Numerical Simulation of Flood Inundation in a Small-Scale Coastal Urban Area Due to Intense Rainfall and Poor Inner Drainage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a study of flood inundation modeling in a coastal urban area in Korea. The authors find that both tidal level and inflow rate have direct impact on the flood inundation condition in the coastal urban area. The manuscript is on a topic of interest to the audience of Water. I have the following comments that I hope the authors could address in the revision.

Specific comments:

Lines 263-266: The study runs the model using different Manning’s coefficients in Case 1 according to different land surfaces and using uniform Manning’s coefficient in Case 2. What is the purpose of Case 2? Case 1 is clearly more realistic. Lines 266-268: “The Gohyun river is considered as a natural stream channel in Case 1.” Is Gohyun river a natural river or artificially modified? This should be stated clearly here. Case 2 is actually using the same n value as Case 1, which is stated in the next paragraph. It would be better to describe it clearly here that both cases are using n=0.025. Figures 7 and 11: These two figures have different orientation comparing with the rest of figures. The maps of the study area should have the same orientation to avoid confusion. Lines 316-317: The caption of Figure 9 is placed before the actual figure. Line 346: There is no Figure 18. It should be Figure 11. I’m not sure if Figure 14 is necessary. It shows the same pattern as Figure 12a. Also, there is not much discussion about Figure 14 in the paper.

Author Response

The authors add the response to reviewer 1 as the word file "water-587685-coverletter_reviewer_1_second.docx".

Reviewer 2 Report

This study presents the numerical simulation and analysis of the characteristics of the flood inundation in a small-scaled coastal urban area.

The paper lacks clear explanation on the novelty/contribution of this work.  There is no section to describe the data (land use) and HEC-HMS model results. What is the temporal resolution of the HEC-HMS results (Figure 4)?  It is not clear how the poor drainage is defined in the paper How the flood flow rate scenarios were estimated is not very clear. Can the flow for different recurrence interval be used instead of these scenarios? The conclusion of the paper needs improvement The language/writing lacks clarity throughout

Author Response

The authors add the response to reviewer 2 as the word file "water-587685-coverletter_reviewer_2_second.docx".

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has improved a lot. However, I still think that the paper needs to improve the clarity throughout and conclusion needs strengthening. 

Author Response

As pointed out from reviewer 2, the authors updated the content in the manuscript and the conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx