Practical Steps for Urban Flood Risk Mitigation Using Nature-Based Solutions—A Case Study in New Cairo, Egypt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper discusses the efficacy of Nature based solutions (NBS) in mitigating flood risk within an urban area in Egypt.
As a general comment, an introduction is necessary to understand the main topic of the paper, but I found this introduction too long, with respect to the research topic presented.
The main research topic is only introduced at pg. 7 of the manuscript.
The authors presented an extensive review of NBS to counteract increasing flooding events in urban areas. Urban areas, are notably characterized by impermeable pavements; in these areas the prevailing water-runoff over water infiltration is responsible of flooding events, sometimes causing disasters. International organizations (e.g. UN) favor NBS approach to guarantee successful mitigation measures to extreme weather events following current climate chaos.
As the authors indicated (line 293), Egypt experienced severe flooding events, responsible also of casualties in the spring of 2020. Therefore, an analysis of possible solutions to mitigate associated risks in the area are of general interest.
However, several pieces of information are sparce within the manuscript, and /or are provided only at the end. I would expect a more detailed discussion on the pro and contra of NBS solutions chosen to tackle problems in the chosen area in the country. Instead, the discussion is restricted to the effectiveness of five NBS in two scenarios, obtained using a (free?) online program chosen to analyze the situation (CNT Green Value Stormwater Management Calculator). It is not clear if the authors are testing this program, or promoting CNT program use, for land planning purposes. A more coherent discussion on the results obtained, and the limitations of CNT program, are lacking.
The English needs a careful proof-reading by a native speaker. Many colloquial forms should be avoided.
In summary, I suggest to restructure the manuscript, focusing more on the original results obtained.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English needs a careful proof-reading by a native speaker. Many colloquial forms should be avoided.
Author Response
Kindly refer to the attached file with a point-by-point response to all raised comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript number: land- 3456171
Title: Assessing the effectiveness of Nature-based Solutions on flood risk mitigation;case study new city in Egypt
General comments:
This manuscript explores the effectiveness of nature based solutions (NbSs) as a resilient approach to mitigate urban flood risk vulnerability and risks. The theme selection of the manuscript is novel, but the organization of overall structure of the manuscript is unreasonable, the context and logic are poor, the description of research methods is too detailed, but the analysis of research results is not deep enough. In short, it is recommended to make major revisions.
Specific comments：
1. “1. Introduction” part: Firstly, a large amount of background information is provided on global urbanization, climate change, flood risks, and the situation of floods in Egypt. However, the presentation of this information is relatively scattered and lacks a clear logical structure. Secondly, there is no clear indication of what the scientific question to be solved is. Finally, there is insufficient analysis of the progress in flood risk research in developing countries and a lack of literature support. Suggest supplementing relevant literature for in-depth analysis.
2. “4. Research method” part: In my opinion, this section belongs to the “Materials and Methods” section as a whole. The introduction of the research area is too detailed (lines 80-404, the entire article is only 502 lines). Suggest reorganizing and condensing.
3. “5. Results” part: In this paragraph, many figures and tables are provided, but there is almost no detailed description and analysis of the information in Figures 6, Tables 2, and 3. Also, no substantial research results are seen. Suggest conducting a thorough analysis of these outcome charts and summarizing the academic innovations and important results of this manuscript.
4. “6. Discussion” part: Although the research results have been summarized and analyzed, there are certain aspects that can be further improved. For example, the limitations and applicability of the research methods, the consideration of the dynamics of climate change and the limitations of the model in the research process, and the comparative analysis with existing studies should be explained. Effectively addressing the above problems will help improve the depth and breadth of this research, providing more comprehensive guidance for local and regional urban flood management.
5. The percentage of the figure 1 is incomplete. Please check and supplement.
6. Line 237: “Table 1. Comparing NBSs”, is it a figure or a table？
7. Line 495-497: This sentence is not expressed clearly, it is recommended to use standard language for expression.
8. Please check Figure 6, whose title is "Comparing the applications of different scenarios of NBSs to the study area", but in the figure, the specific locations of different NBS measures or the comparison of their effects are not clearly marked.
9. Please check Table 2. It describes the changes in different land use types, but in the main text, the specific impacts of these changes on flood - risk mitigation are not explained in detail. The content of the chart is disjointed from the main text.
10. The font size varies among all Figures, especially in Figure 6.
Author Response
Kindly refer to the attached file with a point-by-point response to all raised comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your interesting paper. I have some suggestions for improvements:
Provide a stronger and clearer justification for the selection of the five NBS types, emphasizing criteria such as cost-effectiveness, ease of implementation, and adaptability to local conditions.
Integrate climate change projections to assess the long-term resilience and performance of the proposed solutions, ensuring their viability under future scenarios. Offer specific details on how the CNT Green Values® tool was calibrated or validated for the unique environmental and urban characteristics of New Cairo.
Revise all figures and tables to include more descriptive labeling, legends, and captions, making their relevance to the findings more immediately apparent. Consolidate the key distinctions between baseline scenarios and those with NBS applications into a single, well-organized table or graphic for easier comparison and comprehension.
Expand the discussion to highlight the co-benefits of NBSs, such as enhancing biodiversity, improving urban cooling, and contributing to broader ecological goals.
Address potential obstacles in implementing the proposed NBSs, such as ongoing maintenance expenses, land-use conflicts, and institutional or regulatory barriers.
Delve deeper into why certain NBSs demonstrated superior performance, linking the results to specific site conditions and characteristics. Explore the policy implications of these findings, suggesting how they might inform urban planning efforts in other regions with similar challenges.
Conduct an economic evaluation comparing the costs of NBSs to traditional flood mitigation approaches, providing a balanced view of their financial viability. Simplify technical terminology where possible and include a glossary to ensure that the content is accessible to non-specialist readers.
Reorganize sections to improve the logical flow of the document, ensuring smooth transitions between the key findings, their implications, and practical recommendations.
Include actionable insights for urban planners and policymakers in the conclusion, focusing on steps they can take to implement these solutions effectively. Update references to incorporate recent studies and regionally specific literature to ground the analysis in the latest research. Highlight strategies for maintaining the proposed NBSs and propose long-term monitoring plans to safeguard their sustainability over time.
Provide supplementary material, including raw data and simulation details, to enhance the reproducibility of the findings and bolster transparency. Finally, explore the potential for integrating NBSs with traditional infrastructure to create a comprehensive, hybrid approach to flood management.
Warm regards
Author Response
Kindly refer to the attached file with a point-by-point response to all raised comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors modified the manuscript, following revisions. However, several, further modifications are needed.
I would split and rephrase several sentences, and use more commas to improve the reading. In the In the Literature review section, several sentences seem to validate some ideas, instead of reporting only literature findings. A clear distinction among methods to calculate hazard, exposure, and vulnerability in order to obtain a final risk assessment, is needed.
I acknowledge the insertion of a Table (Table 1) to summarize major pro and contra of NBSs in hot arid urban zones.
More details on the methods of data analyses are provided, but they should be better organized.
More details on the choice of using online free tools to choose either one, or other NBSs, should be given. As free tools, they could be used more by countries with less- economical resources to assist public authorities in making informed decisions.
The English still needs a careful proof-reading by a native speaker.
In summary, I recommend further, major, revisions in order to improve the manuscript.
Some further comments are provided below:
Title: “actionable” I would replace it with “practical”
Abstract
Line 24: “a) hazard and risk assessment” I guess hazard refers to “flood hazard”. The Risk posed by any physical phenomena is the probability of harm to human health, property or the environment, besides the (natural) hazard includes exposure, and vulnerability (Risk=hazard x exposure x vulnerability).
Line 26: “exposure and vulnerability assessment”. Exposure assessment is one of the major steps in risk assessment. It refers to the number and characteristics of the population exposed to a certain hazard. There is no reference on how the exposure is calculated in the sentence.
Line 29: Avoid adverbs. Replace “ finally” with: “the last step included”, or “a final step”, or “To conclude /validate the study”, or similar
Line 30: “online tool” , is a “free online tool” ? Please cite the tool you used (with Copyright if present).
Line32: “ the model tested the efficiency of…” does this means that you “run several tests to evaluate the efficiency of….” Modify the phrase accordingly
Line 33: “In the first test.. in the second test..” Do you mean “simulations”? Please rephrase.
Line 39: “tailored solutions and” add a comma (,) before “and”
Introduction:
The section starts with a figure, without figure caption. Please move/ add caption.
Line 87-88: please use commas, check the English
Line 89: Add Acronym for the UN site cited.
Line 91: “As for the economic damage..” please check the English
Line93: “this period”; which period?
“They are not only caused…” are “they” catastrophes? Please be clear.
Line 94: “but also BY human…”
Line 98: “.. also areas…”, means “but also in areas”?
Line 119: “.. that are at higher risk…” means “at high risk”?
Line 126-127: “accounts for”.. please change term
Line 129: Exposure = people at risk, not elements
Line 131-132: “Thus…etc..” I would use a more articulated sentence to introduce the complex task of a urban risk analysis . Please rephrase, and be specific (avoid “e.g. GIS simulation ..”)
Line 139 : “contextual” replace
Line 147 “ actionable” replace
Line 153: “in the new Cairo” means: the most recent part of the town?
- Literature review.
Line 162: means you cross checked the paper published in the last 10 years? If yes, please rephrase (e.g. better write a sentence like in Line 206)
Line 169:”with a poor input” . Do you mean “ less paper from less-developed countries?” Are the same countries subjected to higher vulnerabilities?
Figure 1: “Scientometric analysis”. I didn’t know the term. As far as I found online: “Scientometrics can be defined as the study of the quantitative aspects of scientific communication, R&D practices, and science and technology (S&T) policies. The specialty has developed in relation to the increased capacities of computer storage and information retrieval of scientific communications (e.g., citation analysis). Archival records of scientific communications contain institutional address information, substantive messages (e.g., title words), and relational information from which one is able to reconstruct patterns and identify the latent characteristics of both authors and document sets. Using scientometric techniques, one is thus able to relate institutional characteristics at the level of research groups with developments at the level of scientific disciplines and specialties” .
I would change the term and be more specific on what the figure describes.
…
Line 213: “.. driven by their effectiveness in..” I guess there is a gap in the sentence. Not consequential
LINE 218-221: too long sentence. Please split in two.
Line 222: “is another effective type of NBS…” Are you referring to the number of publications found, or something else in general?
Line 219-230: it seems not only a report of the literature findings but also a comment on more or less viable solutions on a certain topic.
Table 1. Nice! Please add references when summarizing major findings of NBSs in tackling different problems, distinguishing your own interpretations (e.g. derived from your study/ modelling) from those of other authors.
Line 384: “ The table shows..” replace with “Table 1 shows/ displays…”
Line 392-393: the sentence is not complete.
Line 398: “.. in the MENA region” MENA is an acronym, as indicated in the following lines (471) Please provide the full name and, after, the acronym in brackets.
Line 472: before “which caused” insert a comma. Please check the punctuation, when writing, also in the following lines.
Line 483: “and broader water conservation..” what conservation? “measures”?
Line 504: replace “actionable”
Line 510 : “.. an online stormwater calculator” a free- online program ? why you choose it? More details needed.
Line 518 : figure caption replace with “schematic flow diagram summarizing the research method used”
Line 519-520: Please separate hazard assessment, risk assessment, exposure and vulnerability. They are different and require separate analyses.. often very time- consuming ones.
Line 523: You selected the area. Active forms are better than passive ones, when writing. Why you choose that street only? Is that particularly prone to floods? Please rephrase.
Line 534: Figure number missing
Line 542: “cause casualties” replace term to avoid redundancy
Line 603: Please rephrase the figure caption
Pg. 24. Table is difficult to read, with superimposed corrections, but overall the style looks good.
Line 693: please use commas!
Line 695- line703… “This.. That.. “ please be specific when writing (e.g. “this result indicates that… “)
Line 698: “can capture was computed… “ not clear
Line 744: “this indicates” This…. what?
Figure 6 : “ in isolation” means “single NBS”?
Line 751: “ Scenario Y (comma) which includes..”
Table 3 and 4: Rephrase the fig captions
7 Discussion
Line 841: use commas!
Line 845-47: check the English
Line 849: Delete “Thus”
Line 853 “This underscores..” what is “THIS”? A Result?
Line 865: delete: “Thus, it can be stated that… “
Line 869-879: Restructure and simplify the writing to detail how the results of your research align with UN_ SDGs
Line 889: check the English
Line 891 Line 896: List the limitations of the studies, instead of using “Another, other…”
Line 896: the tool you used should be cited (e.g. web site)/ acknowledged, and shortcomings of this online tool, should be addressed against other(s), for example.
Are free online tools useful for less-developing countries for a fast, reliable, NBSs choice? Comment your choice.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I would split and rephrase several sentences, and use more commas to improve the reading
The English still needs a careful proof-reading by a native speaker.
Author Response
Kindly refer to the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview comments for:
Manuscript Title: Assessing the effectiveness of Nature-based Solutions on flood risk mitigation; case study new city in Egypt (land-3456171).
The author team has invested a lot of time and effort in providing one-on-one responses to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers, and has made significant revisions to the original manuscript. The overall academic level and logicality of the current manuscripts have improved significantly.
The revised manuscript has been carefully organized and restructured to better describe the context and logic of the research as well as the research method. A dedicated section to explain the research problem, aims and objectives has been added.
I am quite satisfied with the author team's serious attitude towards the revision comments and their attentive work investation.
In conclusion, it is recommended that the authors finalize the manuscript in strict adherence to the journal's Instructions for authors, the responsible academic editor check and can be accepted in its current form.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the esteemed reviewer for his/her valuable comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your improvements.
Warm regards
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the esteemed reviewer for his/her valuable comments.
