Rapid Flood Mapping and Disaster Assessment Based on GEE Platform: Case Study of a Rainstorm from July to August 2024 in Liaoning Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research article presents a robust and technically sound framework for near real-time flood mapping. The integration of machine learning and SAR-based techniques is well articulated, and the application to a recent flood event adds relevance.

However my further comment are as follows:

1) Minor clarifications for example such as contextualizing the event and briefly benchmarking against existing methods (if any) could enhance its impact and readability.

2) Section 2.6, first sentence. The citation is missing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good writing

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. As this is my first submission, I apologize for any language misuse or incorrect process operations during the submission process. Please check in the attachment if my modifications meet your expectations. All modifications are marked in the PDF version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject addressed in the paper is rather relevant and timely, particularly in the context of increasing climate-related disasters. However, despite its potential interest, the work is presented in a disorganized and superficial manner. Throughout the document, there are numerous issues that suggest a lack of careful attention and editorial rigor.
For example, in Section 2, important methodological concepts and datasets are introduced abruptly, without proper background or explanation. This undermines the reader's ability to follow the methodology and affects the overall scientific value of the paper. The discussion is also notably weak and lacks depth. Rather than critically analyzing the results and placing them in the context of existing literature, the authors provide only a brief and fragmented commentary.
Furthermore, the study focuses exclusively on a single season, which severely limits its applicability and relevance. Flood patterns and hydrological responses can vary significantly across different times of the year, and failing to address this variability reduces the contribution of the work to the broader field of disaster risk management.

Some additional comments:
- Is the use of NDVI correct? Should it be NDWI?
- Line 19 - Flood with capital F
- Lines 46-50: This paragraph seems a little inapropriate in this section.
- LIne 60: Decide if Otsu is written as capital or small letters.
- Section 2.1: As the paper refers to a case study, this section should be expanded.
- Mixed use of British and American English.
- Several citation issues (e.g. “[?]”).
- Include a more scientific description of Google Earth Engine (GEE)
- Line 223: Correct sentence
- Section 3.4.1: Explain how were these variables obtained.
- Section 4.1: Correct.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. As this is my first submission, I apologize for any language misuse or incorrect process operations during the submission process. Please check in the attachment whether my modifications meet your expectations. All modifications are marked in the PDF version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is titled "Rapid flood mapping and disaster assessment based on the GEE platform: a case study of rainstorms from July to August 2024 in Liaoning Province, China." This study develops an integrated framework using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and cloud computing to improve flood monitoring, with a particular focus on extreme rainfall events. The study utilizes the Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform and combines three complementary techniques.

My comments are as follows:

- The introduction requires further clarification, particularly with literature published after 2020.

- The study area requires further clarification. A physical and geographical description of the area is needed, as well as information on the population size of the area.

- The presented research methodology is unclear; a flowchart should be provided to demonstrate the sequence of actions taken.

- The discussion requires improvement. You should compare your results with those of other authors, and the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used.

 

Technical Notes:

- The article should be adapted to the journal's requirements.

- The division of the article's content is disproportionate; for example, section 2.3 contains a single subsection, 2.3.1. The entire article should be edited to ensure this division is consistent with the content. It is unacceptable for some subsections to be four lines long and others several dozen.

- Line 318 is missing a citation.

- Do not begin a section/subsection with a table or figure. There must be an introductory text that refers to the figure.

- Avoid abbreviations in the names of subsections, e.g. 3.4

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. As this is my first submission, I apologize for any language misuse or incorrect process operations during the submission process. Please check in the attachment whether my modifications meet your expectations. All modifications are marked in the PDF version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has clearly benefitted from prior comments. The structure, clarity, and depth of the methodology have improved.

Despite the improvements (e.g. integration of multiple techniques), several serious issues remain and should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

- Figures 3 and 4 Require Significant Improvement (Axis labels, units, etc)
- Consider add a map showing spatial distribution of rainfall anomalies

 - As in the previous version, Section 2 is poor structuring and lack of context

The "Materials and Methods" section opens abruptly with a listing of datasets and algorithms, lacking any introductory context. This makes the section difficult to follow, especially for readers unfamiliar with the tools used. Abrupt presentation of "title + equation" with no flow obstructs comprehension.
-Please add a short introductory paragraph to explain the purpose of this section. Briefly describe the rationale behind selecting GEE, Sentinel-1/2, and SAR data before presenting equations or algorithmic steps.

- Throughout the methodology, multiple mathematical equations are presented (e.g., Equations 1–17), yet many of the variables introduced are not explicitly defined.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please check in the attachment whether my modifications meet your expectations. All modifications are marked in the PDF version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have partially revised the article. The discussion still requires improvement. The authors cite only four references, which is insufficient. The findings lack justification and confirmation.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please check in the attachment whether my modifications meet your expectations. All modifications are marked in the PDF version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

this new version was improved according to previous comments.

Some formatting adjustments can indeed be made, and the English can be 
further polished during the proofreading stage.