Approaching Flood Risk Management by Creating a Three-Dimensional Model at the Level of a Watershed
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title should be rephrased. Authors speak about flood risk assessment on a watershed level but there are no results supporting this statement. Presented results are far from watershed level. Abstract should also be improved, it doesn’t highlight the actual contribution of this research.
Line 46-50 This sentence is too long and unclear. Hazard maps are developed based on geospatial data and numerical/hydraulic models. On the other hand, probabilities of hazardous events are estimated on historical data of previous floods on particular location.
Line 60-75 This paragraph explains the novelty of this research. However, it is written quite generally and explanation of particular contribution is missing.
Line 76-90 This paragraph is too general, some obvious facts are presented without any added value to the text. This paragraph could be rewritten with just a few sentences.
Chapters 1 and 2 should be merged into one in order to optimize the introduction to this research and the overall length of the manuscript. Literature review should be extended, however. Some references explaining the current state-of-the-art achievement are missing. Literature review should be written in a way that emphasizes the research gap authors are trying to fill with their research. Unfortunately, here this is not the case.
Chapter 3.1 Overall map of the pilot site is missing. I suppose that you are analyzing one of 46 location in Prut River. Please provide in-depth details about particular location that is analysed.
Chapter 3.2 Methodological part must be improved. Framework provided in Figure 1. should be supported with thorough explanation in the text. I suppose that DTM developed by Lidar data is refered to riverbed and surrounding area only and satelite data is aquired for watershed area?
Considering hydrological and hydraulic modeling, overview of existing infrastructure is missing (missing Figure in chapter 3.1) and there is not a single hydrograph present or any hydrological data in the text. How is hydraulic modeling being performed? Which model has been used (1D, 2D)? What are the governing equations? How excately are water levels for corresponding probabilities estimated?
Furthermore, if you speak about risk assessment then at least land cover and land use maps for the analyzed area should be provided.
Based on what is presented, authors cannot speak about any contribution considering hydrological and hydraulic modeling. Main contribution should be emphasized in direction to coupled geopatial modelling (terrestrial/lidar/satelitte). Remaining steps of flood hazard and flood risk assessment are used just to validate your approach. Figures 7., 8. and 9. are presented in poor quality. Furthermore, a clear explanation and comparioson of your metholdogy with conventional approach is missing so it is difficulat to evaluate actual improvements.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSeveral sentences and paragraphs are too long.
Manuscript should be revised by a native speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript coupled mutliple data sources to create a 3D model for flood risk modeling. The manuscript looks more like a techinical report rather than a scientific paper. It cannot be published as a scientific paper at present stage.
- Literature review should be part of introduction. The introduction in the current version is more about the background of the research, which is too long for a scientific paper.
- Literature review did not provide a comprehensive summary of flood risk modeling in previous studies. Authors should summarize the approaches for flood risk modeling, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of previous research. What is the research gap and how this work is going to fill this gap?
- What hydrological model and hydraulic model were used?
- What are the data sources of DEMs?
- In the results, several scenarios are presented but without enough analysis. Again, it is more like a techinical report than a scientific research. There is no validation of the modeling result nor any comparison with simulations without this 3D model. Then what is the advantage of the established mode
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Many thanks for submitting the paper, which is interesting read. It is well-written too. Before publication, I suggest the authors to reflect the following minor issues I have with the paper.
1) The literature review is quite narrow. I would like to see a more broader review on flood risk management, including the use of 3D modelling.
2) Method: please describe the strenghts and weaknesses of the LiDar method.
3) Results: please elaborate on uncertainties.
4) Conclusions: please carve out the novelties regarding the research
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank the authors for providing responses and updated version of the manuscript.
Considering the abstract, it is quite pretentious to claim that the creation of 3D model is the most important step in flood risk management. Creation of a quality 3D model is one of important steps in flood hazard assessment. However, flood risk management considers selection of appropriate mitigation measures that need to be quantified according to their cost-benefit or some other ratio.
Introduction has been improved. However, some aspects are still missing considering narrowing the research gap that you are trying to fill with your research.
Figure 1 should be improved, there is no measurement scale indicated (same applies for Figure 2) anywhere and letters are too small.
Please provide graphical explanation of Figure 6, showing how 2D view is correlated with 3D view (for example by marking the same spot on both images).
Considering the hydraulic modeling part, subchapters 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 should be completely removed since your paper doesn't have much connection with hydraulic modeling part. Furthermore, the presented text and following equations are completely inappropriate. In the subchapter 2.2.6. you can simply explain that HEC-RAS model has been used for creation of flood maps based on the spatial data obtained through your research activity.
Figures 9. and 10. are still too blurry; you need to find a way to provide them in high resolution. In Figure 11. you should indicate the main river flow (riverbed) so the presented results could be appropriately interpreted.
For the conclusions, same applies as for the abstract. Creation of good 3D is very important for flood hazard assessment. However, flood risk assessment on the other hand considers detailed insights on flood vulnerability and associated damage triggered by the flood event. Finally, flood risk management considers best available measures for flood mitigation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- What are the scientific questions of this research and what are the novelties?
- The results are still not well presented and the analysis is not specific enough. The authors only presented the limited scenarios and the figures are not well explained. For example, the captions of figure 9 and figure 10 need to be clarified. What are the differences between these two scenarios?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds to be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
