Integration of UH SUH, HEC-RAS, and GIS in Flood Mitigation with Flood Forecasting and Early Warning System for Gilireng Watershed, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper delves into flood forecasting and early warning systems. To that purpose the authors developed an approach based on the integration of models (UH SUH, HECRAS 2D) and GIS. 

The topic addressed by the authors is undoubtedly relevant, and the manuscript is written in a clear and comprehensible manner, making it easy to follow. However, I am hesitant to recommend its publication at this stage. The presentation of the research falls short of the standard expected for a scientific paper

The main limitations of this work are reported below.

1. Lack of motivation. In their introduction, the authors failed to underscore the importance and relevance of their research in light of existing literature. Almost all the references mentioned in the introduction are of secondary importance and not relevant. Indeed, a significant amount of work has been done on this topic in recent years. I suggest referring to papers 1-6 mentioned at the end of my review (and all the references theauthors can find there) to provide a suitable literature framework.

2. Lack of novelty. Due to the absence of a proper literature framework, no gap in the literature has been identified. Therefore, the novelty of the work cannot be appreciated. I suggest highlighting the novel issue the authors aim to address, considering the paper I mentioned above, and possibly similar ones.

3. Section 2.1. I understand that the authors utilized an approach validated for their respective areas, but certain critical aspects arise that necessitate further discussion. For instance, the peak time (as per equation 1) is determined solely by watershed geomorphological features. However, numerous authors have demonstrated that response times decrease with higher rainfall intensities (refer to, for example, references 7-11 reported at the end of my review). Therefore, I suggest that the authors clarify why they treat it as a constant value.

4. In Table 1, I find it peculiar to see a threshold value set at precisely 0.76 meters. Are the authors implying that estimating values down to the centimeter level is crucial? Given the inherent uncertainties in the data, it seems unlikely that such precision is warranted.

5. Some figures in the results section are hard to read (Figures 7, 9 and 10). Moreover, the table included in Figure 10 is not written in English. Finally, Figure 10 highlights evacuation routes but how the authors have identified this is not explained in the text.

6. Discussion: This section primarily focuses on local circumstances, which may lack broader relevance to an international audience. I recommend summarizing these aspects and instead emphasizing the scientific significance of the study. It would be beneficial to discuss both the advantages and limitations of the approach employed here compared to similar studies in the literature.

7. Conclusions. The current conclusion section lacks depth and fails to provide meaningful insights from a scientific standpoint. It predominantly presents numerical data without contextualizing the study's contributions to the existing literature or its relevance to an international audience. I suggest revising this section to clearly outline the advancements made by the study and its implications for future research in the field.

For these reasons, I recommend Major Revision. 

 

Cited works

1. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-48065-y

2. DOI: 10.1029/2023WR034599

3. DOI: 10.1029/2019WR025583

4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.055

5. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-03855-7

6. DOI 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131076

7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.005

8. DOI: 10.1080/02626669609491475

9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127870

10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.06.039

11. DOI: 10.2478/johh-2018-0043 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the english language and style should be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Please see the attachment

Best Regard,
Muhammad Rifaldi Mustamin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Please see the attachment

Best Regard,
Muhammad Rifaldi Mustamin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided several clarifications and additions to the manuscript. Almost all of my comments and suggestions have been addressed by the authors. I believe that the manuscript has been improved.

I have no further comments to make.

The paper can be published in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your evaluation and direction to improve the quality of our journal.

Best Regard,
Muhammad Rifaldi Mustamin

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved previous version of the paper and solved all the observations and suggested corrections. Only the following minor issues were detected:

R 86, R164 HEC-RAS. Be consistent throughout the paper with the hyphenation

R126-127 and R173-175 Now you repeated the information re: the source and resolution of the DEM

R175 + R390 River topo-bathymetric measurement

R265 The reservoir supplies irrigation water, not the dam

R270 can be attenuated by the p. reservoir

R 197-205, R 289-292 and Fig. 10 Where is this verification of flood depths made? What does flood point mean in terms of location?

Therefore I recommend the paper to be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Please see the attachment

Best Regard,
Muhammad Rifaldi Mustamin

Author Response File: Author Response.docx