Smart Solutions for Municipal Flood Management: Overview of Literature, Trends, and Applications in German Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has an unprecedented approach to the subject and, as such, it can be considered its publication.

However, it is important that the authors make it clear that the solutions they refer to are not exhaustive.

A revision of the text should also be made, for correction or better understanding of some statements (in lines 26 and 27, for example, the authors seem to include earthquakes or forest fires as causes of the major changes that cities face today, which is not easily demonstrable, because they are not new phenomena or because they are strange phenomena to cities).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your kind feedback on our proposed article. With the help of your comments we were able to revise and improve it substantially.

We have worked on the overall structure of the article, re-drafted large parts of the text, and added new sections. In doing so, we aimed to address the comments of all five reviewers to the greatest extent possible.

Specifically, we made the following major revisios to the article:

• Completely revised the introductory section on the conceptualization of the article to clarify its aims and explain how they are reached;
• Reconciled the concepts so that there are no semantic overlaps between them (for example, we integrated IoT and big data into one category);
• Outlined the distinct features of the most salient concepts to show which specific challenges to flood management they address;
• Added a section to present challenges for municipal flood mangement;
• Added a section to discuss the limits to urban flood management;
• Added information on floods in Germany (in addition to the data on extreme rainfall);
• Made clear that the solutions we refer to are not exhaustive;
• Corrected and improved the grammar of the article and the understanding of some statements;
• Reduced number of keywords to five;
• Revised the abstract to contain more specific information;
• Highlighted and emphasized on the novelty of the study.

We really want to thank you very much for taking the time to read our article and to help us improve it in many ways with your comments. We hope that the new and substantially revised version meets your requirements and would be very happy if you support its publication.

Best regards,
Kathrin Viergutz and Neven Josipovic

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript provides an overview of smart solutions for municipal flood management. The manuscript presents sufficient novelty and contributions. However, there are some issues that the authors should be considered before the manuscript can be published. 

- Please improve the grammar of the article. 

- Revise keywords. Finally, 5 keywords should be mentioned. 

- What are the main limitations in urban flood management? 

- What is the municipal flood management solution? 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your kind feedback on our proposed article. With the help of your comments we were able to revise and improve it substantially.

We have worked on the overall structure of the article, re-drafted large parts of the text, and added new sections. In doing so, we aimed to address the comments of all five reviewers to the greatest extent possible.

Specifically, we made the following major revisios to the article:

• Completely revised the introductory section on the conceptualization of the article to clarify its aims and explain how they are reached;
• Reconciled the concepts so that there are no semantic overlaps between them (for example, we integrated IoT and big data into one category);
• Outlined the distinct features of the most salient concepts to show which specific challenges to flood management they address;
• Added a section to present challenges for municipal flood mangement;
• Added a section to discuss the limits to urban flood management;
• Added information on floods in Germany (in addition to the data on extreme rainfall);
• Made clear that the solutions we refer to are not exhaustive;
• Corrected and improved the grammar of the article and the understanding of some statements;
• Reduced number of keywords to five;
• Revised the abstract to contain more specific information;
• Highlighted and emphasized on the novelty of the study.

We really want to thank you very much for taking the time to read our article and to help us improve it in many ways with your comments. We hope that the new and substantially revised version meets your requirements and would be very happy if you support its publication.

Best regards,
Kathrin Viergutz and Neven Josipovic

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 15: I think have general sythesis of their cummulative influence will be better. or the must interesting of the solutions. As it stands the main importance of the smart solutions are missing

check grammar "at city level" or "on city level"

Line 18: How will it be?????? Smart solutions can be a great benefit to flood management as or because .............

The recommendation is not being derieved out of anything. That is why it was important to present the most cilient importance of smart actions for flood and you identify the challenges so the solution addressess the challenge.

Line 19: hanging

Line 26: All cities were once in the countryside. Read about the development and etymology of cities. I dont see how this connects to the work???

Line 28: Check grammar.

"Extreme weather events in 2021 caused an estimated damage of 145 billion euros in Germany"

Line 29: Sentence disconnected. If this sentence is to give the source of the estimate (145billion euros) then is importnat you put the reference at the end of the sentence "Extreme weather events are estimated to have caused damage worth 145 billion euros in Germany (Prognos, 2021)". As to who commissioned the work is not important here.

Line 30: Delete

Line 32: Those......Delete

Line 39: "It shows ......." Before this sentence is important to clearly define smart city solutions what are they to refirm to the ready what your focus is or conceptualisation is. What are the types of smart city solutions.

Line 41-42: Before this sentence is important to clearly define smart city solutions what are they to refirm to the ready what your focus is or conceptualisation is. What are the types of smart city solutions

Suggestion: An introduction is an important part of the a write-up. However, less input can be said of your paper. Is important to build a good base of flood issues globally, in Germany, flood management techniques, its challenges and now the need for best approches hence smart techniques. Then you define is and give areas where it has been adopted and how it has worked and what Germany can learn from that. Else the introduction has no clear cut research problem. 

Line 44-58: Out of place how does this help provide useful information to the discourse at hand. Remove

Line 59-92: Please i do not see anything on climate change and flood. but rainfall issues. I think you need statistics on flood disasters in Germany.

Line 261: How is this different from water smart city in 5.1

Line 263: How is this different from line 237-238. I thnink you need to reconcile the concepts well. 

Line 415: How is this different from the 6.1.1 Big data. I think the ideas and the core issues are the same

Line 424-469: How different from issues raised in 6.1.1. My advice find distinct features of these smart techniques else they all sound the same

Line 470: Are you saying drones are not part of remote sensing. Please read on what is remote sensing

General Comments:

I think the work has merit and is interesting how smart cities will be in the future. However, the paper needs to improve to make it a good reference material in the future. I suggest you overhaul the paper. Rework on the introduction to really conceptualise a research problem of which the review will depend on.

Two: Eventhough is a review of other works. Is important you give a methodological approach as to how the literature was sourced, what were the keywords, how was the review process. This makes the work a science and gives an appraoch which can be followed by all for subsequent studies.

Three: Please who need to strictly define the smart techniques weaknes and strength

Four: You need to check the sentences and how it links with each other.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your kind feedback on our proposed article. With the help of your comments we were able to revise and improve it substantially.

We have worked on the overall structure of the article, re-drafted large parts of the text, and added new sections. In doing so, we aimed to address the comments of all five reviewers to the greatest extent possible.

Specifically, we made the following major revisios to the article:

• Completely revised the introductory section on the conceptualization of the article to clarify its aims and explain how they are reached;
• Reconciled the concepts so that there are no semantic overlaps between them (for example, we integrated IoT and big data into one category);
• Outlined the distinct features of the most salient concepts to show which specific challenges to flood management they address;
• Added a section to present challenges for municipal flood mangement;
• Added a section to discuss the limits to urban flood management;
• Added information on floods in Germany (in addition to the data on extreme rainfall);
• Made clear that the solutions we refer to are not exhaustive;
• Corrected and improved the grammar of the article and the understanding of some statements;
• Reduced number of keywords to five;
• Revised the abstract to contain more specific information;
• Highlighted and emphasized on the novelty of the study.

We really want to thank you very much for taking the time to read our article and to help us improve it in many ways with your comments. We hope that the new and substantially revised version meets your requirements and would be very happy if you support its publication.

Best regards,
Kathrin Viergutz and Neven Josipovic

Reviewer 4 Report

The form of the paper is a review, not the research article. It is clear from its structure and content. Application of research methods and empirical data are missing, too. 

As a review, the manuscript should be revised to present general concepts applied (not specifically Germany), also the structure of the manuscript should be revised in this sense. State-of-the-art lireterature sources should be introduced and the findings should be discussed. In the abstract more specific information should be introduced. Present form is too general.

I recommend to publish the manuscript after major revisions - new conceptualisation of the article. Only after, more detailed revision should be done.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your kind feedback on our proposed article. With the help of your comments we were able to revise and improve it substantially.

We have worked on the overall structure of the article, re-drafted large parts of the text, and added new sections. In doing so, we aimed to address the comments of all five reviewers to the greatest extent possible.

Specifically, we made the following major revisios to the article:

• Completely revised the introductory section on the conceptualization of the article to clarify its aims and explain how they are reached;
• Reconciled the concepts so that there are no semantic overlaps between them (for example, we integrated IoT and big data into one category);
• Outlined the distinct features of the most salient concepts to show which specific challenges to flood management they address;
• Added a section to present challenges for municipal flood mangement;
• Added a section to discuss the limits to urban flood management;
• Added information on floods in Germany (in addition to the data on extreme rainfall);
• Made clear that the solutions we refer to are not exhaustive;
• Corrected and improved the grammar of the article and the understanding of some statements;
• Reduced number of keywords to five;
• Revised the abstract to contain more specific information;
• Highlighted and emphasized on the novelty of the study.

We really want to thank you very much for taking the time to read our article and to help us improve it in many ways with your comments. We hope that the new and substantially revised version meets your requirements and would be very happy if you support its publication.

Best regards,
Kathrin Viergutz and Neven Josipovic

Reviewer 5 Report

Strength

In overall, the paper highlighted a very interesting issues and all of them are very well presented. 

Weakness

Please highlight and emphasize more on the novelty of the study in sub-section 1.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your kind feedback on our proposed article. With the help of your comments we were able to revise and improve it substantially.

We have worked on the overall structure of the article, re-drafted large parts of the text, and added new sections. In doing so, we aimed to address the comments of all five reviewers to the greatest extent possible.

Specifically, we made the following major revisios to the article:

• Completely revised the introductory section on the conceptualization of the article to clarify its aims and explain how they are reached;
• Reconciled the concepts so that there are no semantic overlaps between them (for example, we integrated IoT and big data into one category);
• Outlined the distinct features of the most salient concepts to show which specific challenges to flood management they address;
• Added a section to present challenges for municipal flood mangement;
• Added a section to discuss the limits to urban flood management;
• Added information on floods in Germany (in addition to the data on extreme rainfall);
• Made clear that the solutions we refer to are not exhaustive;
• Corrected and improved the grammar of the article and the understanding of some statements;
• Reduced number of keywords to five;
• Revised the abstract to contain more specific information;
• Highlighted and emphasized on the novelty of the study.

We really want to thank you very much for taking the time to read our article and to help us improve it in many ways with your comments. We hope that the new and substantially revised version meets your requirements and would be very happy if you support its publication.

Best regards,
Kathrin Viergutz and Neven Josipovic