Urban Flood Management through Urban Land Use Optimization Using LID Techniques, City of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper presents results of studies on the flood management in an urbanized area with the use of selected modeling tools and techniques. The city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia has been taken as the case study. In my opinion, while the submission refers to one of key issued in modern hydrology and water resources management, there exist numerous shortcomings, which require improvements or additional explanations prior to the final acceptance of the paper for publication. Major flaws are as follows:

1. Figure 1:

a. What exactly do the top left bottom right sub-figures show? Explanations in the figure caption (“Registered floods events” (Top Left) and „Study area (Bottom Left)”) are non-informative. Please correct.

b. Signatures used in the top left and bottom right sub-figures need to be explained in the figure caption.

c. The respective sub-figures need to be supplemented with scale bars.

2. Study area: as the research refers to the urban flood management, information on the climate and the temporal distribution of precipitation and temperature in the annual cycle need to be added. Moreover, information on the hydrographic network and drainage conditions of the study area is lacking. Please correct.

3. Figure 2.3: Rainfall patterns (S1, S2 and s3). The horizontal and vertical axes labelling need to be supplemented with relevant units(mm, hours or other?). Additionally, the green columns in the legend (S2) should also be described in the figure legend, similarly to the blue (S1) and red (S3) columns.

4. The study lacks an assessment of the functioning of the drainage network, its importance and impact on the results obtained in the research.

5. Please split the “Results and Discussion” chapter into two separate chapters. Discussion needs to be expanded.

6. The numbering of the figures is incorrect: Figure 1 is followed by Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3, then Figure 3.1, and Figure 3.

7. Figures 3.1, 3 and 4: the vertical axes are labelled with different units of discharge (Q):”cmcs” and m3/s. Please standardize them and use “m3·s-1”.

8. Figures 5d and 6d: the blue line (TS1) is not shown in the charts. Please correct.

9. Figure 5e: the colors of lines TS1, TS2 and TS3 differ from those shown on the other charts of that figure. What is the reason of that difference? Please correct.

10. List of references needs to be corrected in accordance with the “Instructions for Authors”. Moreover, citation of some paper in the text requires corrections, for example: “(Nicolás Velásquez et al., 2018)” (p. 2, l. 98).

11. The paper requires numerous linguistic corrections.

With regard to the above-mentioned remarks it is recommended to accept the paper for publication after major revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Than you for your constructive comments and I have made improvements on the manuscript accordingly.

Regards,

Mengistu A. Jemberie

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

as you can see from the attached document, I have a series of comments to be addressed.

In general, I would like to see more details on the study and the rationale behind it, as well as a clearer workflow.

To increase the impact of your research, it could help restructuring the Introduction, adding more information on similar studies performed at the international level.

In addition, I suggest dividing the Results from the Discussion, using the later section to show the pros and cons of your approach, and how it can be used to infer information and management strategies for the study area

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your constructive comments. I have accepted all comments and made improvements on the manuscript according to your comments.

Regards,

Meengistu A. Jemberie 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion corrections made by the Authors are satisfactory. Thus, it is recommended to accept the paper for publication in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you very much for having revised the manuscript following my comments. I think that the present version can be accepted for publication.