Pluvial Flood Risk Assessment in Urban Areas: A Case Study for the Archaeological Site of the Roman Agora, Athens
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors present an analysis focused on the assessment of flood hazard for the archeological site of the Roman Agora, located in an urban area in Athens (Greece). After properly analyzing the topographic and hydrological (drainage system included) characteristics of the study area, they develop a methodological procedure for assessing flood hazard in urban areas by directly routing rainfall events over a high-resolution DTM, by means of the open-source 2D hydraulic modelling software HEC-RAS applied with the “rain-on-grid” scheme. A 0.2m resolution DTM with extruded buildings is used and net rainfall is estimated based on ombrian curves and the US SCS CN method. A total of 36 scenarios are simulated (i.e., 6 return periods from 5 to 1000 years; 3 different soil infiltration conditions, expressed in terms of CN; 2 durations of 1 h and 2 h) and the corresponding maximum flow depth flood maps are derived and uploaded in an intelligent decision-support system for the protection of monuments.
In my opinion, the study is meaningful since its results are included in a platform (ARCHYTAS) used as a decision support system for the protection of monumental structures. The paper is clear and well structured: the Introduction provides a comprehensive overview and properly motivates the study itself; the research design is appropriate (i.e., detailed description of the study area and the methods) and the conclusions are properly supported by the results. I believe that the study is suitable for publication in Heritage MDPI after the Authors address the minor issues reported in the comments below, mainly related to minor editing of text.
Together with the attached annotated version of the article, here are some general and technical comments:
(1) I found the analysis particularly meaningful since its results are included in the ARCHYTAS platform. On the other hand, the Authors do not provide information on the accessibility of the platform itself. I would suggest clarifying which are the users of ARCHYTAS platform and specifying if that is publicly available (in this case, please provide a web-link to access it).
(2) I would suggest improving the description of the US SCS CN method (Section 3.1) by rephrasing the sentences at lines 153-156, in order to clarify the difference between h_a0 ("entire amount of rainfall") and h ("total rainfall depth"). In the present form, it is quite difficult to distinguish between them.
(3) The Authors state that 0.2m resolution DTM (Digital Terrain Model) is used for the analysis, but in the caption of Figure 2 they refer to “DSM” (Digital Surface Model). I would suggest clarifying if the analysis was based on a DSM (term used in Figure 2) or on a DTM (term used anywhere else in the body of the text) that was properly modified to add the elevations surface of the buildings of interest. In this latter case, I would suggest using “DTM with buildings” or similar in the caption of Figure 2.
(4) Section 4.2, lines 328-331. The Authors refer to Figure 5 a and c, when comparing two scenarios with same duration (1 h) but different return period and CN. However, please note that while the first scenario (D=1h, 50-year RP and CN=85) seems to be represented in Figure 5 d (not “a” nor “c”), the second scenario (D=1h, 100-year RP and CN=75) is not reported at all in Figure 5. Please update Figure 5 in order to report flood maps consistent with what described in the body of the text.
(5) Other specific and technical comments can be found in the attached annotated version of the article. Please consider carefully all of them.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of English language is good. Only minor editing is required (typos).
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very well constructed article. It clearly establishes the purpose of the research and presents the data and results that support the conclusions. The article is polished and clearly written.
I only had two comments to make which I have put into the manuscript attached here (page 1 and page 7). Neither are essential changes for acceptance but could be considered by the authors.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
