The Assessment of Urbanization Effect and Sustainable Drainage Solutions on Flood Hazard by GIS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would like to say that this manuscript focuses on a very interesting research problem. The article covers the topics included in the main subjects of Sustainability Journal and I recommend to be considered for the publication after a revision.

TITLE

The article's title suggests the use of GIS tools in flood hazard modelling but I did not find any reference in the content of the paper as the tools were used to assess of Urbanization Effect and Sustainable Drainage Solutions on Flood Hazard. I have doubts if GIS was not used only to visualize the results and not as the title suggests for assessment.

Please add in the content of the article which tools were used for data modeling and which for evaluation. Please show that GIS was useful and necessary. If only for visualization I would remove it from the GIS title.

ABSTRACT

The abstract is well-designed and briefly express the present research thus being of interests and readable thus capturing the reader’s attention. It present in an appropriate manner the main research hypothesis, the problem statement, the methods and the main findings.

KEY WORDS

The key words are appropriate to the present research and are clearly stated.

ORIGINALITY

The article meets a high level of originality argued by the main research theme and the research hypothesis. Furthermore, the originality of the paper is highlighted by the main results of the paper.

The authors construct a well-designed theoretical background closely related to the current specialised literature in the field.

However, the bibliography can be complemented by existing GIS portals in different countries that generate flood hazard maps according to selected scenarios. There is a special fund for this in the European Union and in the reports you will find the state of implementation of flood protection systems for each country.

THE PAPER S STRUCTURE

The structure of the paper is not correct in line with the journal standards and not meet the publication requirements considering the paper logic. The objectives seem to not clear formulated. The core argument of the paper illustrates the paper relevance and the research originality. The results are not clearly express and well connected both to the theoretical framework and discussions.

No chapter 3.4, because the conclusion is 5 and 2 is Materials and Methods. This means that there are no results and no discussions - this needs to be fixed.

THE METHODS

The methodological design is appropriate and the methods fit well to the present investigation. QGIS and GIS are methods of a large interest in the present academic research but one clearly separate what is the method and what is the result of the test. Describe how the analyst influences the test results. Add a chapter about results and discussion. Describe which GIS tools are used for assessment and which are used only for visualization of test results.  

There are ready-made portals where the results with a flood map are made available with the probability of occurrence. Show why your methodology is better than ready-made portals.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions fit well summarising the main ideas of the present analysis. However, there are a little too few of them. Prove in the summary that you have achieved the main goal of the study.

THE GRAPHICAL SUPPORT

The graphical support is well formatted, appropriate illustrating the text content.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

I think the English is ok as far as I could see. I enjoyed to read this paper in English and the language seems well but I think that an opinion of a native English speaker is welcomed. In other words, if the authors used a specialised proofreading services and they could prove this aspect I trust the opinion and the work of this proofread service. On the other hand, I put my trust regarding the English language on the journal editors but I repeat the language seems well.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the theoretical background relating to the theoretical background I propose to supplement the literature review with the requirements of the European Union on making flood risks available in GIS systems. Indicate what features are taken into account in the risk analysis and how they influence the risk assessment. Prove that GIS is not only used to visualize assessment results but show the tools that are used for this purpose. Show what your method is and why it is worth using it. What is the innovation in your research and how you can use the obtained information. 

Suggestions

I want to see the revised version of this paper before publication for a final acceptance and to ensure that the revision has been completely and carefully made.

Finally, I recommend the publication of this paper with some revision considering the above mentioned aspects, references and citations but only if the authors take into account the proposed changes, adjust the formal requirements document and prove that the presented methodology is innovative and GIS does not serve only to present the results visually.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

TITLE

Point 1: The article's title suggests the use of GIS tools in flood hazard modelling but I did not find any reference in the content of the paper as the tools were used to assess of Urbanization Effect and Sustainable Drainage Solutions on Flood Hazard. I have doubts if GIS was not used only to visualize the results and not as the title suggests for assessment.

Please add in the content of the article which tools were used for data modeling and which for evaluation. Please show that GIS was useful and necessary. If only for visualization I would remove it from the GIS title.

Response 1:

• The 3D Analysis, Analysis, Spatial Analysis, Hec GeoRAS is used actively at this study. (Line No:186-188)
• The Building Areas, Road Areas, Open Areas were line format in base map so whole areas were redrawn as polygon format for calculating the areas on GIS Platform.(Line no:180-194-196 ). This process was completed in about 3 months. Because the good quality data is not found in Turkey. I drew building areas and road areas as polygon format for 60 sheet or layouts at 1/1000 scale instead of accepting so that I could calculate the flow rate and calculate the correct result. Thus, the edited data is saved in the ArcGIS geodatabase. Accordingly, I was able to calculate the actual flow rate in ArcGIS open attribute table by making different flow coefficients to road and building areas and then produce the Scenarios after this step.
• The hydrologic tools in the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst extension toolbox was used for describing the watershed area. The hydrologic tools allow users to determination of sinks and flow direction, flow direction determination, cumulative flow calculation, creation of watershed area and create stream network.(Line no:317-322)
• Accordingly, it was determined that how many buildings will be affected by the flooding at each scenario by using analysis and query tool for ArcGIS.

If I didn’t include the geodatabase on GIS, I could not the query.

Point 2: ABSTRACT ˅

The abstract is well-designed and briefly express the present research thus being of interests and readable thus capturing the reader’s attention. It present in an appropriate manner the main research hypothesis, the problem statement, the methods and the main findings.

Point 3: KEY WORDS ˅

The key words are appropriate to the present research and are clearly stated.

Point 4: ORIGINALITY

The article meets a high level of originality argued by the main research theme and the research hypothesis. Furthermore, the originality of the paper is highlighted by the main results of the paper.

The authors construct a well-designed theoretical background closely related to the current specialised literature in the field.

However, the bibliography can be complemented by existing GIS portals in different countries that generate flood hazard maps according to selected scenarios. There is a special fund for this in the European Union and in the reports you will find the state of implementation of flood protection systems for each country.

Response 4:

 I didn’t find the studies about for Turkey. If you give me detail information, I can adopted to my studies.

Point 5: THE PAPER S STRUCTURE

The structure of the paper is not correct in line with the journal standards and not meet the publication requirements considering the paper logic. The objectives seem to not clear formulated. The core argument of the paper illustrates the paper relevance and the research originality. The results are not clearly express and well connected both to the theoretical framework and discussions.

No chapter 3.4, because the conclusion is 5 and 2 is Materials and Methods. This means that there are no results and no discussions - this needs to be fixed.

Response 5:

Discussion and result section added and also conclusion re-arranged.

Point 6: THE METHODS ˅

The methodological design is appropriate and the methods fit well to the present investigation. QGIS and GIS are methods of a large interest in the present academic research but one clearly separate what is the method and what is the result of the test. Describe how the analyst influences the test results. Add a chapter about results and discussion. Describe which GIS tools are used for assessment and which are used only for visualization of test results.  

There are ready-made portals where the results with a flood map are made available with the probability of occurrence. Show why your methodology is better than ready-made portals.

Response 6:

In Turkey, there is a portal but it include the general stream watershed. It is very limited. My studies can give information to the city planner and administaration. Because I used to free software Hecras hydraulic model and also integrated to it to the GIS. It is very important studies for developing countries. I also added the explanation my article. Line no 356-360

Point 7: CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions fit well summarising the main ideas of the present analysis. However, there are a little too few of them. Prove in the summary that you have achieved the main goal of the study.

Response 7:

Revised this section.

Point 8: THE GRAPHICAL SUPPORT ˅

The graphical support is well formatted, appropriate illustrating the text content.

Point 9: THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ˅×

I think the English is ok as far as I could see. I enjoyed to read this paper in English and the language seems well but I think that an opinion of a native English speaker is welcomed. In other words, if the authors used a specialised proofreading services and they could prove this aspect I trust the opinion and the work of this proofread service. On the other hand, I put my trust regarding the English language on the journal editors but I repeat the language seems well.

Point 10: RECOMMENDATIONS

In the theoretical background relating to the theoretical background I propose to supplement the literature review with the requirements of the European Union on making flood risks available in GIS systems. Indicate what features are taken into account in the risk analysis and how they influence the risk assessment. Prove that GIS is not only used to visualize assessment results but show the tools that are used for this purpose. Show what your method is and why it is worth using it. What is the innovation in your research and how you can use the obtained information. 

Response 10:

The study meets the European flood directive. I added the information about this issue.

In the evaluation of risk, Directive the 2007/60/EC on the management of flood risk in the European Union (EU) take into account. This directive suggest that flood hazard maps shall cover the geographical areas which could be flooded according to the following scenarios:Line no:331-333

Not:In Turkey is not found the flood member list in the European Union

Point 11: Suggestions

I want to see the revised version of this paper before publication for a final acceptance and to ensure that the revision has been completely and carefully made.

Finally, I recommend the publication of this paper with some revision considering the above mentioned aspects, references and citations but only if the authors take into account the proposed changes, adjust the formal requirements document and prove that the presented methodology is innovative and GIS does not serve only to present the results visually.

Thank you very much for your valuable commend.

Reviewer 2 Report

A BRIEF SUMMARY

The paper titled “The Assessment of Urbanization Effect and Sustainable Drainage Solutions on Flood Hazard by GIS” presents a good topic for readers of this Journal. The topic represents a line of research as interesting as studied. The paper is not well structured.

The results are not carefully described and analysed in the paper. Finally, some open questions remain after reading the paper. Below is the list of some questions that need to be addressed.

• Why have you choose this study area? In my opinion, you have to add more details in “study area description”.
• Why the references is so few? Probably a more accurate references research could help to add value for this topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper. I have indicated some suggestions for specific section of paper, but more can be added to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.

Below I have reported the list of some lacks that you have to improve before to resubmit the manuscript.

• Hydrological and Hydraulic modelling is too poorly described. I have suggested some references to improve the work.
• Lack of the “Results and discussion” paragraph. This is a serious lack.
• In conclusion, the authors have to specify the novelty of the proposed approach and the future improvements.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

In the international literature, there are recent studies on “hydrological and hydraulic modelling”.

• Pellicani, R.; Parisi, A.; Iemmolo, G.; Apollonio, C. Economic Risk Evaluation in Urban Flooding and Instability-Prone Areas: The Case Study of San Giovanni Rotondo (Southern Italy). Geosciences 2018, 8, 112.
• Petroselli, A.; Florek, J.; Młyński, D.; Książek, L.; Wałęga, A. New Insights on Flood Mapping Procedure: Two Case Studies in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8454.
  
  
• Apollonio, C.; Bruno, M.F.; Iemmolo, G.; Molfetta, M.G.; Pellicani, R. Flood Risk Evaluation in Ungauged Coastal Areas: The Case Study of Ippocampo (Southern Italy). Water 2020, 12, 1466.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: A BRIEF SUMMARY

The paper titled “The Assessment of Urbanization Effect and Sustainable Drainage Solutions on Flood Hazard by GIS” presents a good topic for readers of this Journal. The topic represents a line of research as interesting as studied. The paper is not well structured.

The results are not carefully described and analysed in the paper. Finally, some open questions remain after reading the paper. Below is the list of some questions that need to be addressed.

 Response 1:

I revised the structure. For example. The discussion adn results added.

Point 2: Why have you choose this study area? In my opinion, you have to add more details in “study area description”.

Response 2:

Information added about the study area.

• Point 3: Why the references is so few? Probably a more accurate references research could help to add value for this topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper. I have indicated some suggestions for specific section of paper, but more can be added to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.

 Below I have reported the list of some lacks that you have to improve before to resubmit the manuscript.

  Point 4: Hydrological and Hydraulic modelling is too poorly described. I have suggested some references to improve the work.

Response 4:

Your article suggestion is very good for me thank you very much for this detail information. Accordingly the article, I expand my article hyydroulic and hydrology studies.

• Point 5: Lack of the “Results and discussion” paragraph. This is a serious lack.

Response 5:

They are added.

• Point 6: In conclusion, the authors have to specify the novelty of the proposed approach and the future improvements.

Response 6:

Added.

Point 7: SPECIFIC COMMENTS

In the international literature, there are recent studies on “hydrological and hydraulic modelling”.

• Pellicani, R.; Parisi, A.; Iemmolo, G.; Apollonio, C. Economic Risk Evaluation in Urban Flooding and Instability-Prone Areas: The Case Study of San Giovanni Rotondo (Southern Italy). Geosciences 2018, 8, 112.
• Petroselli, A.; Florek, J.; Młyński, D.; Książek, L.; Wałęga, A. New Insights on Flood Mapping Procedure: Two Case Studies in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8454.
  
  
• Apollonio, C.; Bruno, M.F.; Iemmolo, G.; Molfetta, M.G.; Pellicani, R. Flood Risk Evaluation in Ungauged Coastal Areas: The Case Study of Ippocampo (Southern Italy). Water 2020, 12, 1466.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author addressed most of my points. However, I feel that adding lines 331-335 is not enough to use the word GIS in the title. Expand on what you wrote for me in your reply using the names of the tools, perhaps show a screen shot of you performing the analysis. Asking questions to the model you prepared is part of data geoprocessing use phrases consistent with GIS nomenclature and supplement with keywords or change the title and if only for 3 months you modeled the data manually. You will find references in GIS literature that 80% of the time contains data preparation. Please detail your analysis with specific tool names and add a drawing of your analysis. Preferably add a GIS flow chart.

If the article is to be published in a journal it has to deal not only with local problems, so if Turkey is not on the list indicated in the review of the Report, describe this situation and thus justify the necessity of your research in this area. You should refer to the situation in Europe where such analyses are available on geoportals and performing them is not necessary because the results are available for download.  

However, the work has been corrected to a large extent, but please add the information above. I have mixed feelings about the innovativeness of the article and the use of GIS in the title but I gave hints as to how it can be solved. I am curious to know what the process of integrating the Hecras hydraulic model was like (I would like to know a few words about that and readers probably would too) and what tools were used for processing. Our reader needs to know what toolbox you used to get the results, or maybe you wrote the plugin yourself in Python from the text it is not clear it is too generally described and without using GIS nomenclature. You focused in the summary only on the integration of methods and the results were not discussed. You state in the title and the content that you will use GIS to type the areas and in the body of the article you did not describe the results of the analysis.

The results are not carefully described and analysed in the paper. Finally, some open questions remain after reading the paper. I understand that it is the method of integration with the hydro system that matters, but it seems that the results of the analysis should be included in the discussion because it looks strange. A non-Turkish reader may be surprised that such flood probability maps cannot be downloaded from Hydroportal, but have to be researched on their own. However, GIS tools for this purpose have been used for a long time and there is no innovation and own approach to do the analysis at least that is what the text implies.

I want to see the revised version of this paper before publication for a final acceptance and to ensure that the revision has been completely and carefully made.

Author Response

Point 1: The author addressed most of my points. However, I feel that adding lines 331-335 is not enough to use the word GIS in the title. Expand on what you wrote for me in your reply using the names of the tools, perhaps show a screen shot of you performing the analysis. Asking questions to the model you prepared is part of data geoprocessing use phrases consistent with GIS nomenclature and supplement with keywords or change the title and if only for 3 months you modeled the data manually. You will find references in GIS literature that 80% of the time contains data preparation. Please detail your analysis with specific tool names and add a drawing of your analysis. Preferably add a GIS flow chart.

Response 1:

First of all, thank you very much for your patience and contribution to the development of my article.

I used the ArcGIS for setting up to GIS platform. 3D Analyst Tools is used.For example TIN is used create a surface from base map.Conversiton tool is used from rater to TIN. From kml to kml etc.

Analyst tool is used actively especilay clip, select, erase, union etc. Becasue the base map is entegrated with GIS. Data Management tool is used for projection and transforamtion.

Editing tools, Spatial analyst Tools-Hydrology is used actively.

Heceoras is used for preparing the ras data for Hecras

I prepared the Workflow to easy understanding and also this workflow gives to road map to the readers. I added the article.

Figure 1.GIS Workflow

In Turkey, Data quality is not goood. For example the road polyline is not polygon format as shown below Figure 2. For the real flow rate calculation, I want to know the real road area so I drawn it as polygon format as shown figure 3.The map is scale 1:1000 and also I draw 60 sheet.

Figure 2 Autocad Base Map(1:1000)

Figure 3: Arranged Base Map(1:1000)

The clip analysis and editing has been made for all watershed. Accordingly, area was calculated for each watershed.

Figure 4: Arranged Base Map and Structure(1:1000)

Point 2: If the article is to be published in a journal it has to deal not only with local problems, so if Turkey is not on the list indicated in the review of the Report, describe this situation and thus justify the necessity of your research in this area. You should refer to the situation in Europe where such analyses are available on geoportals and performing them is not necessary because the results are available for download.  

Response 2: I added the explanation. Line no 148-161.

Note: Turkey Flood Map application does not show current or historic flood level but it shows all the area below set elevation."

this elevation flood map on its own is not sufficient for analysis of flood risk since there are many other factors involved. Surface runoff, flow diversion, land type etc. are also responsible for the flood coverage in addition to elevation. But this flood map should help in some extent in the following areas:

• Turkey Flood Map may be useful to some extent for flood risk assessment or in flood management, flood control etc.
• Turkey Flood Map may help to provide flood alert/flood warning if flood water level at certain point is rising.
• Turkey Flood Map can help to locate places at higher levels to escape from floods or in flood rescue/flood relief operation.
• It can also provide floodplain map and floodline map for streams and rivers.
• Effect of sea level rise or sea level change can be seen on the map. This could be helpful in coastal areas.
• Global Warmin and Sea Levele Rise are the effects of Climate Change
• It can help to perform elevation analysis of an area for any purpose like city/town planning, new construction etc.
• We also think that it can help in planning irrigation system and water management.
• By setting negative elevation, Bathymetry study is also possible.

The elevation layered on the map is in meters and is from sea level. The elevation is zero for the sea level. Negative elevation means depth below sea level.

Data Sources: Mazpzen, TNM, SRTM, GMTED, ETOPO1

Point 3: However, the work has been corrected to a large extent, but please add the information above. I have mixed feelings about the innovativeness of the article and the use of GIS in the title but I gave hints as to how it can be solved. I am curious to know what the process of integrating the Hecras hydraulic model was like (I would like to know a few words about that and readers probably would too) and what tools were used for processing. Our reader needs to know what toolbox you used to get the results, or maybe you wrote the plugin yourself in Python from the text it is not clear it is too generally described and without using GIS nomenclature. You focused in the summary only on the integration of methods and the results were not discussed. You state in the title and the content that you will use GIS to type the areas and in the body of the article you did not describe the results of the analysis.

Response 3: I tried to explain Hecras and its flow in the GIS workflow

Point 4: The results are not carefully described and analysed in the paper. Finally, some open questions remain after reading the paper. I understand that it is the method of integration with the hydro system that matters, but it seems that the results of the analysis should be included in the discussion because it looks strange. A non-Turkish reader may be surprised that such flood probability maps cannot be downloaded from Hydroportal, but have to be researched on their own. However, GIS tools for this purpose have been used for a long time and there is no innovation and own approach to do the analysis at least that is what the text implies.

Response 4: The results updated.

I want to see the revised version of this paper before publication for a final acceptance and to ensure that the revision has been completely and carefully made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I do not see the improvements required. For this reason I confirm the previous major revision, alternatively the authors could withdraw the paper and to proceed with a new submission.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: A BRIEF SUMMARY

The paper titled “The Assessment of Urbanization Effect and Sustainable Drainage Solutions on Flood Hazard by GIS” presents a good topic for readers of this Journal. The topic represents a line of research as interesting as studied. The paper is not well structured.

The results are not carefully described and analysed in the paper. Finally, some open questions remain after reading the paper. Below is the list of some questions that need to be addressed.

 Response 1:

I revised the structure. For example. The discussion and results added. Updated the results.

Point 2: Why have you choose this study area? In my opinion, you have to add more details in “study area description”.

Response 2:

Information added about the study area.Updated the study area information.

• Point 3: Why the references is so few? Probably a more accurate references research could help to add value for this topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper. I have indicated some suggestions for specific section of paper, but more can be added to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.

 Below I have reported the list of some lacks that you have to improve before to resubmit the manuscript.

  Point 4: Hydrological and Hydraulic modelling is too poorly described. I have suggested some references to improve the work.

Response 4:

Your article suggestion is very good for me thank you very much for this detail information. Accordingly the article, I expand my article hyydroulic and hydrology studies.For example, I added the rainfall ıntensity formula,sub catchment area, sub-catchment area flow rate.

• Point 5: Lack of the “Results and discussion” paragraph. This is a serious lack.

Response 5:

They are added and updated.

• Point 6: In conclusion, the authors have to specify the novelty of the proposed approach and the future improvements.

Response 6:

Added.

Point 7: SPECIFIC COMMENTS

In the international literature, there are recent studies on “hydrological and hydraulic modelling”.

• Pellicani, R.; Parisi, A.; Iemmolo, G.; Apollonio, C. Economic Risk Evaluation in Urban Flooding and Instability-Prone Areas: The Case Study of San Giovanni Rotondo (Southern Italy). Geosciences 2018, 8, 112.
• Petroselli, A.; Florek, J.; Młyński, D.; Książek, L.; Wałęga, A. New Insights on Flood Mapping Procedure: Two Case Studies in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8454.
  
  
• Apollonio, C.; Bruno, M.F.; Iemmolo, G.; Molfetta, M.G.; Pellicani, R. Flood Risk Evaluation in Ungauged Coastal Areas: The Case Study of Ippocampo (Southern Italy). Water 2020, 12, 1466.
• Response 7: I read all of the article. I referred the first article. Thanksyou very mmuch again.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the enormity of work done. I really hope that they will agree with the reviewer that the article has benefited from the changes introduced.

To be honest, I am not yet sure that such a literature review is sufficient. Works completed I agree but a deeper review of international literature is missing.  Additionally, I don't know if the method can be so easily adapted to other situations; if it is universal. I think that both the method description and the introduction should be improved and the remaining chapters are acceptable in this form. The article is better in terms of quality, but the description of the methodology of using GIS is vague and does not convince me that GIS is not only a tool for visualization. The title does not spoil in this case.

Author Response

Point 1:. I would like to thank the authors for the enormity of work done. I really hope that they will agree with the reviewer that the article has benefited from the changes introduced.

To be honest, I am not yet sure that such a literature review is sufficient. Works completed I agree but a deeper review of international literature is missing.  Additionally, I don't know if the method can be so easily adapted to other situations; if it is universal. I think that both the method description and the introduction should be improved and the remaining chapters are acceptable in this form. The article is better in terms of quality, but the description of the methodology of using GIS is vague and does not convince me that GIS is not only a tool for visualization. The title does not spoil in this case.

Response 1:

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments and quick returns. Every comment you make has taken my article one step further.

I refer to my article more studies to expand the literature study (Ref no:7-28-30-31-31-34-35-36-37-39)

Some references added the methodology section for increasing the vulnerability. Line 477-481 added.

For example, in the introduction, there are examples of international studies made in all of the topics such as GI, flood, GIS, if there are other sources or sections that you suggest, I would be pleased to expand them.

Thanks to the GIS database, hydraulic analysis( flow direction, accumulation, watershed area etc), spatial query and integrated management has been made,after  these steps visual maps were created. GIS is needed to create such a map and integrate it with other sustainable solutions.If we don^t use the GIS, data management will be very hard. We gave the different runoff coefficient to the road area, building are and open area. If we did not added this base map and formatted on GIS, we can not make the rapid scenarios changes. GIS is not only storaged the geometric data but also I calculated the area on attribute table and then easy adopt the flow calculation as shown workflow.

Thank you again for your valuable comments

Reviewer 2 Report

At line 352: You have to replace “Roberto et al. 2018” with “Pellicani et al. 2018”.

Author Response

Point 1:. At line 352: You have to replace “Roberto et al. 2018” with “Pellicani et al. 2018”.

Response 1:

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments and quick returns.

I replaced the “Roberto et al. 2018” with “Pellicani et al. 2018”.
I refer to my article more studies to expand the literature study (Ref no:7-28-30-31-31-34-35-36-37-39)

Some references added the methodology section for increasing the vulnerability. Line 477-481 added.

Thank you again for your valuable comments