A Novel Method of Design Flood Hydrographs Estimation for Flood Hazard Mapping
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no major comments or remarks about the article
Author Response
Thank you very much for your acceptance.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors introduce a hybrid approach for DFH estimation in which the parametric DFH is estimated from the selected properties of the non-parametric DFH model (hydrograph width at the levels of 50 percent and 75 percent of the peak flow and skewness coefficient).
The paper is interesting and can be published after addressing some concerns.
- there are many claims in section one (particularly from lines 28 to 45) that have not been supported by appropriate references, particularly those that are related to generic statements and are related to climate change and floods; please use these references:
- Uddin, Kabir, and Mir A. Matin. “Potential flood hazard zonation and flood shelter suitability mapping for disaster risk mitigation in Bangladesh using geospatial technology.” Progress in disaster science 11 (2021): 100185.
- Yazdani, Maziar, et al. “A modelling framework to design an evacuation support system for healthcare infrastructures in response to major flood events.” Progress in Disaster Science 13 (2022): 100218.
- Shreevastav, Bitu Babu, et al. “Assessing flood vulnerability on livelihood of the local community: A case from southern Bagmati corridor of Nepal.” Progress in Disaster Science 12 (2021): 100199.
- Hagen, Jenny Sjåstad, et al. “Development and evaluation of flood forecasting models for forecast-based financing using a novel model suitability matrix.” Progress in Disaster Science 6 (2020): 100076.
- Ishiwatari, Mikio, and Daisuke Sasaki. “Investing in flood protection in Asia: An empirical study focusing on the relationship between investment and damage.” Progress in Disaster Science 12 (2021): 100197.
- I can see that in some parts of the paper, the authors mentioned that floods are a natural disaster. In contrast, this term is no longer acceptable in the disaster research community, and all researchers mention natural hazards instead of natural disasters. Please consider this point in your paper.
- In the introduction, some paragraphs are too long. Please revise them.
- Please clearly highlight the research contributions and the research gaps in the introduction.
- Please avoid using multiple references (citing several resources for a simple claim or statement).
- Please use the full caption in Figures 1 and 2.
- In section 2, please first provide a general view of your research method, then explain each of them one by one.
- The quality of figure 5 is not good. Please provide a figure with high resolution.
- The presentation of Table 2 should be improved. Many vertical and horizontal lines can be removed.
- The manuscript contains quite a lot of figures and tables with the results from numerical experiments. Please check and consider providing a more detailed description of these figures and tables where appropriate to ensure that future readers will have a reasonable understanding of the main findings.
- The conclusions section could be expanded. More specifically, please expand on the limitations of this study and how they will be addressed as a part of future research. I suggest listing a set of bullet points.
Author Response
- There are many claims in section one (particularly from lines 28 to 45) that have not been supported by appropriate references, particularly those that are related to generic statements and are related to climate change and floods; please use these references:
- Uddin, Kabir, and Mir A. Matin. “Potential flood hazard zonation and flood shelter suitability mapping for disaster risk mitigation in Bangladesh using geospatial technology.” Progress in disaster science 11 (2021): 100185.
- Yazdani, Maziar, et al. “A modelling framework to design an evacuation support system for healthcare infrastructures in response to major flood events.” Progress in Disaster Science 13 (2022): 100218.
- Shreevastav, Bitu Babu, et al. “Assessing flood vulnerability on livelihood of the local community: A case from southern Bagmati corridor of Nepal.” Progress in Disaster Science 12 (2021): 100199.
- Hagen, Jenny Sjåstad, et al. “Development and evaluation of flood forecasting models for forecast-based financing using a novel model suitability matrix.” Progress in Disaster Science 6 (2020): 100076.
- Ishiwatari, Mikio, and Daisuke Sasaki. “Investing in flood protection in Asia: An empirical study focusing on the relationship between investment and damage.” Progress in Disaster Science 12 (2021): 100197.
Response 1: Thank you very much for you suggestions. Our intention was to address the first paragraph to the aspects of European Union Flood Directive implementation as the formal framework in which the research is embedded. We believe that the presented broad perspective can be supported with many references worldwide and the list of references here could be extensive. However we are happy to refer to some of the suggested publication in the concluding paragraph.
- I can see that in some parts of the paper, the authors mentioned that floods are a natural disaster. In contrast, this term is no longer acceptable in the disaster research community, and all researchers mention natural hazards instead of natural disasters. Please consider this point in your paper.
Response 2: Thank you for this remark – we have changed the paper accordingly.
3. In the introduction, some paragraphs are too long. Please revise them.
Response 3: We agree, and the introduction paragraph has been shorten.
4. Please clearly highlight the research contributions and the research gaps in the introduction.
Response 4: We have extended the paragraph 94-107 with the explanation of the rationale of our research and the contribution to the state-of-the-art.
5. Please avoid using multiple references (citing several resources for a simple claim or statement).
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion however we would like to indicate that the multiplication of the references provided arise from the variety of approaches that supports citadel generic statement. We would rather not limit the contributions from the other authors in the similar findings that were obtained through various researches.
6. Please use the full caption in Figures 1 and 2.
Response 6: The captions under figures were extended.
7. In section 2, please first provide a general view of your research method, then explain each of them one by one.
Response 7: We fully agree with the remark and paragraph describing general idea behind the presented approach has been added.
8. The quality of figure 5 is not good. Please provide a figure with high resolution.
Response 8: The figure was refined.
9. The presentation of Table 2 should be improved. Many vertical and horizontal lines can be removed.
Response 9: We appreciate your remark. Table 2 contains the values of parametric DFH characteristics: W50, W75 and s estimated with the use of the three employed methods: Gamma, Strupczewski and Baptista for all 34 catchments analyzed in the study. The redundancy of some of the numbers is attributed to the convergence of the results obtained while using the independent methods. We believe that this presentation of full spectrum of the results may provide detail insignias to the method presented.
10. The manuscript contains quite a lot of figures and tables with the results from numerical experiments. Please check and consider providing a more detailed description of these figures and tables where appropriate to ensure that future readers will have a reasonable understanding of the main findings.
Response 10: Thank you for this suggestion. We have provided some additional comments as well as additional statistics (r, RMSE, MAE) to support and deepen the understanding of our findings.
11. The conclusions section could be expanded. More specifically, please expand on the limitations of this study and how they will be addressed as a part of future research. I suggest listing a set of bullet points.
Response 11: We agree with tis remark and we have extended the conclusion part and added a boarder view of the method presented and possibility of future development.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled "A novel method of Design Flood Hydrographs estimation for flood hazard mapping" is within the scope of Water journal. Overall, the manuscript is rather well written and organized. However, the paper needs major revisions:
(1) Quantitative performance of the numerical models can be merged into abstract section.
(2-1) What are major difficulties for solving this type of mapping?
(2-2)What are motivations and novelties?
(3) Introduction needs some modifications in the case of flood monitoring, multi-decision criteria models, and remote sensing:"Computers & Geosciences, 105045, 2022", "Water 13 (21), 3115, 2021".
(4) Numerical models should be validated and evaluated by statistical measures such as correlation coefficient, RMSE, and MAE.
(5) The present results need to be compared with literature review at least five references.
Author Response
(1) Quantitative performance of the numerical models can be merged into abstract section.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion but despite our efforts, the limited number of words to be included in abstract restrained us from providing the exact numbers of quantitative model evaluation.
(2-1) What are major difficulties for solving this type of mapping?
Response 2-1: According to the recommendation we have included the paragraph underlying the broader context and difficulties in developing flood hazard maps.
(2-2) What are motivations and novelties?
Response 2-2: Thank you for this remark. The paragraphs providing insignias of the rationale for the method development as well as the novelty we intend to introduced the current state-of-the-art were added to the introduction.
(3) Introduction needs some modifications in the case of flood monitoring, multi-decision criteria models, and remote sensing: "Computers & Geosciences, 105045, 2022", "Water 13 (21), 3115, 2021".
Response 3: In compliance with this advice we have referred to this particular article as well as in general to the area of new methods and technologies in accordance to our method development and validation.
(4) Numerical models should be validated and evaluated by statistical measures such as correlation coefficient, RMSE, and MAE.
Response 4: The article results were enriched with the assessment of recommended statistical measures.
(5) The present results need to be compared with literature review at least five references.
Response 5: We fully appreciate this suggestion. The ultimate validation of the presented results could be achieved during the next step of the research development. This requires introducing the obtained DFH to the hydrodynamical models to see their impact on floodwater inundation maps in comparison to results obtained with use of the methods for flood wave estimation applied in benchmark procedures. On this very stage, the idea was to verify exclusively the ability of the parametric DFH model to reproduce the experimental DFH properties obtained from measurements through a reference Archer method.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept as is
