Quantitative Assessment of Future Environmental Changes in Hydrological Risk Components: Integration of Remote Sensing, Machine Learning, and Hydraulic Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript looks good and can accepted as it is.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Well written

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful
guidance. We have tried to do our best to respond to the points raised. As  listed in the attachment, we have addressed the points provided by the reviewers and have made the necessary changes in the
revised manuscript. Point-by-point responses are provided attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is an in-depth study. However, there are a number of comments.

1.Decode the abbreviation GIS in line 21.

2.The authors write in the abstract (lines 28-31): ‘Estimated annual flood damage for agriculture and built-up areas was projected to surge from $162 million to $376 million and $91 million to $220 million, respectively, considering 2021 and 2040 land use change scenarios in the flood-prone region.’ However, the question arises. How were the figures of future damage estimated? How correct are they? On the one hand, in the period up to 2040 (more than 15 years), flood control methods will be significantly improved. This applies, for example, to technologies for building new housing and infrastructure. This factor could significantly reduce the figure quoted. On the other hand, a devaluation of the dollar in its precarious current position could significantly increase this figure. Is it necessary to be tied to the dollar estimate of damage in this case? Especially when presenting specific figures? The current 2021 estimate is clear and unquestionable. We are talking about the 2040 estimate.

 

3. the main contribution is stated by the authors as follows (18-20): ‘ In this study, we proposed a flood risk assessment frame-work that combines flood vulnerability, hazard, and damages under long-term LULC changes in the Tajan watershed, northern Iran’. In the course of familiarisation with the materials of the work, only a large amount of processed data can be seen. And they are processed by known methods. So what is this new structure? In line 86 it is called ‘Therefore, this study aims to develop a comprehensive framework that integrates multiple techniques and models...’. This framework looks like a consistent application of known methods. And the methods may be modified from those described. For example, remote sensing from space can be replaced by unmanned aerial vehicles. What is the essence of this new structure you have developed? State it clearly and explicitly in the paper.

After revisions, the paper can be published.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful
guidance. We have tried to do our best to respond to the points raised. As  listed in the attachment, we have addressed the points provided by the reviewers and have made the necessary changes in the
revised manuscript. Point-by-point responses are provided attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing the opportunity to review this manuscript which focuses on presenting a comprehensive framework for integrating multiple models, remote sensing and other software to assess the impact of landcover change on flood vulnerabilities for the specific watershed. Collectively, this appears to be a highly involved and well-planned study and the manuscript was well-written and presented on all fronts. I’m not entirely sure this manuscript is best suited for this journal, however. I’m of the opinion that it would be better placed in a software or environmental modeling journal. That way it would receive the critique and reader coverage it deserves. I only have a few minor comments:

Table 7: What do the high and low VIF and TOL values indicate?

Lines 502-503: What do these percentages represent?

Figure 17: Explain what “Agricultural 2021” and “Built-up 2040” mean in the figure cation.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful
guidance. We have tried to do our best to respond to the points raised. As  listed in the attachment, we have addressed the points provided by the reviewers and have made the necessary changes in the
revised manuscript. Point-by-point responses are provided attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the authors have improved the quality of the paper enough. It can be published.