Assessing the Impact of the Urban Landscape on Extreme Rainfall Characteristics Triggering Flood Hazards
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study configures the WRF model and the urban fraction for optimal rainfall simulation over Kampala, Uganda. This study is a routine study and the use of methodology is very much common. The academic contributions and innovations of this study are missing. I suggest you revise this manuscript significantly so that scientific contribution should be exhibited. My comments and questions are as follows:
Abstract
I suggest you start your abstract with this sentence “This study configures the….
The information given in the first two sentences is not needed. Your abstract must be specific and concise.
NWP stands for (Line:26)
Introduction
The inline referencing is incorrect. Like “model 6[3]” (line 41). Need to correct it.
PBL stands for?
The entire introduction should be revised significantly. The length of this section should be reduced. The sentence should be short. With mixed references, it is really hard to understand the coherence of your paragraphs. It is not a good practice to submit a paper in this situation.
There is some redundant information in the last two paragraphs of this section that should be merged it.
Materials and Methods
Study Area
I suggest you revise this entire section significantly.
Figure 1 should represent only the study area location and nothing else. Further land use and other maps should be represented in the result section.
I suggest you find another remote sensing dataset to prepare a Land use map. Already used data has very coarse resolution and it is really hard to find such land use and land cover.
Why you did not use Landsat's free available dataset for your study?
Result
Calibration and validation of your grid-based rainfall results should be exhibited clearly, which is mandatory with this used coarse resolution data.
A few sentences in the section are hardly understandable. I suggest you write small sentences with coherence.in some parts, your results are so mixed, and hard to understand.
Discussion
I suggest you rewrite your discussion section. Mostly, you have mentioned redundant results information in this section, you have to concise it significantly.
Conclusion
I suggest you include your scientific contribution and innovation of this study in the last paragraph.
Author Response
Reviewer: 1
The study configures the WRF model and the urban fraction for optimal rainfall simulation over Kampala, Uganda. This study is a routine study and the use of methodology is very much common. The academic contributions and innovations of this study are missing. I suggest you revise this manuscript significantly so that scientific contribution should be exhibited. My comments and questions are as follows:
Abstract
I suggest you start your abstract with this sentence "This study configures the….
The information given in the first two sentences is not needed. Your abstract must be specific and concise.
Response: This is a very good comment and suggestion. We have removed the information given in the first two sentences.
NWP stands for (Line:26)
Response: Sorry about the mistake. I have added what it stands for.
Introduction
The inline referencing is incorrect. Like "model 6[3]" (line 41). Need to correct it.
Response: I'm so sorry about this mistake. I corrected it accordingly.
PBL stands for?
Response: Sorry about the mistake. I have added what it stands for.
The entire introduction should be revised significantly. The length of this section should be reduced. The sentence should be short. With mixed references, it is really hard to understand the coherence of your paragraphs. It is not a good practice to submit a paper in this situation.
There is some redundant information in the last two paragraphs of this section that should be merged it.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We revised this section and reduced it significantly accordingly. And also, the redundant part in the last two paragraphs.
Materials and Methods
Study Area
I suggest you revise this entire section significantly.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have revised this section accordingly.
Figure 1 should represent only the study area location and nothing else. Further land use and other maps should be represented in the result section.
Response: Figure 1 now represents the study area with the urban fraction (I.e., the high-resolution Landsat urban fraction) we used for the urban fraction impact assessment. The WRF model domain configuration with default land use categories is now presented under the methodology part.
I suggest you find another remote sensing dataset to prepare a Land use map. Already used data has very coarse resolution and it is really hard to find such land use and land cover. Why you did not use Landsat's free available dataset for your study?
Response: Thank you for your constructive and meaningful comments. The present land use map is the land use categories that actually exist in the WRF model at a horizontal resolution of 1 km (i.e., similar to the innermost domain configuration). We agree with you that the existing LULC has course resolution, and of course, including the urban fraction part. This study hopes to address the course effect of urban fraction in the urban canopy module and reveal the influence of urbanization factors on extreme rainfall events in Kampala more comprehensively. However, your suggestion has provided great help for our next work. I plan to carry out further research by updating the existing land use-land cover categories in the WRF model with more realistic and freely available high-resolution satellite data to improve the model forecasting ability further.
Result
Calibration and validation of your grid-based rainfall results should be exhibited clearly, which is mandatory with this used coarse resolution data. A few sentences in the section are hardly understandable. I suggest you write small sentences with coherence.in some parts, your results are so mixed, and hard to understand.
Response: The calibration and validation of the model result with observations are now shown separately.
Discussion
I suggest you rewrite your discussion section. Mostly, you have mentioned redundant results information in this section, you have to concise it significantly.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised this section accordingly.
Conclusion
I suggest you include your scientific contribution and innovation of this study in the last paragraph.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We included our scientific contribution and innovation of this study in the last paragraph.
We appreciate your constructive and meaningful comments and hope that our amendments will meet with your approval.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
If the WRF configuration with updated urban fraction better forecast extreme rainfall
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?
Yes, the topic is interesting and relevant in the field. The relationship between landcover/use and the numerical weather models ability is not well
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The well documentation for updating landcover condition for improving the forecast model ability.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
The methodology part is fine and no further improvements are needed.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
6. Are the references appropriate?
The references are appropriate; however, the style must be revised according to the journal instructions for authors.
Moreover, the different forecasting cycle have a profound effect on extreme rainfall forecasting ability (https://doi.org/10.1002/met.2079)
Line 84. The configuration of WRF can be improved with other outsources (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.06.019, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-35095-0_1,
Differences and novelty points comparing to other similar approaches/researches.
Reference list must be correct according to the journal’s guides
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- What is the main question addressed by the research?
If the WRF configuration with updated urban fraction better forecast extreme rainfall
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?
Yes, the topic is interesting and relevant in the field. The relationship between landcover/use and the numerical weather models ability is not well
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The well documentation for updating landcover condition for improving the forecast model ability.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
The methodology part is fine and no further improvements are needed.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Responses: Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestion. We included your comments and suggestions in this revised version of the manuscript.
Are the references appropriate?
The references are appropriate; however, the style must be revised according to the journal instructions for authors.
Response: The references are corrected accordingly.
Moreover, the different forecasting cycle have a profound effect on extreme rainfall forecasting ability (https://doi.org/10.1002/met.2079)
Line 84. The configuration of WRF can be improved with other outsources (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.06.019, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-35095-0_1,
Response: Indeed, extreme rainfall simulation using the WRF model can be affected by many mechanisms, such as model configuration, selection of proper parameterization schemes (e.g., Microphysics, cumulus, planetary boundary layer, land surface parametrization), different forecasting cycles, and initial and boundary conditions. In the current study, we considered the effect of urban fraction impact by using the optimized parametrization schemes set in the previous study in Kampala, Uganda.
Differences and novelty points comparing to other similar approaches/researches.
Response: The differences and novelty points compared to other similar approaches are addressed and given under the discussion and conclusion parts
The reference list must be correct according to the journal's guides
Response: I'm so sorry about this mistake. I corrected it accordingly.
We appreciate your constructive and meaningful comments and hope that our amendments will meet with your approval.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is accepted in the current form
