A Dynamic Urban Waterlogging Risk Assessment Framework Using RAGA-Optimized Projection Pursuit and Scenario Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some minor comments are as follows:

1. Section 4.1, “30 m × 30 m grid”, The accuracy is not high enough, which is not conducive to the study of urban flooding.
2. Please explain in detail how the Risk level threshold classification data range in Table 2 was determined? What is the rationale threshold of each indicator?
3. It is suggested that the other parameter variations, such as Waterlogging duration, Waterlogging recession time and Surface flow velocity, be presented in Figure 5 with/without storage tank implementation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are attached as a separate file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file for my comments.

 

thanks 

Good luck!

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 Authors

This article proposes an innovative waterlogging risk assessment framework to bolster urban resilience against floods. The significance of the research is prominent. The structure is logical and clear. The authors’ computational results strongly support their claims. However, the manuscript still can benefit from following comments.

The position of the article's format, images, tables, and formulas needs to remain consistent. Some minor grammatical errors need to be corrected, such as the 'w' in 'Where' should be lowercase in Line 181.

At the end of the Introduction, it is necessary to include an overview of the structure of the article.

Having the study area as a separate chapter requires emphasizing the general and representative significance of this area in Chapter 2.

The formulas need to specify their sources or clarify whether they are derived by the authors.

It is suggested to divide Figure 4 into five large figures to illustrate the content in section 4.3.

I know this might be difficult. However, what I am interested in is whether there are any practical cases at present that can demonstrate the effectiveness of the method in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The response of the authors is acceptable.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful evaluation of our revised manuscript and the recognition of our revision efforts. We are very grateful for the reviewer’s positive comments and acknowledgment of the improvements in the quality of the paper after revision. Your recognition has greatly encouraged our research team and further strengthened our confidence in our research direction and improvement approach. We will continue to maintain a rigorous academic attitude in our future work, striving to provide more valuable insights and contributions to research and practice in the related field.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  While the authors have made significant improvements, a brief mention of plans for empirical validation in different urban contexts would further strengthen the manuscript's applicability.
2. Ensure that all figures and tables include clear legends or explanations to enhance reader understanding, particularly in distinguishing between baseline and intervention scenarios.
3. The literature review is robust, but the inclusion of a few more recent studies on innovative flood mitigation techniques could enrich the context of the research.

Thanks 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx