Evaluation of the Impact of Rainfall Inputs on Urban Rainfall Models: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper titled "Evaluation of the Impact of Rainfall Inputs on Urban Rainfall Models:A Systematic Review" presents an interesting subject related to rainfall and urban spaces flooding.
Despite the interesting approach, the paper needs a vast improvement, firstly in terms of English writing as some parts are difficult to understand.
I'll point out the parts that I noticed should be improved:
Abstract:
Line 19 "urban rain flood model not presented", which model are we talking about when in line 16 you refer to "models".
From line 20 to line 33 it is not possible to undertand what are the objectives of your paper: explain a model? study published papers about models? I suggest to rewrite again the Abstract, stating clearly what have you done and why.
Introduction:
There are missing words on the paragraphs: line 38 "Significant" at the start. Lines 74-75 "rainwater models in internationally at home and abroad" has no clear sense.
Lines 77 to 80 are also not clear enough.
Line 51 you should wrote 1991-today.
As in the Abstract, you should explain clearly what are you researching and justify it. The section will be improved if you added a review of similar research (if any) or justify the scientific importance of your approach.
Materials and Method:
Another section that should be greatly improved, both the writing and the figures and tables.
Line 120: which clarity and accuracy are considered? Where are they explained?
Line 134: should be explained what do you mean by "reference-related papers"?
On figure 2, "Identification" is written with lovercase letters.
Line 141: You should add sources for the NSE model explanation and also sources for the others performance indicators used and list such sources on the references.
Table 1 should include the areas of research of each paper (city, region and country) to be able to know where urban flood rain models have been applied. Furthermore, all the papers titles should be written in the same way, all lowercase or all capitals.
Lines 166 to 174 should be rewritten as the meaning is not clear enough.
Line 200: "focus on peace"? What does that mean related to flooding?
Figures 3 and 4 should be located after the paragraphs where are explained, not before.
Figure 4 models' name are too small for the reader. Maybe a table will be better?
Lines 209 and 210: Figure 2 does not include a reference about the SWMM model, somewhere an explanation is missing?
Line 228: single-run and multiple-run concepts should be clearly explained.
Line 236: "considering the large study area" would be better if it includes which area are you referencing to? Reader must look at the references (Chen et al, 2017) to discover where is located such area. Moreover, on table 2 the reference is only Chen, 2017.
Table 3 is not referenced in the text or I have not been able to find it!
Both tables 2 and 3 should be redone to have "calibration" on the same line as it will improve the presentation.
Line 306: could be better if an explanation of why "the result is reasonable" is given.
Figure 6 has small text, which maked difficult to read.
Finally, I think that the final section, Discussion and Conclusion should be separated to make clear what do you have discovered and which are your main conclusions after the research including future steps to be pursued.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript condenses the development process following urban rain flood models. Development characteristics of different stages of model development, characteristics and application were identified through literature survey. Before publishing, the following key questions should be addressed.
The study claimed to provide a new approach in solving urban rain-related and flooding disasters through analysis of the impact of rainfall input. Other than the review of the current literature, what method has been proposed to solve urban rain-related and flooding disasters?
The abstract of the manuscript is not clearly written. For example, it was written that NSE was greater than 0.10 – 0.20. Is that appropriate writing?
The authors did not do any modelling works. It is a review paper. Is it meaningful to provide equations 1, 2, 3? If you have observed and modelled data, you can calculate perform the statistical test to check to model accuracy. As model performances were not checked in this research, NSE, RMSE, R2, RE are not appropriate in the methodology section.
The caption of the Figure 3 is not meaningful.
Line 187-188, it was mentioned that “The empirical model, also known as the "black box model,” models only input and output sequences,…..”. Is that correct? Do all empirical models can be considered as black box model?
Line 209-210, “As shown in Figure 2 and Figure 4, the SWMM model has gradually became the most widely used model…”. Does Figure 2 reflect the SWMM model?
There is no appropriate discussion on Figure 4.
In Figure 5, NSE of the calibration and validation were shown against model number. How do the model numbers were determined? From where the numbered model could be found?
There are also plenty of researches on rainfall prediction based on linear and non-linear modelling approaches using the climate indices. These models development require prior statistical correlation analysis and their trend. Some of them shown below should be included in the literature review. Hossain, I., Rasel H.M., Imteaz, M.A., and Mekanik, F., 2020. Long‑term seasonal rainfall forecasting using linear and non‑linear modelling approaches: a case study for Western Australia, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, vol. 132, pp.131-141.
Hossain, I., Esha, R. and Imteaz, 2018. An attempt to use non-linear regression modelling technique in long-term seasonal rainfall forecasting for Australian Capital Territory, Geosciences, 8, pp. 282(1-12).
- Abbot and J. Marohasy, "Skilful rainfall forecasts from artificial neural networks with long duration series and single-month optimization," Atmospheric Research, vol. 197, pp. 289-299, Nov 2017.
Yilmaz AG, Hossain I, Perera BJC (2014) Effect of climate change and variability on extreme rainfall intensity–frequency–duration relationships: a case study of Melbourne. Hydrology Earth Syst Sci 18: 4065-4076.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deal with the impact of rainfall input on the accuracy of urban rain and flood models. The authors screened the published research results on urban rain flood models over the past and they compare between the rainfall input of the urban rain flood model coming from several aspects of rainfall measurement methods, standardization, and verification period of rainfall input time. It further examines the feasibility of network crawling rainfall input provides new ideas for future development of urban rain and flood models. I found the overall scope of the paper very interesting and it should be a worthy addition to the litterature providing some minor revisions.
I suggest to the authors to add a paragraph in the introduction section concerning the impact of uncertainties associated to discharge time series in the flood model simulation. Therefore, many researchers have shown the accuracy of the model simulations is also tightly linked to the quality of observed discharge data used for calibration and validation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
congratulations for the changes, which have greatly improved the manuscript.
Nevertheless, I would suggest a final revision of the English language and to review figure 2, where the word "identification" should be "Identification" to keep up with the rest of the figure words.
Best regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the paper before. Still there are lot of scopes to improve the manuscript. Before publishing, the following key questions should be addressed.
Changing the text colour, authors tired to impress that they have changed a lot. For example, the first sentence of the abstract was not changed. However, in the revised manuscript, the colour was changed red.
Some of the previously questions were not answered. For example, “NSE was greater than 0.10 – 0.20”. It was pointed out in the first review. It was not revised.
Figures 3, 5 and 6 are missing from the revised manuscript. Since the Figures were missed, comments could not be made on that part.
Comments on the model performances were made lines 144 to 169. There should have appropriate references. For example, in lines 154 to 155, it was mentioned that “If NSE > 0.5, then the simulated discharge can be regarded as satisfactory.” Appropriate citation should be provided.
In line 158, it was mentioned that “…….he smaller the value,…..”. Is “he” correct here?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I am ok with the answers from the authors.
