Influence of Terrain Factors on Urban Pluvial Flooding Characteristics: A Case Study of a Small Watershed in Guangzhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

///

The authors presented an interesting and highly useful paper on assessing the influence of terrain characteristic factors on urban fluvial flooding in a small watershed. The underlying concepts are clearly presented and well explained. The reviewer has not found any major weaknesses of the paper, and his/her assessment has focused on improving the paper understanding and clarity. By implementing minor comments listed below.

Minor comments:

Line 16 – I would add also underpasses as locations, where flooding/inundation starts early during a storm

L39 – I would replace “rainwater facility drainage system” by storm sewer drainage system

Lines 50-56 – somewhere here one should introduce the terminology of a minor and major drainage system: the minor system – small drainage elements conveying frequent events (e.g., storm sewer pipes, events with return periods up to 5-25 years), the major drainage system – drainage elements conveying larger flows, with return period up to 50-100 years (e.g., roads, urban creek channels). 

L113- 114 – awkward wording, please change

L128 – text – sampling of what?

L34 – “artificially” designed – meanings?

135 – incomplete sentence.

159 – as high as -0.05-0.05 – meaning?

L290 – check the wording.

L330-331 – check the grammar

L348, L349 – check the text

L398 – instead of fewer, use less.

The authors presented an interesting and highly useful paper on assessing the influence of terrain characteristic factors on urban fluvial flooding in a small watershed. The underlying concepts are clearly presented and well explained. The reviewer has not found any major weaknesses of the paper, and his/her assessment has focused on improving the paper understanding and clarity. By implementing minor comments listed below.

Minor comments:

Line 16 – I would add also underpasses as locations, where flooding/inundation starts early during a storm

L39 – I would replace “rainwater facility drainage system” by storm sewer drainage system

Lines 50-56 – somewhere here one should introduce the terminology of a minor and major drainage system: the minor system – small drainage elements conveying frequent events (e.g., storm sewer pipes, events with return periods up to 5-25 years), the major drainage system – drainage elements conveying larger flows, with return period up to 50-100 years (e.g., roads, urban creek channels). 

L113- 114 – awkward wording, please change

L128 – text – sampling of what?

L34 – “artificially” designed – meanings?

135 – incomplete sentence.

159 – as high as -0.05-0.05 – meaning?

L290 – check the wording.

L330-331 – check the grammar

L348, L349 – check the text

L398 – instead of fewer, use less.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper shows a very interesting idea for solving the issue of terrain properties of flooding. A literature review is fine; the methodology goes toward solving the problem but is unsatisfactory. 

I know that the authors were using a lot of their time and energy to produce the paper, but I regret that I am suggesting rejecting it.

-authors enclose superficial maps/profiles of the terrain. How could actual research and conclusions be done only by analyzing Figure 4 and previous tables? Any information about the porosity or texture of the soil? 

-conclusions were done on the basis of picture 5. Such could not be provided on the presented values, grouped only on two positions in the diagram. There is a too small amount of observed data, i.e., too small values for any accurate conclusions. 

-authors didn't enclose a larger map of the location, i.e., where the area of Guangzhou is in the map of China.

-authors should avoid writing in the first face. For example, instead of ''we have'', there should be ''it has'' or something similar. The writing style should be neutral. 

-entire text should be checked by the English language professor or even the native English speaker. 

-entire text should be checked by the English language professor or even the native English speaker. There is too much errors there. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, it was a pleasure to review your manuscript "Study on the influence of terrain factors on urban pluvial flooding characteristics: a case study of a small watershed in Guangzhou, China". I think you have done a good research, the methodology is good as well as the presentation of the results. There are just a few suggestions for you that you can see below.

I suggest you make a better version of Fig. 5, in this form its parts are scattered and separated.

I think the conclusion of your research should be better. The advantages and novelties resulting from your research should be particularly emphasize.

Best regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made specific changes in the manuscript. I have carefully read all their comments in the answers to each review. 

Still, the required changes do not satisfy demands from my side. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf