Assessment of Rainstorm Waterlogging Disaster Risk in Rapidly Urbanizing Areas Based on Land Use Scenario Simulation: A Case Study of Jiangqiao Town in Shanghai, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled: “Assessment of Rainstorm Waterlogging Disaster Risk in Rapidly
Urbanizing Areas Based on the Land Use Scenarios Simulation: A Case Study of
Jiangqiao Town in Shanghai, China” is interesting. The topic of the manuscript is very important due to the rapid urbanization. The persistent sealing of the catchment area and the associated flood risk is the current problem due to the climate change.
The aim of the study was to simulate and assess the rainstorm waterlogging disaster risk in 2040. Authors have analysed three land use scenarios: the natural development scenario, the economic growth scenario, and the ecological development priority scenario. The analysis was performed for three return periods: 1/10-, 1/50- and 1/100-year.
The obtained results show that the land use change is an important factor in the flood risk. Authors have found that economic losses are different in diversified land use scenarios.
Authors have emphasized that the study described in the manuscript has an important value for optimization and assessment of rainstorm waterlogging disaster risk in urbanized areas.
Below are presented specific comments to the Manuscript: land-3086538.
1. The order of subsections in the last section of the manuscript should be corrected. The subsection “4.1 Conclusions” is placed before the subsection “4.2 Discussion”. The discussion should come before the conclusions.
2 . The subsection “Discussion” can be improved. Authors could increase the number of publications to which they refer and with which they compare obtained results.
3. Authors could explain if they took into account the fact that the urbanization and expansion of residential areas will result in the expansion of rainwater drainage systems. Therefore, the risk of flooding and waterlogging can be reduced to a certain extent, because a large part of the rainwater will be discharged into storm sewage systems?
4. In the section 2.2, in line 136, Authors have reported 3 return periods: 1/10-, 1/50- and 1/100-year. If possible, Authors could more detailed describe these parameters. What is the unit of the return period in this case. Is it (1/year) or (year)? In many countries the return period is specified in years.
5. What is the unit of the parameter f(x) given in formulas from (2) to (5) (in lines 143 - 146)? Is it the same like the unit (%) in the Table 1?
6. Line 174 – Please, clarify whether CN is a dimensionless parameter?
7. Please, explain the meaning of A, B, C, and D in Table 3?
8. Lines 185 – 186 – Please, explain the meaning of the expression: “…areas with small terrain fluctuations in the study area”. Is the expression “terrain fluctuations” correct in this case?
9.Table 6 – the expression “Grenn land” should be replaced by “Green land”.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of this paper. We have carefully considered all the points you mentioned and made revisions based on your pieces of advice. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper reports on a case study of model-based assessment of flood damages for a region near Shanghai. Three rainstorm scenario’s are used. Also, the impacts of three different future land use strategies on flood depths and damages are explored. A main conclusion is that a more ‘ecological’ land use pattern will result in relatively less flood damage, although the difference with other land use developments becomes less as the rainstorm scenario is more serious.
The overall structure of the paper is clear and pretty straightforward. Ample technical detail on the modeling approaches and data/assumptions used is provided. For better reading by non-specialists, parts of these details might better be shifted to one or more appendices.
Conclusions are interesting but not very surprising given the knowledge and assumptions about run-off of different types of soil usage. The paper’s broader interest is in providing a fairly complete case-study that can serve as illustration for other cases.
I provide the following more specific comments and suggestions:
The authors talk about ‘optimizing’ land use in several places, however, there is no mention of what is to be optimized. This needs to be explicated. Probably, they look for minimum flood damage. However, even if the optimization would be economic only, braoder trade-offs would need to be taken into account – my suggestion is therefore to avoid the term ‘optimization’ altogether.
Table 3: not clear at this stage what the A, B, C and D columns are. Explain. Earlier, letters A,B and D were used to indicate soil type. Confusing!
Line 190: W is defined twice, S is not
Lines 305-306: twice explanation of scenario EG??
380: shouldn’t ‘resilience’ be replaced by ‘vulnerability’? The analysis presented is limited to (direct) damage assessments, while resilience is a broader concept.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of this paper. We have carefully considered all the points you mentioned and made revisions based on your pieces of advice. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study presents a comprehensive assessment of rainstorm waterlogging disaster risk in Jiangqiao Town, Shanghai, by integrating land use scenarios and rainstorm scenarios. The paper is well-structured, with clear objectives and methodologies. However, there are several areas where the paper can be improved to enhance clarity, depth, and impact.
1. The introduction provides a good background but can benefit from a clearer articulation of the research gap. Highlight what specific new insights this study brings compared to previous studies.
2. Provide more details on the validation of the land use simulations and the accuracy of the models used.
3. It is recommended to introduce a discussion on risk thresholds to measure when land use strategies begin to significantly reduce flood risk.
4. The discussion section should delve deeper into the implications of the findings for urban planning and policy-making. Highlight practical recommendations for policymakers based on the study results.
5. Provide the basis or objectives for the design of future land use scenarios (such as Scenario EP) to support the demonstration of their effectiveness in flood risk management.
6. The conclusion could be strengthened by explicitly stating the contributions of the study to the existing body of knowledge.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of this paper. We have carefully considered all the points you mentioned and made revisions based on your pieces of advice. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more other comments.
