Linking Urban Floods to Citizen Science and Low Impact Development in Poorly Gauged Basins under Climate Changes for Dynamic Resilience Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is devoted to proposing an operative approach for the definition of the resilience curves using a novel space-time dynamic resilience measure (STDRM), aimed at assessing the effectiveness of LID-BMP solutions against flooding in poorly gauged basins at Gregorio Creek (Brasil) under climate change. This implies coupling SWMM and HEC-RAS solvers to calibrate, validate and then spatially simulate the flooding events with and without the LID interventions. 

The topic is within the scope of the journal, and it is surely interesting in the field of the development of sustainable approach against natural hazards in urban areas. The structure of the manuscript is quite good, showing a good scientific soundness. Nevertheless, some improvements are needed in order to make both the assessment more effective and the reading more fluent. Specifically, I suggest considering the following comments:

• The Introduction can be extended, giving more space to the models in the literature for the calibration of IDF when more rainfall data are lacking. Among several references, please consider these.
• Kourtis I.M., Bellos V., Kopsiaftis G., Psiloglou B., Tsihrintzis V.A. (2021). Methodology for holistic assessment of grey-green flood mitigation measures for climate change adaptation in urban basins. Journal of Hydrology, 603 (A), 126885. DOI: 1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126885
• De Paola F., Giugni M., Pugliese F. (2018). A harmony-based calibration tool for urban drainage systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management, 171(1), 30-41. DOI: 10.1680/jwama.16.00057
• Versini, PA., Berenguer, M., Corral, C. et al. (2014) An operational flood warning system for poorly gauged basins: demonstration in the Guadalhorce basin (Spain). Nat Hazards 71, 1355–1378. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-013-0949-7
• In the “Methodology” section, specific details of parameter setting of SWMM are needed. Please add a table summarizing the main settings. Moreover, specific explanation of the employed Genetic Algorithm code needs to be explained
• In the “LID modelling sub-section” the authors declare that SWMM is able to manage 5 types of LID controls. The software manages 8 LID controls. Green roofs, vegetative swales and rooftop disconnections, although not really suitable for the case in the subject, are missing in the list.
• How the area to be converted in bioretention was detected? It is equal to 1% of the total area but further details of its delineation are required
• The Conclusions should be significantly improved. Results may provide quantitative assessment and the novelty of the research should be properly addressed.

 

MINOR COMMENTS

• Please add the axis labels and numbering in all the graphs of Figures 4, 5 and 6
• Line 378: “discuss” instead of “discusses”
• Line 426: “shows” instead of “show”

Regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your appointments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Broad comments

- The abstract should include more information on the obtained results.

- English should be improved.

- Results and discussion were merged in the same section. However, there is no true discussion of the obtained results. The accuracy of the hydrodynamic modelling (figure 3) should be deeply discussed because there are significant differences between the observed and modelled water depths, which compromises the accuracy of the results.

 

Specific comments

The following are more specific/detailed comments and advices that should be considered:

- Page 1, line 20: please refer what LID means.

- Page 1, line 31: the same term should be used throughout the manuscript. So, the authors should use rainfall instead of precipitation.

- Page 1, line 32: planning comes first than management.

- Page 1, line 33: please replace excessive paving by impervious areas. Additionally, allocation is not the best term in this context.

- Page 1, lines 32-35: this sentence is not clear. Please rephrase it.

- Page 1, line 35: replace risk areas by hazardous areas. Hazard and risk don’t have the same meaning.

- Page 2, line 52: please mention the page of this citation.

- Page 2, line 56: what type of flooding is considered here? Flash floods? Riverine/slow floods? Urban flooding? Please detail this information throughout the manuscript.

- Page 2, line 80: “water level reached by the flood”. The authors should consider replacing this by water depth.

- Page 2, line 89: SP?

- Page 2, line 97: replace height by depth.

- Page 3, line 98: SWMM and HEC-RAS software.

- Figure 1 should include information on drainage network/watercourses.

- Page 3, line 118: starts is not the best word when referring a drainage basin. The Gregorio creek is culverted? The text does not provide details on this.

- Page 3, line 121: urban flooding or flash floods?

- Page 3, line 123: please do not use the word ‘risks’ in this context.

- Page 4, lines 145-151: these lines should be transferred to the introduction section.

- Page 4, line 160: please explain what is this 2D area.

- Page 4, lines 162-169: this text should be included in section 3.1 avoiding some repetition.

- Page 7, line 243: 12.5 m is a coarse resolution for a DEM used in hydrodynamic modelling. Would it be possible to use a more detailed elevation data? If no, please explain why in the text.

- Page 7, line 245: How did you determine this 2D area? What are the criteria used? This should be explained in the text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your appointments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have successfully addressed the reviewers' comments and suggestions, improving the scientific soundness and the effectiveness of the manuscript. Thus, I believe that it is suitable for acceptance in its current form.

Regards