Assessing the Implication of Climate Change to Forecast Future Flood Using SWAT and HEC-RAS Model under CMIP5 Climate Projection in Upper Nan Watershed, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled ‘Assessing the Implication of Climate Change to Forecast Future Flood Using SWAT and HEC-RAS Model under CMIP5 Climate Projection in Upper Nan Watershed, Thailand’ is written well and has no vague statements. The paper is up to the merit and can provide more insights in the field. Thus, I am recommending it after the below minor comments.
Minor Comments
Line 31-34: you are stating an overall study. More citations are needed on your statement supporting your claim.
Line 52: The authors are talking about several studies but not mentioning them. Citations missing. At least 4-6. There have been a lot of work done on this area.
Line 55: First time always use the full name rather than abbreviation. Change MPI-ESM-MR > to its full form.
Line 93: add 2-3 lines explaining the rest of paper as sections.
Line 106: Missing citation
Line 142-143: Missing source link from where data was extracted/retrieved
Line 395-396: The calibration and validation phase in SWAT model…. Insert citation
Please check all the equations in detail to make it more appropriate.
Line 423-434: Compare your results with other studies about both RCPs author utilized in this study.
Figure 3 resolution very low. Improve that
Line 443-448: Validate your results with respect to previous studies.
Check all references, not to miss in the text and in the list.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your recommendation and review of this manuscript. Related to the comments you already have, we provide the response as follows:
Point 1: Line 31-34: you are stating an overall study. More citations are needed on your statement supporting your claim.
Response 1: we provide 7 new citations to support the statement written in this manuscript. This new citation are as follows:
- Held and Soden (2006),
- Trenberth (2011),
- Petpongpan et al. (2022),
- Gunathilake et al. (2020),
- Komori et al. (2017),
- Akpodiogaga-a and O. Odjugo (2010),
- Almazroui et al. (2012)
Point 2: Line 52: The authors are talking about several studies but not mentioning them. Citations missing. At least 4-6. There have been a lot of work done on this area.
Response 2: we provide the citation (line 53-54) as mention in the text as follows:
- Chen et al. (2021),
- Rojpratak and Supharatid (2022),
- Niu et al. (2021),
- Wang et al. (2021),
- Deng, et al. (2021),
- Chen et al. (2020).
Point 3: Line 55: First time always use the full name rather than abbreviation. Change MPI-ESM-MR > to its full form.
Response 3: all abbreviation including MPI-ESM-MR (line 57) already change to full name in first time show in this manuscript.
Point 4: Line 93: add 2-3 lines explaining the rest of paper as sections.
Response 4: already added paper’s section explanation in line 106-110
Point 5: Line 106: Missing citation
Response 5: adding the citation as follows: FAO, “FAO Digital Soil Map of the World (DSMW)” found in line 21
Point 6: Line 142-143: Missing source link from where data was extracted/retrieved
Response 6: adding the link as follows: https://www4.tmd.go.th/ found in line 160
Point 7: Line 395-396: The calibration and validation phase in SWAT model…. Insert citation
Response 7: we provide the citation (line 422) as follows:
- Arnold et al. (2012),
- Abbaspour (2015).
Point 8: Please check all the equations in detail to make it more appropriate.
Response 8: all equation already checks and revised to more appropriate looks (line 198, 206, 213, 302, 324, and 348)
Point 9: Line 423-434: Compare your results with other studies about both RCPs author utilized in this study.
Response 9: we provide other studies comparison (line 462-465) as follows: Tabucanon et al. (2021)
Point 10: Figure 3 resolution very low. Improve that
Response 10: Figure 3’s resolution already improved from 96 ppi to 220 ppi (line 395).
Point 11: Line 443-448: Validate your results with respect to previous studies.
Response 11: we provide previous studies (line 479-481) as follows: Promping and Tingsanchali (2022)
Reviewer 2 Report
Review for sustainability-2250583: “Assessing the Implication of Climate Change to Forecast Future 2 Flood Using SWAT and HEC-RAS Model under CMIP5 Cli-3 mate Projection in Upper Nan Watershed, Thailand”
The study focuses on the how future climate change will affect the rainfall, streamflow, and flooding in the Upper Nan Watershed, northern Thailand using SWAT and HEC-RAS.
Please see below for improving the quality of the manuscript. The paper can be published after applying minor revisions.
The keywords can be written in alphabetical order. Please add “rainfall assessment” to your keywords.
Please give some references for the sentence in line 31 – 32, one for increase and one for decrease.
Line 52, add reference to the sentence.
Line 62, add reference to the sentence.
Modify the introduction by improving the background of the study by adding more related papers to your study. Specially focus on the studies which have done before and show the similarities and differences between your study and the previous ones.
Kling Gupta efficiency (KGE) is a great evaluation metric in hydrological modeling. Please calculate this metric and add it to your results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your recommendation and review of this manuscript. Related to the comments you already have, we provide the response as follows:
Point 1: The keywords can be written in alphabetical order. Please add “rainfall assessment” to your keywords.
Response 1: we revised the order of keyword in alphabetical order.
Point 2: Please give some references for the sentence in line 31 – 32, one for increase and one for decrease.
Response 2: we provide references (line 31-32) as follows:
increase
- Petpongpan et al. (2022),
- Gunathilake et al. (2020),
- Komori et al. (2018).
decrease
- Akpodiogaga-a and Odjugo (2010),
- Almazroui et al. (2012).
Point 3: Line 52, add reference to the sentence.
Response 3: we provide references (line 53-54) as follows:
- Chen et al. (2021),
- Rojpratak and Supharatid (2022),
- Niu, et al. (2021),
- Wang et al. (2021),
- Deng et al. (2021),
- Chen et al. (2020).
Point 4: Line 62, add reference to the sentence.
Response 4: we provide references (line 66) as follows:
- IPCC (2014),
- Dukat et al. (2022),
- Mansouri et al. (2019).
Point 5: Modify the introduction by improving the background of the study by adding more related papers to your study. Specially focus on the studies which have done before and show the similarities and differences between your study and the previous ones.
Response 5: we modify the introduction as written in line 87-96 by adding several related paper.
Point 6: Kling Gupta efficiency (KGE) is a great evaluation metric in hydrological modeling. Please calculate this metric and add it to your results.
Response 6: we add Kling Gupta Efficiency (KGE) for SWAT model evaluation (line 285-309, 421-438).
Reviewer 3 Report
The study shows a complete evaluation on streamflow and a flood map. There are few suggestions:
1.The study strongly depends on the flood map from GISTDA, Give more information about how to generate the map, including basic concept or procedure to encourage the authenticity.
2. Line 210, the refinement area in river valley and the area next to is is used a 10X10 meter grid. Where does the data come from?
3. Why did the validation of the flood area map be extracted using 100X100 meter fishnet grid? as your mention, the simulation is from 50X50 meter grid. May be a more explanation and an evaluation the uncertainty.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your recommendation and review of this manuscript. Related to the comments you already have, we provide the response as follows:
Point 1: The study strongly depends on the flood map from GISTDA, Give more information about how to generate the map, including basic concept or procedure to encourage the authenticity.
Response 1: we provide more information related the procedure for generate the flood map (line 258-259).
Point 2: Line 210, the refinement area in river valley and the area next to is is used a 10X10 meter grid. Where does the data come from?
Response 2: we provide more information related procedure of generate the perimeter mesh of 50 x 50-meter and 10 x 10-meter refinement area (line 230-232).
Point 3: Why did the validation of the flood area map be extracted using 100X100 meter fishnet grid? as your mention, the simulation is from 50X50 meter grid. May be a more explanation and an evaluation the uncertainty.
Response 3: we increase the flood area validation grid from 100 x 100-meter to 50 x 50-meter to match with the size of simulation grid (line 321-323, 495-497).
Point 4: Extensive editing of English language and style required
Reponses 4: we already got the manuscript edited for language and style, with the certificate indicated in attachment. However, if the language and style considered need to improve further, we will get this manuscript for language and style editing again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
