Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper "An urban flooding index for unsupervised inundated urban area detection using Sentinel-1 polarimetric SAR images" presents the application of several methodological procedures to solve problems in hydrological practice - urban flooding. In their research, the authors compared the results of several methods and proved the advantages of one method in relation to another, ie the tested methods in the paper that shows greater accuracy in relation to other methods. The methodology was tested on real case study - Golestan, Iran.

 

 

Suggestion 1: According to the basic rule of writing a scientific paper, the words in the title should not appear as keywords. Usually other words are chosen, which are in the abstract section. Accordingly, it is proposed to make changes.

 

Suggestion 2: In the introduction, there are numerous references that are given without showing the details of the research of the cited authors (lines: 46-47; 57-58; 94-95; 99-100). This is not in line with the writing of a scientific paper. It is suggested that the authors refine this chapter.

 

Suggestion 3: Also, citing the author is not in line with the writing of the scientific paper. If there are more than two authors, "First author et al., year" is usually placed. I ask the authors to look at the rules of the journal.

 

Suggestion 4: The investigation area is located in the border zone. Can Transboundary Waters Management be added?

 

Suggestion 5: It is suggested that the authors describe the applied methodology in more detail. The methodology should be presented in a separate paragraph from the analysis of input data.

 

Suggestion 6: The results are presented in an interesting way graphically, but a more detailed discussion is missing.

 

Suggestion 7: At the end of the paper, the authors conclude and direct to future research in this field. On the other hand, the paper would be more appropriate to state in detail the academic and scientific contribution of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an good contribution to the mapping of flooded urban areas.  The examle chosen is for a flat area where flood spread out easily.  There is no consideration of flodding in sloping areas, where floods just cover the valley floors.

The techniques used seem basically sound, but the reader is left unconvinced about how you would use the procedure in flood management. it appears that a fair amount of computing time is needed to make all the alayses, so could you use the technique in an acual flood event, to help warn people of flooding and to advice on evacuation of flat areas where safe, unflooded ground may be a long way away.  I expected to find a comment on this point in the discussion and conclusions of the paper.

Some features of the somewhat compressed images are difficult to see.  It would be good to have a basic map fof the actual areas shown in Figure 7 and subsequently:  is it the area shown in Figure 5?

There are many improvments to be made in the English grammar. I have made some suggestions about some sentences, but other checks are needed.  Some errors are repeated, especially the confusing sentences beginning "Comparing with...".  Please check the writing carefully.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I went through the paper, minor correction is required

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
2- Is this paper address a specific gap in the field?

3- How this paper help to flood mitigation?
4. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?

5- More information about the study area is required

6- Discussion need improvement, especially in aspect of hydrology and flooding

Hope that author find the comments constructive

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the newly submitted version of the paper, the authors made an effort to improve the quality of the paper.

 

The authors accepted all suggestions. On the other hands, the author's response to the suggestion about transboundary water management is acceptable and understandable.

 

I would like to mention that I am glad to have participated in the review of such an interesting paper and the analysis of the case study problem.

Author Response

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been considerably improved with several rewritten sections being better than the original. I was however saddened to see that a number of suggestions I made had been  ignored.  There are some specific sentences that require further improvement.  I have indicctaed where they are on th

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf