Advancing Urban Flood Resilience: A Systematic Review of Urban Flood Risk Mitigation Model, Research Trends, and Future Directions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is a review of the utilization and limitations of the UFRM for identifying flood-prone areas and designing adaptation plans in response to climate change.
The paper is well written, concise and reviews the current literature.
In my opinion, the main points where this paper needs to be updated is Discussion and Conclusions,
The discussion part of the paper is not elaborated enough, i.e. authors failed to synthesize the current body of literature, which is the main task of the review paper. Instead, they are merely listing the conclusions of different studies, without properly comparing their findings.
The conclusion is too wide – instead of repeating the sections of the paper you should extract the main direction in which you have detected that research should be following.
Specific remarks:
Instead of the presentation of a simple depiction of different surfaces’ reaction to precipitation and runoff (Figure 1), I suggest to present an InVEST ond/UFRM schematics(architecture).
Schematics on Figure 3, Exploration approach of peer-reviewed articles is redundant. The approach you used is pretty straightforward, standard and already described in the text.
In the Discussion section the addressed papers are not referenced, or are referenced incorrectly.
Technical remarks:
Acronym UFRM introduced the second time on ln130
Author Response
We genuinely thank the Reviewer for their thoughtful and detailed feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and effort dedicated to assisting us in improving our manuscript. Below, we provide an overview of the adjustments made in response to the Reviewer’s comments. All revisions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is a review of the utilization and limitations of the UFRM for identifying flood-prone areas and designing adaptation plans in response to climate change.
- The paper is well written, concise and reviews the current literature.
Thank you so much for your positive comment.
- In my opinion, the main points where this paper needs to be updated is Discussion and Conclusions, The discussion part of the paper is not elaborated enough, i.e. authors failed to synthesize the current body of literature, which is the main task of the review paper. Instead, they are merely listing the conclusions of different studies, without properly comparing their findings.
Thank you for this insightful comment. Based on your valuable feedback, we have revised Section 4.1, which discusses the clustering of the analyzed papers. In line with your advice, we have provided a more detailed comparison of the results and findings across the studies. Additionally, we have highlighted key observations and insights derived from these comparisons, laying the groundwork for subsequent sections on limitations and future research directions.
- The conclusion is too wide – instead of repeating the sections of the paper you should extract the main direction in which you have detected that research should be following.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have re-written the conclusion to ensure it is concise, focuses on overarching insights, and directly addresses your feedback by emphasizing the main research directions rather than repeating the earlier sections of the paper.
Specific remarks:
- Instead of the presentation of a simple depiction of different surfaces’ reaction to precipitation and runoff (Figure 1), I suggest to present an InVEST ond/UFRM schematics(architecture).
Thank you very much for your suggestion. Following your advice, we removed Figure 1. Since Figure 2 already illustrated the model's functionality, we felt that adding another figure about its performance might be redundant. Instead, we decided it would be more useful to include a flowchart (in place of figure 1 and figure 2) that provides a more detailed depiction of the UFRM model's workflow, just as you advised.
- Schematics on Figure 3, Exploration approach of peer-reviewed articles is redundant. The approach you used is pretty straightforward, standard and already described in the text.
Following your advice, figure 3 was removed.
- In the Discussion section the addressed papers are not referenced, or are referenced incorrectly.
We sincerely apologize for the oversight and have thoroughly reviewed the citations and references within the discussion section, addressing and resolving any discrepancies or issues identified.
Technical remarks:
- Acronym UFRM introduced the second time on ln130
We apologize for the oversight, the issue was fixed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a systematic review of the literature from 2019 to 2024 about the Urban Flood Risk Mitigation (UFRM) model, introduced in 2019 as part of InVEST (Integrated Valuation of ES and Tradeoffs) open-source software, specifically designed to address pluvial flooding.
The manuscript is both interesting and well-written, although it focuses on a relatively specialized topic, which might make it challenging for readers unfamiliar with the model to fully appreciate the findings.
Some improvements can be made, and I recommend accepting the manuscript with minor revisions. The authors will find a few specific comments below.
- Abstract: please clarify whether you are referring to the InVEST Urban Flood Risk Mitigation (UFRM) model as a specific software tool or to Urban Flood Risk Mitigation (UFRM) as a broader research topic. For instance, in line 18, it would be more precise to write: “as the UFRM model was introduced in 2019...”, assuming you are discussing the software tool, as I understand it. Please also check in the rest of the paper.
- Please insert the Journal name in reference 1.
- Reference 44 and 49 are the same. Please correct.
- Lines 91-99: please provide a precise definition of pluvial (surface) flooding to clarify how it differs from fluvial (riverine) flooding, highlighting the distinct mechanisms and sources of each type of flooding.
- I believe that when discussing temporary flooding in urban areas, it is important to emphasize not only the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events but also the rapid and extensive expansion of impervious surfaces over the past few decades. This aspect is closely related to the information presented in Figure 1.
- Figure 2: please correct m3 using the apex format for the number 3.
- Line 146: it should be PRISMA. Please provide a reference.
- Sections 2.1 and 2.2: did you include research papers (and eventually conference proceedings and book chapters) written in English language? Please specify.
- Table 1: what does “npj” mean? Please correct the typographic errors (strange symbols appear among the authors’ names). Specify that the order of the papers is alphabetical. Please also add the title of each paper and insert the citation number if the paper is present in the bibliography section.
- Figures 4 and 8: correct the typographic error in the legend.
- Please provide a definition for Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) and Green Infrastructure (GI).
Author Response
We sincerely thank the Reviewer for their valuable and detailed feedback. We greatly appreciate the effort invested in helping improve our manuscript. Below, we outline the modifications made in response to the Reviewer’s suggestions. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper presents a systematic review of the literature from 2019 to 2024 about the Urban Flood Risk Mitigation (UFRM) model, introduced in 2019 as part of InVEST (Integrated Valuation of ES and Tradeoffs) open-source software, specifically designed to address pluvial flooding.
The manuscript is both interesting and well-written, although it focuses on a relatively specialized topic, which might make it challenging for readers unfamiliar with the model to fully appreciate the findings.
Some improvements can be made, and I recommend accepting the manuscript with minor revisions. The authors will find a few specific comments below.
- Abstract: please clarify whether you are referring to the InVEST Urban Flood Risk Mitigation (UFRM) model as a specific software tool or to Urban Flood Risk Mitigation (UFRM) as a broader research topic. For instance, in line 18, it would be more precise to write: “as the UFRM model was introduced in 2019...”, assuming you are discussing the software tool, as I understand it. Please also check in the rest of the paper.
Thank you so much for your suggestion. We edited every instance in the abstract that the word “UFRM” was mentioned. We did it in a way that it would clarify any confusion and make it clearer that in the revised manuscripts abstract, UFRM model pertains to the model that is developed by InVEST software suite.
- Please insert the Journal name in reference 1.
Apologies for the oversight. We edited the reference details and added the journal’s name.
- Reference 44 and 49 are the same. Please correct.
We apologize for the oversight and confirm that all issues with duplicate references have been thoroughly addressed and resolved in the revised manuscript.
- Lines 91-99: please provide a precise definition of pluvial (surface) flooding to clarify how it differs from fluvial (riverine) flooding, highlighting the distinct mechanisms and sources of each type of flooding.
Thank you so much for your comment. We provided an explanation on difference between fluvial and pluvial flooding in the paragraph mentioned by you.
- I believe that when discussing temporary flooding in urban areas, it is important to emphasize not only the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events but also the rapid and extensive expansion of impervious surfaces over the past few decades. This aspect is closely related to the information presented in Figure 1.
Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. Following your advice, we added a new sentence to the introduction stating this “In addition to worsening climate change, urbanization has increased impervious surfaces, reducing water absorption and leading to greater surface runoff”
- Figure 2: please correct m3 using the apex format for the number 3.
Thank you very much for pointing this out. We have made the necessary corrections in figure2.
- Line 146: it should be PRISMA. Please provide a reference.
We apologize for the oversight. We corrected the spelling and also added the reference for it.
- Sections 2.1 and 2.2: did you include research papers (and eventually conference proceedings and book chapters) written in English language? Please specify.
Thank you so much for this question. We only reviewed and included the research papers published in journals in English language. So no conference paper or book chapter was included. This detail has been shared in the first sentence of 2.1.
- Table 1: what does “npj” mean? Please correct the typographic errors (strange symbols appear among the authors’ names). Specify that the order of the papers is alphabetical. Please also add the title of each paper and insert the citation number if the paper is present in the bibliography section.
Apologies for the oversight, and thank you for pointing out these issues. npj stands for Nature Partner Journals, and we have added this information to the table. We have corrected all the strange symbols and typographic errors as well. Additionally, we included information in the title of Table 1 indicating that the order of papers is alphabetical. A new column for citation numbers has been added to the table, and papers mentioned in the text now have their corresponding citation numbers included. We also added a new column for the titles of all the articles.
- Figures 4 and 8: correct the typographic error in the legend.
Apologies for the oversight. We have corrected the typos in both Figures 4 and 8.
- Please provide a definition for Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) and Green Infrastructure (GI).
Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added a paragraph containing the definitions of NBS and GI, which is now included as the second paragraph of the introduction.
