A Study on the Improvement of Flood Forecasting Techniques in Urban Areas by Considering Rainfall Intensity and Duration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Choo at al. carried out an urban flood forecasting using structural characteristics on a watershed located in Seoul. The scientific soundness of the manuscript is above average, however the manuscript has two major issue. Writing is the most important issue in this manuscript. There are many sentences that I read more than 3 times to understand the message, and in some cases (specifically in methodology) there are sentences that is hard to understand even-though they are meant to explain a very simple concept. Therefore, I recommend an extensive editing of English. Second, the method is applied on just one case study, while making these solid conclusions needs more investigation. I recommend apply the method on more study areas and compare the results of the methodology. Study areas with different structural and hydrological characteristics. My specific comments are as follow:

1- The first sentence of abstract is too long and hard to follow, also in that sentence please elaborate what is meant by "areas of rainwater".

2- Line 18, starting with "However, some flood" to the end of the sentence needs to be revised, the structure is poor and it is not clear what is meant by: "rainfall forecast data are not fit for small watersheds".

3- The first paragraph of introduction needs references, there are so many statements that needs to be cited. Here are my suggestions for the section:

Zhou, Q. A Review of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Considering the Climate Change and Urbanization Impacts. Water 2014, 6, 976-992.

Ahmadi, B., & Moradkhani, H. (2019). Revisiting hydrological drought propagation and recovery considering water quantity and quality. Hydrological Processes, 33(10), 1492–1505. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13417

Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Willems, P., Olsson, J., Beecham, S., Pathirana, A., Gregersen, I. B., et al. (2013). Impacts of climate change on rainfall extremes and urban drainage systems: A review. Water Science & Technology, 68(1), 16–28.    

4- One general comment about the way literature review is written, it is not clear and the hard to follow, I recommend an extensive revision on this part. There were some sentences with grammatical issues and etc. For example, in line 82, form the beginning to the end of the sentence, I understood the message after reading it few times, it is written poorly. There are many other examples like this sentence.

5- Methodology, outline section, in the first paragraph the main methodology is narrated, however it is confusing and hard to follow, the second section that the methodology is explained in steps is easier to follow. I recommend revising the first paragraph and try to explain it with examples more thoroughly. In its current format, it is very hard for readers to follow the methodology.

6- The first sentence of section 2.2 is one paragraph?!! I think there was a typo here.

7- That is "d" in line 275?

8- Please remove sections (a) and (c) from figure 6, they are repetitive and does not add any information to the manuscript.

9- Are there any other results for other nodes? Because the nomograph that is driven by the analysis is just for the node 208, while other nodes will have other physical and hydrological characteristics which can affect the results. How the nomograph can be generalized and used for other nodes in the same watershed? If not, then the whole process needs to be carried out for every desired node?

10- One of the main drawbacks of this study is at the very beginning, when authors assumed that Huff distribution is the one that works the best for their study because all the stormwater infrastructures are designed based on that. My question is, what if the study area face with another rainfall pattern? How that can affect the robustness of their results and conclusions?

11- Other than dividing the stormwater infrastructure services into 4 conditions (criteria, 50%, 70% and ...), what are the other novelty for the current study?

12- My last question is, what if the rainfall intensity is different over the watershed, and there is more intense rainfall in upstream, how that affect the results and conclusion of the study? Is there a need for deriving morenomograph through the watershed?

13- I recommend applying the methodology on more watersheds and compare the results in the manuscript, since the results of the current manuscript is a bit hand waving.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank authors for addressing all the comments in a timely manner. I have one very minor comments as follow:

Line 17, what does "some" refers to in the "some flood prediction method". Please replace some by what exactly it is meant here. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.