Next Article in Journal
Improving Water Use Efficiency of Spring Maize by Adopting Limited Supplemental Irrigation Following Sufficient Pre-Sowing Irrigation in Northwest China
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Centralized and Decentralized Water Reclamation with Resource Recovery Strategies in Leh Town, Ladakh, India, and Potential for Their Reduction in Context of the Water–Energy–Food Nexus
Previous Article in Journal
Informally Vended Sachet Water: Handling Practices and Microbial Water Quality
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interdisciplinary Collaboration on Green Infrastructure for Urban Watershed Management: An Ohio Case Study
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Understanding the Costs of Inaction–An Assessment of Pluvial Flood Damages in Two European Cities

Water 2019, 11(4), 801; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040801
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2019, 11(4), 801; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040801
Received: 2 April 2019 / Revised: 15 April 2019 / Accepted: 15 April 2019 / Published: 17 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

  Thank you very much for your careful comments and suggestions.


Reviewer 2 Report

·         This paper is already available in online as thesis format. (https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/369877/NicklinThesisComplete.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y). There is a chance for plagiarism which we are not sure about.authors are strongly suggested to check them thoroughly.

·         Figure 3 and 4 are not self-explanatory and doesn’t follow cartographic rules and balance. (Latitude longitude, location map etc…)

·         All figure should need latitude and longitude

·         Author should follow a common style for all figures. This paper author following different style for each figure, Legends and scale should place in bottom of map 

·         Author prepared two land use map for different locations, but both maps are showing different class level. I request to follow a common classes for study area.

·         2.2. Flood modelling with 3Di (This title repeated in two time)

·         Figure 2, 5 and 6shows very poor quality, author should be change this figure.

 


Author Response

This paper is already available in online as thesis format. (https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/369877/NicklinThesisComplete.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y). There is a chance for plagiarism which we are not sure about.authors are strongly suggested to check them thoroughly.

Response: This not an issue, as we are reworking the work into a publication based on the MSc thesis of the first author in this manuscript.

Figure 3 and 4 are not self-explanatory and doesn’t follow cartographic rules and balance. (Latitude longitude, location map etc…)
Response: Figures 3 and 4 have been updated so they are consistent with one another, displaying the relative locations of the study areas in the same way, with the latitude and longitude included for scale.

All figure should need latitude and longitude.
Response: Latitude and Longitude have been added to all figures.

Author should follow a common style for all figures. This paper author following different style for each figure, Legends and scale should place in bottom of map.
Response: All figures that include maps and legends have been updated so they are now the same style.

Author prepared two land use map for different locations, but both maps are showing different class level. I request to follow a common classes for study area.
Response: If we would have had the same land use dataset for both areas, we would have used the same land use classes. Instead, the available land use data for Lombardijen was more detailed than Belgrave, so we opted to use different quality data to make sure the high-quality data for Lombardijen was not wasted and so the study included the best quality data that we could find without cost. We believe this goes to show how inconsistent data availability/requirements makes flood damage assessments more difficult.

2.2. Flood modelling with 3Di (This title repeated in two time).
Response: The repetition of ‘Flood modelling with 3Di’ has been deleted

Figure 2, 5 and 6shows very poor quality, author should be change this figure.
Response: Figures 2, 5, and 6, have been updated and the quality of the figures have been improved

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Introduction part is too lengthy, needs to be very brief. 

2. What is the relevance of section 2, may be referred in discussion of the paper. 

3. Data used for the present study needs to be elaborated more. 

4. What is the source of land use data, whether authors processed it using satellite data. 

5. If land use is processed from satellite data by the authors, then mention about the specifications of the satellite data used, accuracy of the classification.

6. Whether the authors used Digital Elevation Model (DEM) in the present study,if so need to mention about it in the study. 

7. Add section "Study area" in the research paper, and discuss about the climatic conditions of the area selected for study. 

8. An assessment on social damage due to Flood needs to be discussed. 

9. The paper seems more of descriptive rather on focusing on the objective of the study, in this context the authors are sincerely advised to rewrite were ever necessary by focusing much on the objectives. 

 

 


Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Back to TopTop