Guidelines for Analysing Coastal Flood Protection Systems after a Submersion
, Yves Nédélec 2, Nathalie Bérenger 3, Nicolas Flouest 2, Alexis Bernard 4, Patrick Chassé 5 and Anne-Laure Tiberi-Wadier 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comment
The paper discusses some guidelines for coastal protection systems, taking advantages from storm Xynthya experience in 2010. In particular, a geographic framework of the system where measures should be adopted is first required, in order to identify the way the system reacts to forcing events. The system is represented through a map that focuses on sources, pathways and receptors. Starting from this representation, a bowtie tree that merges through a synthetic approach both fault tree and event tree is used, highlighting dangerous phenomena that can occur in so called stakes zones and the suffered damages.
The approach is interesting and the paper is well organized. I have just two concerns: the first one, as reported in the specific points below, refers to the introduction and the lack of other experiences in the same field. The second is related to the test sites, which in the abstract are indicated to be 4, while only one is discussed in the paper.
Specific points
Introduction needs to be expanded in order to discuss methodologies used both in the past and currently in other sites for coastal protection systems, including bibliographic references and comparative analysis on the efficiency of the different systems.
Page 6 Line 146: is that the title of a paragraph? If yes it should be emphasized through proper spacing or bold/italic characters.
Figure 4: a map at a large scale, showing the location of Loix along the northern coast of France could be added as an inset.
Figure 4, 6, 7: please enlarge the legends and the written part in each block. In Figure 7 what does NGF mean? Can you please use a general, widely used reference level?
Page 7 Line 183: is that the title of a paragraph? If yes it should be emphasized through proper spacing or bold/italic characters.
Page 7, Line 188: NGF again. Can you please use a general, widely used reference level?
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
The abstract is nicely written and comprehensive, however, I would welcome some principal results which are currently missing.
- Introduction
The introduction is not comprehensive, since it doesn’t introduce the reader to the problem that is addressed. Background on the 2010 Xynthia storm is only provided, while justification about the applicability of the presented guidelines to other cases studies is required. Why the presented guidelines are applicable to other sites and for similar events, however the results were validated? Furthermore, it is not clear why the structure of the methodology is presented in the introduction and not in the materials and methods. Background on the methodology structure is also missing. Figure 1 needs furnishing, e.g., there are no Appendices in the manuscript as is implied in the Figure. Finally, it appears that this is a translation of a previously published manuscript (in French, DOI: 10.1051/lhb/2014028) and if this is the case these are already published data. Have the authors extended their work and added unpublished data and results to this submission to support a new submission?
- Concepts for Geographic Analysis
I would suggest going through the translation to bring more clarity to the text, e.g., in the definition about the hydraulic cells it is mentioned that “whose bottom is formed by the surface of the ground included in the perimeter previously described”, however in Fig. 3 cell 2 has no such boundary. Also, if possible, please update Fig. 2 and 3.
- Function and Dysfunction of a System
Descriptive, the language might need some update, e.g., 3 Dysfunction of a System, natural phenomena which explain the physical phenomena
- Study Strategy and Analysis Methods
Further explanation would be welcome
- Conclusions
The applicability of the model beyond the examined spatial boundary and a wrap-up could further improve this section.
Finally, the reference list could improve by including more sources and particular recent ones.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
