Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the effectiveness of three different flood adaptation strategies in reducing flood risk in the Eastwick community of Philadelphia, PA under climate change conditions. The paper is in line with the publication theme of this journal and has good practical significance. The research results have a positive impact on future flood control in the community. Although the structure of the article is relatively reasonable and smooth, there are still significant issues in the content that cannot be ignored. In order to further improve the quality of the article, it is recommended to conduct a major revision of the paper.

 

My major concerns as follow:

1. The title of the article mentions modeling and proposes the establishment of an H&H model in the conclusion, but the article only mentions the H&H model once and does not provide a detailed description of the model. For the title 'Modeling', it is recommended to supplement relevant explanations and principles, and provide a detailed explanation of the establishment process and sources of the model.

2. The 2D model uses a skeletonized approach to simulate rainwater discharge systems. Although this method has been proven to be accurate, the paper should provide a detailed description of how it achieves a balance between computational efficiency and model accuracy, and explain why this specific method was chosen.

3. When describing the three main flood risk management methods, more details should be provided to explain how each strategy is designed, especially the green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) scheme, which needs to specify the different types of GSI facilities involved and their assumed operating parameters.

4. For the display of the results of different flood management strategies, more intuitive data comparisons should be provided, such as charts or graphs, to show the changes in flood severity, depth, and duration under different schemes.

5. Given the divergent attitudes of community residents towards different strategies, is it necessary to explain the necessity and importance of community participation.

6. Considering that a single adaptation strategy may not be sufficient to address complex composite climate risks, the possibility of a hybrid approach can be explored, such as building dams as the first stage of a long-term FRM strategy, followed by sufficient GSI to eliminate any induced floods and improve long-term comprehensive flood resilience. Does the article need to provide more in-depth solutions for future coping strategies?

7. Provide some future research directions and give more specific suggestions.

 

My minor concerns as follow:

1. There are some sentence or word errors in the article, please carefully check. For example, in "Climate change is elevating temperatures, shifting weather patterns, and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, including funds", what does "including funds" refer to?

2. There are certain issues with the illustrations in the paper: Figure 1 lacks necessary mapping elements such as latitude, longitude, and compass; Figure 2 lacks necessary graphic elements and the legend is too unclear. The legend can be enlarged appropriately; The meaning of “Runon” in the upper right corner of Figure 4 is unclear; The order of Figure 5 and Figure 6 has been reversed; The current Figure 5 lacks the necessary explanations and graphic elements along the way; Figure 7 lacks necessary mapping elements; The meaning of "w and wo CC" in the title of Figure 14 is unclear. In short, it is recommended that the author carefully redraw the illustrations.

3. Add some relevant references appropriately to better support the argument of the paper, as the current number of references is relatively low.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: “Modeling The Effectiveness of Alternative Flood Adaptation Strategies Subject to Future Compound Climate Risks” is very interesting and covers a very important topic. The article presents an investigation into the effectiveness of alternative adaptation strategies in reducing flood risks in the Eastwick community of Philadelphia. Authors have performed the models with use of SWMM computer software. They have tested 3 basic strategies associated with resistance based solutions (e.g. levee), nature-based solutions (e.g. green stormwater infrastructure (GSI), and community-driven flood risk management strategies, (e.g. the landswap).
The results obtained for various options under both current and future climate scenarios show significant differences in the predicted flood duration, extents, and depths of flooding.
Authors have concluded that the best solution for the flood risk management is the integration of multiple stormwater management strategies.

Below are presented the specific comments to the Manuscript: land-3211406.
1. The manuscript is well written. The order of chapters is correct
2. The abstract is informative and well written.
3. In the chapter “Discussion” the Authors could refer to a larger number of publications
4. Please, check if the phrase “landswap” is correct? shouldn't this phrase be “land swap”?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript (land-3211406) tries to provide a detailed investigation into the effectiveness of alternative adaptation strategies in reducing flood risks in the Eastwick community of Philadelphia, PA. It also provides useful insights into the limitations and opportunities associated with resistance, nature-based, and community-driven flood risk management strategies. Overall, this is an interesting research. But more detailed comments and suggestions are presented in the following:

- . This manuscript uses the 1D-2D H&H model for simulation, but there are some deficiencies in the development, calibration and validation of the model. Specifically, there is a lack of detailed validation process for the accuracy and completeness of the model input (such as rainfall data).

- . The rationality of the 1D-2D H&H model parameter settings (such as surface roughness, soil properties) is not discussed in-depth. These uncertainties may affect the reliability and accuracy of the model results.

- . The future climate scenarios used in the manuscript may be relatively conservative (such as a 50% increase in precipitation intensity and a 1.2-meter sea level rise). However, according to the latest climate projections, actual climate change may be more severe than these scenarios.

- . The labels and annotations of some Figures are not clear enough, for example, the size of font is too small. It is recommended to optimize the layout of the Figures and annotations to improve readability.

- . The papers in the literature review are relatively old and fail to reflect the latest research and technological progress. The total number of literature is relatively small (only 21). Literature related to urban water issues since 2024 needs to be updated. Please refer to:

Assessing the scale effect of urban vertical patterns on urban waterlogging: An empirical study in Shenzhen. 2024, 107486

Street Community-Level Urban Flood Risk Assessment Based on Numerical Simulation. 2024.

- . The manuscript does not mention the involvement of stakeholders in the strategy development process. Given the uniqueness and demographic composition of the Eastwick community, stakeholder feedback is critical to the effectiveness and acceptability of the strategy. It is recommended to increase the discussion of stakeholder involvement and feedback.

- . The authors compared three flood risk management strategies (GSI, Levee, Landswap), but in the actual comparison process, factors such as the cost-effectiveness, social acceptance, implementation difficulty, and long-term impact of various strategies were not fully considered.

- . In addition, the in-depth analysis and discussion of each strategy is relatively limited. In particular, when comparing the effectiveness of these strategies, there is a lack of detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis, which makes it difficult to fully demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of various strategies.

- . When presenting the results, the authors only provided visual information such as flood inundation maps and box plots, and the analysis and interpretation of the results were not in-depth enough. For example, there is a lack of quantitative comparison of the specific effects of different strategies in reducing flood risks, and there is no sufficient discussion of the applicability and limitations of these strategies under different climate scenarios.

-. The Discussion Section of the manuscript is simple and needs to be supplemented with in-depth comparison and analysis with previous studies.

-. The Conclusions of the manuscript are mainly based on the simulation results of the model, but lack sufficient consideration of actual policy making and community needs. The implications of the research results for policy making, community planning and future research have not been fully explored.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I congratulate the authors on their work. The research presents a novel approach, comparing different approaches to flood risk reduction, taking into account two possible climate change scenarios and their influence on flooding.

The introduction to the research provides a state-of-the-art analysis of the approach to the implementation of SBNs for the mitigation and reduction of urban flooding problems. Different citations are presented that show the benefits and limitations of these systems. As the authors point out, there is still a lot of research to be done on this subject.

In the introduction, reference could be made to the adaptation approaches proposed by the IPCC, although adaptation to climate change is considered, this has a direct relationship with natural risks (such as floods).

Chapter 14 of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014, p. 845), entitled ‘Adaptation needs and options’, sets out a classification of adaptation categories.

In the Sixth Assessment Report on CC (IPCC, 2022), adaptation is integrated in a cross-cutting manner, recommending measures such as: disaster risk management, sustainable urban planning, strengthening infrastructure and public services, and promoting sustainable and resource-efficient building practices.

The objective of the research is very clear: The authors put forward three approaches in the research to determine which action offers the best results for flood risk reduction in an urban core. Special importance is given to the SBN approach and changes in the location of some residences. The latter two approaches, with a very realistic approach, can be implemented. From the point of view of sustainability and adaptation to climate change and floods, approach number 3, which in the vast majority of cases is usually the most complicated because of the social issues associated with such a solution. From a geographical point of view, this solution is the most beneficial for both the population and the ecosystem. The population reduces its exposure and vulnerability to flooding, and the river recovers the space that belongs to it.

In line 343-344, the authors stress that none of the approaches completely eliminates flood risk. The truth is that risk 0 does not exist, and even less so in a location where the danger (river artery and its flood plain) is inherent.

In the discussion section I recommend the authors compare the results of their research with others with similar objectives, to observe commonalities and discrepancies with other research.

I recommend revising the conclusions and incorporating how the research will continue and the future lines of research that the authors intend to pursue.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 I think my comments and suggestions have been revised in the revised version, and there are no other comments/suggestions.