood loss assessment method on the basis of geomatic technology integration. I found this paper very interesting where Several technical aspects were nicely implemented and explained sufficiently. Undoubtedly, authors invested huge amount of time and have made a great effort to produce this high-quality of research which is clearly structured and the language used is largely appropriate. As final decision, I see that this manuscript in its form and level deserves to be accepted for publication in MDPI-WATER BUT after addressing below MINOR COMMENTS.

COMMENTS:

• The title should be revised, the use of 3s in inappropriate and I recommend for the authors to change “3s-based…” by ”Geomatic-based…” and keep the rest as it is.
• The authors should update the text of their paper by this new word “Geomatic-based”.
• Abstract: The abstract gives a good overview about the undertaken work.
• Introduction: The introduction is well written and very organised.
• All the sections of the paper received sufficient information with good level of technicality and explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Title:  3S-based flood loss assessment and its application in an eastern 2

city of China.

It’s a very good topic.

But the manuscript needs moderate to major revisions to improve the quality of the paper.

Abstract

Good abstract. However, it needs some revisions.

Please delete the word, authors in the abstract. Just use this study or current study.

Also, how this study results will be helpful to the existing literature. Justification is needed.

Introduction

Good introduction.

However, it can be expandable with more recent literature in this field by introducing new references.  More information is needed about the global and regional flood events. 

Data and methods

Data collection procedures and Index systems were explained well by the authors.

Fig.1 was nicely presented.

However, CRI calculation based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) should be simplified by explaining in more in simple words.

Results

This section needs significant revisions.

More analysis is needed to expand this section.

How have the 10 evaluation factors been finalised?

Why did you select those factors? Justification is needed.

In 33 flood samples, which year event is more significant and less?

An explanation is needed with relevant photographs.

In the Direct economic loss rate (DELR) model, authors should need to explain how national and regional GDP/economics were affected by flooding events?

Discussion

This is also one of the weakest sections.

This section should be expandable with more regional and global relevant examples by comparing with current study results.

Conclusion

It should be in one paragraph.

What are the recommendations?

The authors should need to insert the limitations part.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Good abstract. However, it needs some revisions. Please delete the word, authors in the abstract. Just use this study or current study. (Abstract)

 Response 1: Thanks for this comment, the original "the authors" has been changed to "this study”. (Changed on line 13.)

Point 2: How this study results will be helpful to the existing literature. Justification is needed. (Abstract)

 Response 2:  The characteristics of this method relative to the existing literature,  and the applicability of the method are described. (Changed on line 21-26.)

Point 3: Good introduction. However, it can be expandable with more recent literature in this field by introducing new references.  More information is needed about the global and regional flood events. (Introduction)

 Response 3: Thanks for this comment, the rainstorm events and the latest research literature at home and abroad are added. (Added on line33-36, and line 50-51.)

Point 4: Data collection procedures and Index systems were explained well by the authors. Fig.1 was nicely presented. However, CRI calculation based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) should be simplified by explaining in more in simple words. (Data and methods)

 Response 4: Thanks for this comment, the FCE introduction is simplified and the corresponding formula is adjusted. (Changed on line 146-201.)

Point 5: How have the 10 evaluation factors been finalised? Why did you select those factors? Justification is needed. (Results)

 Response 5: Many thanks for this comment, this section adds how to analyse and screen a large number of factors to the final 10 factors. (Added on line 225-227.)

Point 6: In 33 flood samples, which year event is more significant and less? An explanation is needed with relevant photographs. (Results)

 Response 6: Figure 2 shows the comparison between historical events and evaluation results. The article also adds a description of the significant of historical events. (Added on line 251-253.)

Point 7: In the Direct economic loss rate (DELR) model, authors should need to explain how national and regional GDP/economics were affected by flooding events? (Results)

 Response 7: We added relevant content. (Added on line 259-260.)

Point 8: This section should be expandable with more regional and global relevant examples by comparing with current study results. (Discussion)

 Response 8: Thanks for this comment, in this chapter, a lot of changes have been made. The description of historical disaster events is added, and the characteristics of this method relative to the current study results are discussed. (Changed on line 341-378.)

Point 9: It should be in one paragraph. What are the recommendations? (Conclusion)

 Response 9: Thanks for this comment, we merged the original summary. (Changed on line  385-392.) And the suggestions for further research are put forward on line 400-407.

Point 10: The authors should need to insert the limitation part. (Conclusion)

 Response 10: The restrictive conditions of this method are described on line 395-399.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have adequately addressed my comments.