Urban Flood Hazard Assessment and Management Practices in South Asia: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review of the theme was conducted in an optimal way. The urban flood risk issue was dealt with quite thoroughly and with appropriate references. 

The contents were presented in a clear and logic approach, with specific arguments to clarify each of the points. The paper also provides some guidelines on better understanding the complex risk assessment and management practices in South Asia.  

In overall, the paper is well-structured and provides an exhaustive analysis of the issue, however, a suggestion would be to extend the bibliography regarding remote sensing application as a monitoring tool, as it would be useful to specify the different sensors used in this area and different processing techniques of the satellite data for the detection of urban flood areas

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this interesting manuscript. Its overall well written. However, some gaps are needed to be filled before acceptance.

In the so-called discussion section (5) there is still lacks of the international characteristics. A strong background of the known knowledge is needed. Author only described the problem but did not provide the state of preparation on the world background. I suggest to add more examples from Europe where there is a lot of such a. events:

https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020364

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X19004801

https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/smartcity/vol2/iss1/4/

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166458

https://hdl.handle.net/2268/293640

 

Tables needs some improvements. See style for formatting

 

Conclusions are good but this section is to long (needs to be more synthetic and self-explicative

Limitations this section is missing as the study has several both limitations and strengths, that are simply not stated. Authors must put an additional effort on identifying, describing, and discussing these issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “Urban flood hazard assessment and management practices in South Asia: A review”, by B. Manandhar, S. Cui, L. Wang and S. Shrestha, presents an interesting work.

In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication but some serious problems must be repaired prior to publication. It needs some significant improvement. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. Please use different terms in the “Title” and the “Keywords”.
2. The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker. It is suggested to the authors to take the assistance of someone with English as mother tongue.
3. It would be useful to be described the aim of this paper.
4. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.
5. You could enrich the scientific literature.
6. Please justify convincingly why this manuscript (method, thematology etc) connected with LAND’s content and scope. Perhaps the using of proper literature from this journal would be helpful. See the following publication: Land Use Planning for Natural Hazards. Land, 8: 128
7. The authors could make discussion about the relationship between flood hazard assessment and urban planning from the following publication: Natural and Technological Hazards in Urban Areas: Assessment, Planning and Solutions. Sustainability, 13: 8301

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The Introduction section is a bit too long and provides similar information over and over again, kindly consider making it shorter and more concrete.  

2. Lines 108-110, it is better to show the numbers and graphs.

3. Table 1, how much rainfall do you consider that to be extreme?

4. Figure 2, perhaps you do not need this figure.  

5. The writing is not clear, kindly rewrite the paper and I will review it again.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors addressed all my comments. Thank you