Pluvial Flood Susceptibility in the Local Community of the City of Gospić (Croatia)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for submitting your paper.
This study develops a GIS-MCDA model to assess PF susceptibility zones in Gospić based on topographical, environmental, and hydrological factors, and examines the public risk perception. The findings can inform further research in Croatia and guide decision-makers in implementing risk mitigation strategies.
We have carefully read your manuscript and have the following revision suggestions.
1. Your paper, as a scientific paper, should highlight your innovation and contribution, rather than just being a survey report. We suggest that you clearly distinguish your research from the existing literature in terms of differences and advantages, and the significance of your research for theory and practice.
2. Your Figure 2, as a method flowchart, contains too much information, making it difficult to read and understand. We suggest that you adjust the layout of the figure, simplify the content, or split the figure into multiple figures, to clearly show your method steps and results.
3. Your survey questionnaire design is one of the core contents of your research. We think that you should put its specific content in the appendix, so that readers and reviewers can view and evaluate the validity and reliability of your questionnaire.
4. You mentioned Figure 3 on line 174, but I think you should refer to Figure 4 here in the article. Please check if your numbers are correct.
5. Your paper focuses on practical application and the description of conclusions and recommendations, but we wonder whether you need to improve and reflect on your method in the discussion section, such as the limitations of your method, the source and quality of your data, the generalizability of your results, etc. This can increase the depth and persuasiveness of your paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript (sustainability-2748551) tries to create a GIS-MCDA model of pluvial flood susceptibility zones based on topographical, environmental, and hydrological criteria and investigate the public perception of risk in Gospić, Croatia. Results from this research can be a starting point for further research in Croatia and guidelines for decision-makers in implementing a risk mitigation strategy. Although it is an easy-to-follow manuscript, it is not entirely new to use these normal methods in pluvial flood susceptibility assessment. Another very serious concern is that some related studies have been neglected. A detailed literature review must be conducted. Therefore, a “Major Revision” is required. My suggestions and comments are presented as follows:
- 1. First of all, the overall structure of the paper needs to be deepened and the significance and innovation of the research needs to be further demonstrated.
- 2. Both the Abstract and the Introduction Section are weak because the authors did not clearly raise an important scientific question or gap related to flood risk susceptibility assessment. Therefore, potential readers can hardly identify the need that the authors should have to provide a new solution from an international perspective. What I have learned from the introduction is that the authors applied some previous established models to a specific study area (in Gospić, Croatia). Note that those methods are not new methods or concepts in pluvial flood susceptibility assessment.
- 3. The novelty / originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. In particular, the authors need to look further into the latest research in this field, especially in the past three years. Actually, the literature review is totally missing.
- 4. At the end of the Introduction, the authors have mentioned some studies related to flood risk susceptibility assessment, but without mentioning the disadvantages of these studies. See below for an example.
Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Risk Anal. 2013, 33, 464: 24–49.
- 5. In Figure 1. Study area - Gospić: please provide the coordinates of this study area.
- 6. In Section 3.2. Questionnaire design: please provide the full detailed questionnaire.
- 7. In Section GIS-MCDA pluvial flood susceptibility model, the authors failed to provide many specific details of the input data, such as the pre-processing processes, date, resolution, and accuracies. I suggest the authors to provide this information in a new table.
- 8. Elevation (ELV), slope (SLO), planar curvature (PLAN), stream distance (SD), stream power index (SPI), land cover (LULC), road distance (RD), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and historical PF density (FD). Please explain convincingly why these and just these triggering factors have been selected in this analysis. In addition, some key factors have been ignored, please refer to the below for reference.
Evaluating the association between morphological characteristics of urban land and pluvial floods using machine learning methods. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2023, 104891.
- 9. The numbering of the different sections and subsections is disordered.
- 10. Please clearly explain what are the connections between the results of the questionnaire and the GIS-MCDA spatial analysis for pluvial flood susceptibility assessment.
- 11. The authors need to explain more clearly how to determine these set of weights in the Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.
- 12. Discussions: Basically, there is no discussion. And the number of International references is not enough.
- 13. The authors also need to improve the Conclusion Sections by mentioning the main shortages of your work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Here you can find my comments and suggestions,
Best wishes,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents the results of a GIS-modeling study that attempts to identify pluvial flooding susceptibility zones in tandem with a survey to ascertain public perception of risk with the goal of improving mitigation. Please see my comments and questions below, but overall you need to show how the work in this manuscript is novel and specifically how it contributes to knowledge of pluvial-flood susceptibility and public perception of risk.
Line 13: Include the country where Gospić is located.
Line 17: Add “the” in “The reliability of the questionnaire . . .”
Introduction: Is there a measurable hypothesis associated with this research? How can the results of this study be assessed?
Introduction: What is novel about the research? How does it build on previous work? Or is this a case study that employs existing methods to a specific watershed/region/city?
Line 72: Omit “around” for such a specific population.
Lines 73-74: Provide a table or more detailed accounting of land uses within the watershed. For example, what portion of the watershed is urbanized? What portion of Gospić is urbanized or covered with impermeable surfaces? Have streams been straightened and channelized? To what extent have humans modified the flow of water?
Lines 77-80: Provide a table indicating average precipitation and streamflow data throughout the year.
Figure 1: A table accompanying Figure 1 identifying historical floods would be useful to provide context for the extent of flooding.
Line 105: What demographic variables were considered? The selection process needs to be more clearly defined.
Figure 3: Not necessary.
Line 177: What is the resolution of the imagery?
Figure 4 is not referenced or described within the text. What is the legend referring to?
Public perception of risk: A table displaying the collected sociodemographic data would be useful. Some of these categories seem quite large and thus their importance is questionable, such as an age group of 18 to 59.
Public perception of risk: Was an analysis performed of the correlation between sociodemographic data to the perceptions of risk? For example, what are the perceptions of those earning a high income vs. those earning a low income, or those with university education vs. those without, or the older generation compared to the younger generations?
Lines 327-328: Include a figure that shows this relationship.
Line 379: Who will your findings and GIS-based modeling be shared with in Gospić to begin to address these public perceptions and flood-susceptibility assessment? Which decision makers?
Discussion: A discussion section is needed in which you show how the findings of this case study integrate with and build on previous work while advancing knowledge of pluvial-flood susceptibility and public perception. Is this merely a case study taking existing methods and applying them to Gospić? How is it novel? What does it contribute to our knowledge of pluvial-flood risk and mitigation?
Conclusions: Consider proposing an idea or two for future directions of research emerging from your work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA well-written manuscript with minor grammatical errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find below detailed comments to be implemented. Thank you for your work and effort.
If possible, include more references in the paper.
Introduction
Lines 26 - 39 Even though you have already cited 9 references, it is probably possible to add more for the specific issues you have raised. If possible, please include other studies that support this first part of your work.
Line 40: "Comprehensive Flood risk management (FRM)..." - Check the use of capital letters Flood Risk Management.
Line 51-55 As with the first comments, please add more references to studies on risk perception.
Study area
Line 71 Please report the coordinate as 44°32'04’’N 15°22'30"E
Line 72 Please check the reference given here. It is unlikely to be required as it details the geographical location of the study area.
Line 81 “Gospić has experienced multiple instances of pluvial and riverine floods,…” If possible and available, add references to support this sentence, not just the STREAM project.
Figure 1- Check the legend, the "object" shown in white is not well visible on the map, perhaps due to the colour used, which is the same as the road network. For the river, as it is a line feature in the map, please use a blue line in the legend if possible, as is done for roads.
Materials and Methods
Lines 91-93: the two parts of the methodology are reported in a different order with respect to Figure 2 and the sections in which the two parts are described. If the survey area explained before respect the GIS-MCDA, please change the sentence respecting the order. This will improve the overall understanding and make it easier for the reader.
Please review the organisation of the Materials and Methods section.
This is the current one:
2. Materials and Methods
3.1. Public perception of pluvial floods risk
3.2. Questionnaire design
2.1.1 Statistical methods
3. GIS-MCDA pluvial flood susceptibility model
The main comments are that:
- Section 3.1 seems to be section 2.1
- Section 3.2 seems to be 2.1.1.
- Section 2.1.1 seems to be 2.1.2
- Section 3 “GIS-MCDA pluvial flood susceptibility model” need to be a section 2.2 as it is the description of one of the parts of the methodology.
Lines 107-108: Please explain the exclusion criteria in more detail if possible. If it just says "respondents who refused to complete the questionnaire were excluded from the study" it is not clear. Try to rephrase these two lines.
Line 161 “than 50 [23]The null” is missing a point. Please check.
Line 162-163 “To correct the significance value, the 162 Lilliefors Significance Correction is used.” Check the tents of the verbs, generally in the paper, to ensure consistency. In this case it would be better to use "was".
Line 187 “Historical pluvial flood data” If this is a sub-section, please add a number.
Line 184 and 189 If possible add references for “historical flood data” e.g. for "Internet sources" and for the others that were available.
Results and discussion
Line 242: “The field survey also confirms this.” The field surveys are not specified in the paper. Please present these surveys if they are used to confirm the results.
Table 2, the asterisk is the same for two different descriptions. Please use a different asterisk if the description refers to only one item or insert a unique description if both sentences refer to both items.
Table 3: The asterisk is not shown in the table, while there is a red dot. Please check and if necessary add the missing information.
Line 316 Please add the citation also in the reference list with the consecutive number.
Line 326 Please add the citation also in the reference list with the consecutive number.
Figure 5 same comments for river symbol in legend as for Figure 1
Figure 6 is not cited in the text. Please add a reference in the text and explain the elements included.
Conclusions
Line 380 Check dot format
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Check the tents of the verbs throughout the paper to ensure consistency. For example, see the comment on lines 162-163.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
I am pleased to see significant revisions made in response to the suggestions offered after the initial review. The current version of the article more closely aligns with the standards expected of a scientific research paper. However, there are still some fundamental issues that need to be addressed:
（1）The organization of the section headings and subheadings throughout the manuscript is quite chaotic. For instance, both the 'Introduction' and 'Study Area' sections are labeled as "1.", and following "2. Materials and Methods" is "3.1. Public Perception of Pluvial Floods Risk". These are basic errors, and I urge you to adhere strictly to the formatting guidelines outlined in the submission instructions.
（2）Figure 2, although revised from the first version, does not show significant improvement in scientific validity or aesthetic quality. I recommend studying workflow diagrams from similar papers to enhance this figure. Also, the content of this figure appears redundant with the text in lines 115-118. Consider making appropriate adjustments and improving the image resolution.
（3）Please evaluate whether the content in "3. GIS-MCDA Pluvial Flood Susceptibility Model" should be a part of "2. Materials and Methods".
（4）Regarding the formulas presented in "Figure 3. GIS-MCDA Methodology Workflow", assess whether it is necessary to introduce them in the text.
（5）There is an indentation at the beginning of line 216. Please check for formatting inconsistencies throughout the document.
（6）I suggest renaming "Table 2. AHP Matrix" to something more descriptive.
（7）Assess the relevance of "Figure 6. Collecting the Historical PF Data" within the context of the article. I recommend displaying flood maps from the relevant GIS database in the context of the discussion, rather than using photos from discussions with fire department personnel.
（8）The manuscript seems to use two different citation styles: [num.] and (author, year). Ensure that the referencing style is consistent throughout the paper.
（9）Please standardize the expression of legends in "Figure 8. Respondents' Experience of Pluvial Floods", "Figure 7. GIS-MCDA Pluvial Flood Susceptibility Model", and "Figure 1. Study Area – Gospić", including the indentation of figure titles and uniformity in resolution.
（10）I appreciate your response to Comment 3 in the covering letter. However, I did not find an appendix in the peer-review v2 file. If there has been an omission, please supplement it accordingly.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comments on the quality of English Language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We appreciate your acknowledging the significant revisions made in response to your earlier suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your points and provide the following responses:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough this is a revised manuscript (sustainability-2748551) and the authors claimed that they have improved the contents, a large number of major issues remain unsolved. In addition, this study has limited international significance. More specifically, the reviewer has the following comments and suggestions:
- . Both the Abstract and the Introduction Section are still weak. The authors directly mentioned what they did in the Abstract and did not explain the knowledge gaps related to flood risk susceptibility assessment in the Introduction Section from an international perspective.
- . Elevation (ELV), slope (SLO), planar curvature (PLAN), stream distance (SD), stream power index (SPI), land cover (LULC), road distance (RD), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and historical PF density (FD). Please explain convincingly why these and just these triggering factors have been selected in this analysis. In addition, some key factors have been ignored, please refer to the reference in the previous review.
- . In the given GIS-MCDA methodology, the ranking of the importance of criteria (e.g., the difference between "strongly more important" and "very strongly more important") is subjective. Although the AHP ensures consistency in comparing importance, the interpretation of these distinctions still relies on the judgment of the model designer.
- . The final GIS-MCDA susceptibility model was categorized into five classes (1-very low susceptibility, 5-very high susceptibility), which is standard procedure. However, the categorization used in many papers is not clear. Although the Jenks method was used in this study, it does not reflect the actual boundaries of storm flood susceptibility. In other words, without clear and referenced boundaries to identify different susceptibility categories, model results may be inaccurate and may not accurately reflect the actual susceptibility of the area to storm flooding.
- . Questions about the accuracy of the model arose when the historical flood locations fell into areas of high (4) rather than very high (5) susceptibility. This suggests that the model may not accurately identify areas of high susceptibility. In order to address these concerns, it is recommended that accurate data be collected on historical flooding within the study area. In addition, by incorporating machine learning methods, a deeper understanding of the effects of individual parameters on storm flood susceptibility can be achieved, thus improving the accuracy and overall performance of the model.
- . Although the paper mentions that the use of machine learning methods may enhance the understanding of the impact of individual parameters on rain and flood susceptibility, these methods are not actually applied. By incorporating machine learning methods, a deeper understanding of how these parameters interact with each other could lead to better prediction and prevention of future flood events. For example, the well-known random forests, please refer to the reference in the previous review.
- . The manuscript needs to be polished by a professional language editing service (e.g., MDPI).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript needs to be polished by a professional language editing service (e.g., MDPI).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We appreciate your acknowledging the significant revisions made in response to your earlier suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your points and provide the following responses:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
After reviewing your answers, I consider your manuscript in a good shape to be published.
Thanks for your contribution
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for accepting our manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome of the comments and concerns from my initial review were addressed in this revised manuscript, but others were not. Below are my remaining criticisms.
A table or more detailed accounting of land uses within the watershed is still lacking. It is stated that the watershed is a rural landscape, but the Introduction highlights numerous cities that are impacted by pluvial flooding and the role of insufficient drainage systems and impervious surfaces. What portion of Gospić is urbanized and covered with impermeable surfaces? What is the extent of drainage systems? To what extent have humans modified the flow of water?
Figure 1: The dates and extent of pluvial floods are unknown? How can you evaluate public perception of risk that has been shaped by these floods when the details of previous events are unknown?
Appendix: You state in your response, “We have provided a complete questionnaire in the appendix.” An appendix is not included. The demographic variables considered and the selection process remain unclear.
Public perception of risk – Characteristics of population: A table displaying the collected sociodemographic data would be useful. Some of these categories seem quite large; thus, their importance is questionable, such as the wide-ranging age group of 18 to 59. You stated in your response that you agreed, yet there is no explanation or alteration within your manuscript.
Public perception of risk – Statistical analysis: Was an analysis performed of the correlation between sociodemographic data to the perceptions of risk? For example, what are the perceptions of those earning a high income vs. those earning a low income or those with university education vs. those without, or the older generation compared to the younger generations? You stated in your response, “Excellent point. We have analyzed the correlation between sociodemographic data and risk perceptions, considering factors such as income, education, and age groups. The results of this analysis are presented in the manuscript.” However, I do not see where this was added in your revised manuscript.
Discussion: The discussion section needs to show how the findings of this case study integrate with and build on previous work while advancing knowledge of pluvial-flood susceptibility and public perception. Is this merely a case study taking existing methods and applying them to Gospić?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA well-written manuscript with minor grammatical errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer ,
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We appreciate your acknowledging the significant revisions made in response to your earlier suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your points and provide the following responses:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for incorporating my previous comments and suggestions. This manuscript can be accepted in present form.
