Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to recognize that major changes were made to the original manuscript. This new version of the manuscript meets the remarks given in the previous revision.

However, colloquial language is still used in this manuscript. The writing of the manuscript resembles a technical report rather than a scientific article. A lot of sentences and paragraphs needs to be reworded. The paper even presents an interview statement. I consider that this should be removed since it does not provide scientific support for the main findings of the manuscript.

I consider that the main findings (flood zones) are to some extent obvious given that the manuscript recognizes the lack of physical infrastructure to drain runoff.

Finally, I suggest including a brief description of rainfall behavior in the study area. The authors could add information about the months where rainy and dry seasons occur and the maximum volume of precipitation per day or per month during those months.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has been well revised and supplemented, and its structure and organization have greatly improved compared to the previous version.

At present, the paper can be modified in the following aspects to better meet the publishing requirements.

1-The current workflow of the paper is not very clear. It is recommended that the authors add a summary that provides a detailed description of the research process and workflow of this study.

2-The explanation of relevant formulas and methods in the paper is not yet very detailed, and further discussion can be added.

3-The production of the map in the paper is slightly rough, for example, Figure 1 can show the location of the country in Africa, so that readers can better understand the background of the research paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The readability of the paper is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting well-written and easy-to-follow article. It deals with the up-to-date topic of flood exposure of road networks. I propose the acceptance of this article due to its significance and importance in the aspect of road flooding exposure and its impact on peri-urban mobility.

However, the authors have to prepare the article according to the journal's instructions for authors, because in the current format it is in a very different style at all levels (text format, references styles etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Climate change has a significant impact on human activities. The research in this article is very interesting, as it provides the author with many evaluations and cases of how tropical regions respond to drastic changes in hydrology and climate.

It is necessary to display the regional background of the country in Figure 1, which can help readers outside of Africa understand the geographical background of the study.

The display in Figure 2 can be adjusted again, and the current state does not show the specific effect of the research.

This article has two figures 3

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is readable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with an interesting topic that affect many people, particularly under the context of climate change. However, some suggestion/revisions for its improvements are necessary. These are listed below:

It would be useful to add some numerical results in the abstract so as the reader obtain a first view of the article findings.

In the introduction add some comments from the latest reports of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Particularly, the cost of natural disaster and the place of floods among other hazards (https://cred.be/sites/default/files/2022_EMDAT_report.pdf)

Additionally, it is important to link the flood fatalities with exposure of roads as has been depicted in previous studies (Chatzichristaki et al., 2015; Diakakis, 2013)  

Chatzichristaki, C., Stefanidis, S., Stefanidis, P., & Stathis, D. (2015). Analysis of the flash flood in Rhodes Island (South Greece) on 22 November 2013. Silva, 16(1), 76-86.

Diakakis, M., & Deligiannakis, G. (2013). Vehicle-related flood fatalities in Greece. Environmental Hazards, 12(3-4), 278-290.

Also, last decades the importance of the determination of road exposure to mutli-hazards has raise the concern of scientific community. You have to highlight this (Achillopoulou et al., 2020).

Achillopoulou, D. V., Mitoulis, S. A., Argyroudis, S. A., & Wang, Y. (2020). Monitoring of transport infrastructure exposed to multiple hazards: A roadmap for building resilience. Science of the total environment, 746, 141001.

Clearly clarify the gap and the novelty of the proposed article. What’s new?             

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript evaluates the exposure of roads to floods in peri-urban environments. A delineation of potential flood zones was the main contribution of the manuscript. This delineation was based on the topographic wetness index (TWI) and field survey.

Several flaws were identified.

-        The manuscript lacks novelty. I could not find a new contribution.

-        DEM resolution (30 m x 30 m) is poor to delineate flood zones.

-        The flood zone delineation methodology is simple.

-        The presentation of the results is not clear. It looks like that all the peri-urban roads are vulnerable to flooding.

-        Colloquial language is used for the presentation and discussion of the results.

-        Page 6. The authors mentioned that "the TWI results were compared with flood hotspots reported by Trepekli (2022)". I could not find this comparison. Then in the conclusion section, the authors also mentioned that “This study therefore increases our understanding of the variability of exposure to road flooding at a very local scale.” Is there added information in comparison to Trepekli (2022)?