A Sponge Village Flood Response Method Based on GIS and RS Analysis Formation—A Case Study of Jiangou Village

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the manuscript has been submitted as an original article, however, it does not follow the format- Introduction, Method, Results, Discussions and Conclusion. This writing study can be considered, however, after reading the manuscript, especially the conclusion section (which has been written in future tense) it seems the manuscript discusses the theories with no results or discussion. It requires an extensive editing.

In the results section, the author wrote about the contour analysis for the future projection of flood risk in areas, however, no table or figure has been seen stating the risk e.g. after 5 years or 10 years.

Because there is no specific method section in this manuscript, therefore, it is very difficult to identify the validation analysis and results. It is suggested to provide a section "Validation of Data Analysis and Results". 

 

The literature review in the introduction section must be improved. For example, Line 49-59, some economic figures of losses due to the impacts of floods should be included from previous literature/newspapers. The literature review section should also include a review of uncertain rainfall patterns in the study area as well as similar contexts in China as well as outside of China. The author should also include a paragraph discussing the methods available to do analysis for this kind of study and provide justification for choosing the methods for this study. 

The keywords should include the name of the study area/China. What is the meaning of "Spone Countryside"?

  

Author Response

Dear editors and Reviewers:

 

On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to revise our manuscript and we appreciate the reviewers’ kindly comments on our manuscript. These comments of yours are quite valuable and helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We’ve studied these constructive comments carefully and have made correction which we hope to meet with approval. In what follows, we would like to answer the reviewer’s questions and comments and show you the changes we’ve made in our manuscript.We’ve tried our best to standardized the terminology in the text by using the same word as much as possible, but we still cannot exclude the possibility of oversight. If there are any mistakes, please point it out for us, thank you very much for your precious time and patience!

The detailed reply are in the file below, thank you for your time!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer report – “Intelligent management of flood risk in mountain villages based on GIS and RS.”

By Xuanshuo Liang, Ming Guo, Guoli Wang.

The article has potential, even though the hydrological and hydraulic analyses are relatively brief and solely focus on the topographical analysis. According to the authors, river network analysis, flow analysis, and automated building extraction in Jiangou Village were used to identify the primary influencing variables for flood risk.

The article requires minor and major revisions, namely:

A. Minor observations:

1. The title contains the acronym RS (remote sensing), which should be specified in the abstract.

2. An important but brief explanation of hydraulics and hydrology is missing from the introduction section.

3. The general flow chart in Figure 1 does not include the hydraulic module and hydrological module details that are required for these analyses.

4. Rewriting the paragraph at lines 208, 209, and 210 should look like this: “In addition, the rivers around Jianguo Village are part of a lower-level river system, indicating that their water-carrying capacity is limited.”. The correct expression from a hydraulic technical point of view is that of transport capacity rather than storage capacity.

B. Major observations:

1. It is necessary to unify and reorganize Chapters 2 (Research and data acquisition in the study area) and 3 (Data Acquisition and Processing). Therefore, modules for acquiring hydrometeorological data from hydrometric and rain gauge stations need to be included.

2. The necessity of building extraction and the next phases in the analysis must be outlined in subsection 4.1. Principles of automatic building extraction. Although extraction is helpful, its application is not explained in further detail.

3. To justify the SPCC methodology for rural adaptation, this subsection must come after a hydrological and hydraulic analysis in addition to the new topographical analysis elements as outlined by the authors of the article (4.2).

4. Flood analysis, covered in Subchapter 5.3, must be finished with a description of the analysis of rainfall frequency and a link with the hydraulic calculations. What matters are the water levels and flow frequencies (for example 1% like in Europe), which rarely coincide with rainfall statistical distribution models. 

5. To improve integrated water management in the village, the authors recommend the creation of artificial lakes. This is a measure that is effective for a certain frequency of flows, it will be good to specify for which flows, with the probability of exceeding, are designed, and what is the degree of attenuation. In general, these are complex measures that represent an effort of a multidisciplinary team.

In conclusion the article needs to be rewritten, the most likely solution is to refer with strong emphasis to the topographic analysis in the introduction and in another chapter the use of topographic data in tandem with hydraulic and hydrological models. The hydraulic and hydrological analyzes were not carried out by the authors of the article, and I recommend limiting research to the topographical part with limited reference to how their research can be used in flood management, as it would implicate a rewrite of the article that would require far too much time. The article is interesting for surveyors but has large gaps in terms of integrated flood management.

Best wishes,

The reviewer

Author Response

Dear editors and Reviewers:

On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to revise our manuscript and we appreciate the reviewers’ kindly comments on our manuscript. These comments of yours are quite valuable and helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We’ve studied these constructive comments carefully and have made correction which we hope to meet with approval. In what follows, we would like to answer the reviewer’s questions and comments and show you the changes we’ve made in our manuscript.We’ve tried our best to standardized the terminology in the text by using the same word as much as possible, but we still cannot exclude the possibility of oversight. If there are any mistakes, please point it out for us, thank you very much for your precious time and patience!

The detailed reply are in the file below, thank you for your time and advice!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing all the comments. However, improve the English of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear editors and Reviewers:

 

On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to revise our manuscript and we appreciate the reviewers’ kindly comments on our manuscript. These comments of yours are quite valuable and helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We’ve studied these constructive comments carefully and have made correction which we hope to meet with approval. In what follows, we would like to answer the reviewer’s questions and comments and show you the changes we’ve made in our manuscript.We’ve tried our best to standardized the terminology in the text by using the same word as much as possible, but we still cannot exclude the possibility of oversight. If there are any mistakes, please point it out for us, thank you very much for your precious time and patience!

 

Comment 1:

Thanks for addressing all the comments. However, improve the English of the manuscript.

 

response to Comment 1:

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. It is true that the English language still needs to be improved, and we have carefully checked the content of the whole text, revised the wrong parts, standardized and unified the expression of terms, geographical names, units, etc., and improved the level of English expression as much as possible.

 

There may still be various problems in our article, and we hope you will continue to share your valuable suggestions, thank you for your support!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer report – "A sponge village flood response method based on GIS and RS analysis formation - A case study of Jiangou village"

The revised version and the cover letter are pertinent and respond to the review's comments with two minor exceptions.

A.    In Figure 1. General flow chart, a box with the Establishment of Maximum Flows must be added under the box Analysis of precipitation.

B.    Replace the text under sub-heading (1) Calculate the flood flow (lines 450-457) with the following more general and comprehensive text:

Peak flow (annual exceedance probability flow) for different recurring periods of 20, 33, 50 and 100 years can be calculated using the flood-frequency equations (regional regression equations for frequency curve quantiles) [1], statistical analysis of flood (statistical frequency-based runoff calculations for “hydrologically” similar watersheds) [2], or flood frequency analysis (frequency function fitted to gauged data) [3].

1. Flatley, A.; Rutherfurd, I. Comparison of Regionalisation Techniques for Peak Streamflow Estimation in Small Catchments in the Pilbara, Australia. Hydrology 2022, 9, 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9100165

2. Cunnane, C. (1987). Review of Statistical Models for Flood Frequency Estimation. In: Singh, V.P. (eds) Hydrologic Frequency Modeling. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3953-0_4

3. Ilinca, C.; Anghel, C.G. Frequency Analysis of Extreme Events Using the Univariate Beta Family Probability Distributions. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4640. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13074640

After the authors review the comments and respond accordingly, this article is ready for publication because it includes information that the journal's readers will find interesting.

Best wishes,

 

The reviewer

Author Response

Dear editors and Reviewers:

 

On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to revise our manuscript and we appreciate the reviewers’ kindly comments on our manuscript. These comments of yours are quite valuable and helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We’ve studied these constructive comments carefully and have made correction which we hope to meet with approval. In what follows, we would like to answer the reviewer’s questions and comments and show you the changes we’ve made in our manuscript.We’ve tried our best to standardized the terminology in the text by using the same word as much as possible, but we still cannot exclude the possibility of oversight. If there are any mistakes, please point it out for us, thank you very much for your precious time and patience!

 

Comment 1:

In Figure 1. General flow chart, a box with the Establishment of Maximum Flows must be added under the box Analysis of precipitation.

 

response to Comment 1:

We have added a box with the Establishment of Maximum Flows under the box Analysis of precipitation as you requested, and have reorganized and spruced it up, the new figure is as follows:

 

Comment 2:

Replace the text under sub-heading (1) Calculate the flood flow (lines 450-457) with the following more general and comprehensive text:

Peak flow (annual exceedance probability flow) for different recurring periods of 20, 33, 50 and 100 years can be calculated using the flood-frequency equations (regional regression equations for frequency curve quantiles) [1], statistical analysis of flood (statistical frequency-based runoff calculations for “hydrologically” similar watersheds) [2], or flood frequency analysis (frequency function fitted to gauged data) [3].

1. Flatley, A.; Rutherfurd, I. Comparison of Regionalisation Techniques for Peak Streamflow Estimation in Small Catchments in the Pilbara, Australia. Hydrology 2022, 9, 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9100165
2. Cunnane, C. (1987). Review of Statistical Models for Flood Frequency Estimation. In: Singh, V.P. (eds) Hydrologic Frequency Modeling. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3953-0_4
3. Ilinca, C.; Anghel, C.G. Frequency Analysis of Extreme Events Using the Univariate Beta Family Probability Distributions. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4640. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13074640

 

response to Comment 2:

We have modified the content as your requested and added the references you requested to add, the modification is shown below:

 

 

There may still be various problems in our article, and we hope you will continue to share your valuable suggestions, thank you for your support!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf