Potential of Decentral Nature-Based Solutions for Mitigation of Pluvial Floods in Urban Areas—A Simulation Study Based on 1D/2D Coupled Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall:
This manuscript presents a valuable and timely exploration of the potential for decentral nature-based solutions (NBS) to mitigate pluvial flooding in urban areas. The research boasts a highly applicable method, excellent structure, and engaging presentation. However, some key areas require further exploration to strengthen the overall impact and novelty of the work.
Strengths:
- Compelling topic: Investigating the effectiveness of NBS against pluvial floods is critically important and directly addresses current challenges faced by urban environments.
- Strong methodology: Employing 1D/2D coupled modelling offers a robust and realistic approach to simulating flood mitigation scenarios.
- Clear structure and presentation: The manuscript is well-organized and utilizes visual aids effectively, enhancing reader comprehension.
Areas for improvement:
- English language: Editing by a native speaker would significantly improve the clarity and flow of the writing.
- Justification for large return periods: While focusing on two flood events allows for a deeper analysis, the results require further justification, particularly for events with larger return periods and extreme intensities. Consider incorporating additional simulations or sensitivity analyses to address this gap.
- Expanding the research scope: Limiting the analysis to two flood events may not fully capture the potential variability in NBS effectiveness. Consider testing the predictions against a wider range of events, potentially including scenarios with higher intensities and using traditional methods for comparison.
- Enhanced rationale for flood prediction factors: Justifying the specific factors selected for flood prediction would strengthen the argument for their relevance and applicability in real-world situations.
Recommendations for revision:
- Collaborate with a native English speaker to refine the manuscript's language and enhance its readability.
- Conduct additional simulations or sensitivity analyses to explore the effectiveness of NBS for larger return periods and extreme events.
- Expand the research scope by analyzing a broader range of flood events, potentially including comparisons with traditional methods.
- Provide a more detailed rationale behind the chosen flood prediction factors, highlighting their significance and real-world applicability.
Overall, this research presents a promising avenue for urban flood mitigation using NBS. By addressing the areas outlined above, the authors can significantly strengthen the impact and novelty of their work. I encourage them to consider these recommendations and revise the manuscript accordingly.
Sincerely,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOverall:
This manuscript presents a valuable and timely exploration of the potential for decentral nature-based solutions (NBS) to mitigate pluvial flooding in urban areas. The research boasts a highly applicable method, excellent structure, and engaging presentation. However, some key areas require further exploration to strengthen the overall impact and novelty of the work.
Strengths:
- Compelling topic: Investigating the effectiveness of NBS against pluvial floods is critically important and directly addresses current challenges faced by urban environments.
- Strong methodology: Employing 1D/2D coupled modelling offers a robust and realistic approach to simulating flood mitigation scenarios.
- Clear structure and presentation: The manuscript is well-organized and utilizes visual aids effectively, enhancing reader comprehension.
Areas for improvement:
- English language: Editing by a native speaker would significantly improve the clarity and flow of the writing.
- Justification for large return periods: While focusing on two flood events allows for a deeper analysis, the results require further justification, particularly for events with larger return periods and extreme intensities. Consider incorporating additional simulations or sensitivity analyses to address this gap.
- Expanding the research scope: Limiting the analysis to two flood events may not fully capture the potential variability in NBS effectiveness. Consider testing the predictions against a wider range of events, potentially including scenarios with higher intensities and using traditional methods for comparison.
- Enhanced rationale for flood prediction factors: Justifying the specific factors selected for flood prediction would strengthen the argument for their relevance and applicability in real-world situations.
Recommendations for revision:
- Collaborate with a native English speaker to refine the manuscript's language and enhance its readability.
- Conduct additional simulations or sensitivity analyses to explore the effectiveness of NBS for larger return periods and extreme events.
- Expand the research scope by analyzing a broader range of flood events, potentially including comparisons with traditional methods.
- Provide a more detailed rationale behind the chosen flood prediction factors, highlighting their significance and real-world applicability.
Overall, this research presents a promising avenue for urban flood mitigation using NBS. By addressing the areas outlined above, the authors can significantly strengthen the impact and novelty of their work. I encourage them to consider these recommendations and revise the manuscript accordingly.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your invaluable support and insightful comments, which have contributed significantly to our work. In the word document, we respond to your feedback, highlighting the specific lines in the paper where content has been added or removed, all marked in yellow.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article takes Berlin, Germany as the research object and designs a method to incorporate NBS with different implementation levels into the 1D/2D model, exploring the potential of different NBS implementation schemes in alleviating floods in the Berlin study area. A lot of work has been done around the theme of the article, providing scientific basis for optimizing the urban spatial pattern. However, at present, there are still the following issues in the abstract, literature review, result interpretation, and innovation of the article. It is recommended to make revisions:
Comment 1: In the abstract section, the practical and theoretical significance of this study is not clearly stated, and the characteristics and innovative points of the paper are not prominent enough. It is recommended that the author refine and modify the abstract of the paper.
Comment 2: In the introduction section, it is suggested to supplement specific practical issues to highlight the practical and theoretical significance of the article's research. The policy citation is to illustrate new guidance and requirements for this research direction.
Comment 3: The literature review section is not detailed and in-depth enough, and does not clarify the main topics, research results, and problem deficiencies of existing research in the academic community. It only lists and extracts some articles, and the reference time interval is long, which does not indicate the innovation and marginal contribution of this article. Suggest the author to refer to the mature logic of high-level domestic and foreign papers for literature review.
Comment 4: In the overview section of the research area, there is a lack of relevant description on the current situation of urban rainfall infiltration in the research area. Is it more appropriate to use the area map and topographic map in Figure 1, and it is recommended that the resolution should not be less than 300dpi; Suggest continuing to beautify various drawings, and adding the compass and scale bar.
Comment 5: In terms of the expression of research methods, the length is too long. It is recommended that the author simplify and retain the core formulas and processes, paying attention to the refinement of language and the clear and coherent logic before and after.
Comment 6: In the results section of the paper, especially in chapters 3.2 and 3.3, the author only provides a general description of the changes in flood volume under different levels of NBS implementation, lacking a summary of the underlying reasons and basic laws behind the results. It is recommended that the author further analyze the results section in depth
Comment 7: The study only explored the impact of NBS on flood volume, but how to propose optimization plans based on the impact mechanism is the major innovation of the article. If the optimization path can be explored in the future, this may be more meaningful and innovative than this article.
Comment 8: The content of the discussion section should not only be a reiteration of the previous results. It is suggested to further elevate the discussion section. Currently, there is a lot of content in the discussion section about the description and analysis of the article's results. It is recommended to reduce such content appropriately, focus on analyzing the contribution and shortcomings of the article, propose targeted suggestions, and future research directions.
Comment 9: The language expression of the entire text should be further condensed and improved, paying attention to precise semantic expression, close connection between contexts, and details such as graphic beautification.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenone
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for your invaluable support and insightful comments, which have contributed significantly to our work. In the word document, we respond to your feedback, highlighting the specific lines in the paper where content has been added or removed, all marked in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editors
I would like to accept this paper because all my comments have applied and I see no other issues.
Kind Regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccpet
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenone
