Street Community-Level Urban Flood Risk Assessment Based on Numerical Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the SCS-CN hydrological model and GIS coupled numerical simulation method were used to simulate the urban flooding inundation in four different rainfall return periods in Zhengzhou City, and a refined evaluation framework for urban flooding was constructed with buildings as the basic evaluation unit. The overall logic of the article is reasonable, and the research is innovative and has a certain significance in guiding future urban flood relief. Some of the problems are listed below:

1. In the introduction, the authors did not describe clearly the advantages and disadvantages of several urban flood risk assessment methods.

2. Different soil types have different rates of water uptake, thus producing differences in waterlogging in different areas. Soil type should be briefly expressed as an influencing factor when modelling waterlogging.

3. 4.1.1 In the first paragraph, the author's rationale for choosing a rain peak coefficient of 0.433 is not clearly stated.

4. In 4.2.2, the authors argue that waterlogging hazards are not only related to the intensity and elevation of rainfall, but also to the drainage intensity of the city, so does the drainage capacity of the urban area contribute to the inaccuracy of the modelling results?

5.The conclusions are summarised too poorly, and the results of the flood risk assessment of Zhengzhou City, which were obtained by simulation in this study, are not presented clearly.

6. The pictures are not very clear, as in Figure 2 it is not possible to see the map of the community.

7. The data in table VI are missing units.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, we have made changes to the specifics of the article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is interesting and obtained results are very useful.

The authors need to make some corrections in order to improve the manuscript:   

1.      It is necessary to change the title and mention urban waterlogging, because old title is too general.    

2.      Line 47.: Authors should write a full name of GIS and SCS-CN (line 132) method in the bracket.

3.      Line 325: Figure 6. Authors should explain these graphs in Fig.6. and give appropriate discussion.

4.       It could be better to change place and to put first Fig.7. and after that Fig. 6.

5.      Table 9. Please explain what happened with entertainment buildings? Why is 0 in all column?

6.      Line 644. This should be stayed in a conclusion part.

7.      Conclusion: In conclusion, please write, what is the best thing to do to prevent waterlogging, what is the best plan to prevent waterlogging.

Authors should insert chapter 4.2.5. into conclusion part.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, we have made changes to the specifics of the article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript (sustainability-3100851) tries to utilize the SCS-CN hydrological model and GIS coupling numerical simulation method to simulate the inundation of urban waterlogging under four different rainfall return periods. Scientific and accurate assessment of waterlogging disaster losses is of scientific significance for the formulation of disaster prevention and mitigation measures. Overall, this is a complete research that fits the scope of the Sustainability journal. That being said, I have some major comments and suggestion presented as follows.

- . First of all, the title of the manuscript "Fine risk assessment" is a bit confusing. Please specify the type of risks, such as urban waterlogging.

- . The authors should comprehensively review the research progress in related fields and clarify the research's innovations and contributions.

- . The data collection and processing section should provide detailed information on the data source, sampling method, data preprocessing steps, and the rationality of any assumptions, rather than simply listing a table.

- . This study relies on accurate rainfall, building, and geospatial data. The accuracy and spatial resolution of the data are not clearly mentioned in the paper, which may affect the reliability of the simulation results.

- . This study should construct a clear theoretical framework to guide research design, data analysis, and interpretation of results.

- . The reasons for choosing the SCS-CN model and the methods and basis for determining key parameters in the model (such as CN values) should be explained in detail. The selection of CN values ​​directly affects the simulation results, and its source and applicability must be clarified.

- . The applicability of the SCS-CN model may be limited in certain regions or under certain conditions. Studies should clearly state the scope and limitations of the model.

- . The authors said that the analysis is based on disasters, exposure and vulnerability, but the specific methods and indicator selection of vulnerability analysis are not explained in detail. It is recommended to clarify the specific indicators of vulnerability assessment (such as building materials, structural strength, economic value, etc.) and explain the basis for their weight allocation.

- . The manuscript does not clearly compare the latest research progress in the field of urban waterlogging risk assessment, especially the research related to buildings and urban waterlogging. Please refer to below.

Assessing the scale effect of urban vertical patterns on urban waterlogging: an empirical study in Shenzhen, 2024, 107486

The Resilience of the Built Environment to Flooding: The Case of Alappuzha District in the South Indian State of Kerala. Sustainability. 2024

- . The explanation of simulation results and risk assessment results is not in-depth enough. It is recommended to analyze the causes of flooding, risk distribution patterns and potential impacts in depth based on specific cases or regional characteristics.

- . Although the study puts forward suggestions for optimizing drainage work, the pertinence and operability of specific measures need to be strengthened. It is recommended to put forward more specific and feasible policy recommendations based on the risk assessment results, such as differentiated governance measures for areas with different risk levels.

- . This study is targeted at the specific situation of Zhengzhou City, and the universality and promotion of its research results need to be further verified. It is recommended to discuss the limitations of the research results and explore how to apply similar research methods in other cities and regions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, we have made changes to the specifics of the article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has  significantly revised according to previous comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has thoroughly edited the work and incorporated the points I recommended. I am pleased to accept this research for publication.