Comparison of High-Resolution Digital Elevation Models for Customizing Hydrological Analysis of Urban Basins: Considerations, Opportunities, and Implications for Stormwater System Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript employed different GIS software and DEM data to generate Indies for hydrological analysis of urban basins. After reviewing the manuscript, I have the following concerns:

(1)   One major issue of this study is the comparison strategy, It seems the authors only compared different results but didn’t compare with TRUE/OBS data and didn’t analyze the mechanism that lead to these differences.

(2)   What’s the conclusion of this study? I can’t find a precise conclusion in the abstract and conclusion section.

(3)   Figure 3-4 are ordinary workflow of three software programs, which are not part of the research. These figures should be removed or moved to the appendix.

(4)   What dose ‘runoff’ stand for in this manuscript (as shown in figure 9-14)?  

(5)   Dose table 1 related to further analysis of this manuscript?

Author Response

Comments 1: One major issue of this study is the comparison strategy, It seems the authors only compared different results but didn’t compare with TRUE/OBS data and didn’t analyze the mechanism that lead to these differences.

Response 1: The text was restructured to better explain the strategy followed to compare the different software and DEMs, and evidence collected in situ in rain events was included to demonstrate the findings.

Comments 2: What’s the conclusion of this study? I can’t find a precise conclusion in the abstract and conclusion section.

Response 2= The abstract was restructured, and modifications were made to the conclusions and recommendations section.

Comments 3: Figure 3-4 are ordinary workflow of three software programs, which are not part of the research. These figures should be removed or moved to the appendix.

Response 3: Figures were removed according to the reviewer's instructions.

Comments 4: What dose ‘runoff’ stand for in this manuscript (as shown in figure 9-14)? 

Response 4: The term was replaced by stream network

Comments 5: Dose table 1 related to further analysis of this manuscript?

Response 5: The table was removed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comparison among different software for DEM processing in the context of urban hydrological basins. The quality of the software seems to be measured as its capability of evaluating the morphological parameters of the sub-basins obtained by the division of the original urban area.

A strong limit of the paper is that the goal and the methodology of the research are not clear at all, and a benefit/cost analysis based on 'hard' data is missing. Different software are applied to a study case, but there are not measures for validation, as well as discussion and analysis of the hydraulic problem which is the motivation of the morphological analysis.

Another limit is that any insight  in the techniques and the approach of the single software is missing.

The software is used only for evaluation of the sub-basin parameters and, given the rain intensity, to the corresponding flow rate. Hydraulic modeling carried on  in urban areas by solving the mass and momentum conservation equations is becoming more and more  attractive, mainly because it provides a direct estimation of the water depths and the velocity occurring in each point of the urban domain [1]. In this case it would also allow a validation of the robustness and the accuracy of the software results, because water depths can be easily measured and used for validation.

[1] Sinagra, M., Nasello, C., Tucciarelli, T. Urban Flood Prediction through GIS-Based Dual-Coupled Hydraulic Models (2022) Hydrology, 9 (10), art. no. 174, .

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper provides a comparison among different software for DEM processing in the context of urban hydrological basins. The quality of the software seems to be measured as its capability of evaluating the morphological parameters of the sub-basins obtained by the division of the original urban area.

A strong limit of the paper is that the goal and the methodology of the research are not clear at all, and a benefit/cost analysis based on 'hard' data is missing. Different software are applied to a study case, but there are not measures for validation, as well as discussion and analysis of the hydraulic problem which is the motivation of the morphological analysis.

R= The introduction was rethought to clarify the objectives.

Comments 2: Another limit is that any insight  in the techniques and the approach of the single software is missing.

The software is used only for evaluation of the sub-basin parameters and, given the rain intensity, to the corresponding flow rate. Hydraulic modeling carried on  in urban areas by solving the mass and momentum conservation equations is becoming more and more  attractive, mainly because it provides a direct estimation of the water depths and the velocity occurring in each point of the urban domain [1]. In this case it would also allow a validation of the robustness and the accuracy of the software results, because water depths can be easily measured and used for validation.

[1] Sinagra, M., Nasello, C., Tucciarelli, T. Urban Flood Prediction through GIS-Based Dual-Coupled Hydraulic Models (2022) Hydrology, 9 (10), art. no. 174, .

R= The study's objective was not hydraulic modeling itself but rather to establish the need for a protocol that homogenizes the implementation of the parameters to be considered in studies of urban basins

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article compares High-Resolution Digital Elevation Models for customizing hydrological analysis of urban basins.

From the beginning, I remarked that the Abstract is not relevant. Reading it, one cannot know if the article interests him, given that the abstract gives no hint of the main findings. So, it must be completely rewritten to emphasize the main findings.

The references are not in the correct template in the section References. Moreover, instead of "&," you must use ''and'' in the text.  ''km2'' must be replaced by ''km²."

Please also correct the typos in the manuscript. There is at least a place where you use a comma instead of a full stop.

The introduction is too long compared to the provided information. The essential information must be summarized in a maximum of one page, focusing on the relevant articles, the drawbacks of previous studies, and the novelty of your approach. 

Sections 2.2. and 2.3 must be shortened and put together. Figures 2-4 must be replaced by text because they provide basic information.

Many figures are not discussed. If the article's goal is to compare, you must insist on the differences between the maps.

Overall, the article cannot be published as it is. It should be completely rewritten and resubmitted.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally, English is good, but some typos must be removed.

Author Response

Comments 1: The article compares High-Resolution Digital Elevation Models for customizing hydrological analysis of urban basins.

From the beginning, I remarked that the Abstract is not relevant. Reading it, one cannot know if the article interests him, given that the abstract gives no hint of the main findings. So, it must be completely rewritten to emphasize the main findings.

R= Following the reviewer's recommendations, the abstract was restructured to better reflect the objectives and results of our research.

Comments 2: The references are not in the correct template in the section References. Moreover, instead of "&," you must use ''and'' in the text.  ''km2'' must be replaced by ''km2."

R= The template used is the one provided by the platform. In the case of the Km2 corrections and the use of and, these were addressed in the text.

Comments 3: Please also correct the typos in the manuscript. There is at least a place where you use a comma instead of a full stop.

R=  The recommendations were addressed, and adjustments were made to the text.

Comments 4: The introduction is too long compared to the provided information. The essential information must be summarized in a maximum of one page, focusing on the relevant articles, the drawbacks of previous studies, and the novelty of your approach.

R= We appreciate the observation, and the text was adjusted to be more readable and to show more clearly the novelty of the research.

Comments 5: Sections 2.2. and 2.3 must be shortened and put together. Figures 2-4 must be replaced by text because they provide basic information.

R=  In the last paragraph of page 4, the indicated sections were joined, and the figure was replaced with text.

Comments 6: Many figures are not discussed. If the article's goal is to compare, you must insist on the differences between the maps.

R= The recommendation was addressed by incorporating further analysis into the figures and some images to accentuate the findings. These additions can be seen on page 10 of paragraphs 2-5.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comparison of High-Resolution Digital Elevation Models for Cus-Tomizing Hydrological Analysis of Urban Basins: Considerations, Opportunities, and Implications for Stormwater System Design

 

Topographical data is fundamental for hydrological analysis and can be collected through on-site surveys using tools such as total stations and GPS. However, these methods can be costly and timeconsuming. Alternatively, Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) offer cost-effective and efficient ways to gather topographical information. However, although there are models with global coverage, their resolutions are only occasionally optimal for hydrographic
analysis. Additionally, some countries have regulatory agencies and institutions that generate
geographic information, including DEMs, from national to local scales. The goal of this research is to compare different DEMs and tools to delineate an intra-urban basin by analyzing its morphometric parameters.

 

The abstract must be rewritten, after I read the abstract, the goal is still vague.

Why did the authors bold the below text: “This research consists of three main phases, as shown in Figure 1. In the first phase, flight planning and the generation of the DEM were carried out. Subsequently, in the
second phase, a DEM with a resolution of 5m was obtained from the INEGI, which
covers the surface of the study area. The third phase concluded by carrying out the
morphometric calculations of the micro-basins generated using both models”

‘’tables’’ and ‘’figures’’ should be written as: ‘’Tables’’ and ‘’Figures’’ everywhere in the manuscript.

“the following recommendation is made for the ideal scenario: ArcGIS software is the most suitable for large-scale hydrological projects.’’ I think ArcGIS is quite commonly used and recognized as the best tool for this if the authors need to conduct this study to confirm this is true?

 

Important comments: After using several software and different resolutions, the authors did not tell readers what the standard is to compare which one is better or preferable. Without the standard, it is hard to convince readers to choose which method or which resolution.

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Comparison of High-Resolution Digital Elevation Models for CusTomizing Hydrological Analysis of Urban Basins: Considerations, Opportunities, and Implications for Stormwater System Design

Topographical data is fundamental for hydrological analysis and can be collected through on-site surveys using tools such as total stations and GPS. However, these methods can be costly and timeconsuming. Alternatively, Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) offer cost-effective and efficient ways to gather topographical information. However, although there are models with global coverage, their resolutions are only occasionally optimal for hydrographic analysis. Additionally, some countries have regulatory agencies and institutions that generate geographic information, including DEMs, from national to local scales. The goal of this research is to compare different DEMs and tools to delineate an intra-urban basin by analyzing its morphometric parameters.

The abstract must be rewritten, after I read the abstract, the goal is still vague.

R= Following the reviewer's recommendations, the abstract was restructured better to reflect the objectives and results of our research..

Comments 2: Why did the authors bold the below text: “This research consists of three main phases, as shown in Figure 1. In the first phase, flight planning and the generation of the DEM were carried out. Subsequently, in the second phase, a DEM with a resolution of 5m was obtained from the INEGI, which covers the surface of the study area. The third phase concluded by carrying out the morphometric calculations of the micro-basins generated using both models”

R= The format was corrected.

‘’tables’’ and ‘’figures’’ should be written as: ‘’Tables’’ and ‘’Figures’’ everywhere in the manuscript.

R= The recommendation was followed throughout the body of the text.

Comments 3: “the following recommendation is made for the ideal scenario: ArcGIS software is the most suitable for large-scale hydrological projects.’’ I think ArcGIS is quite commonly used and recognized as the best tool for this if the authors need to conduct this study to confirm this is true?

R= The paragraph was rewritten better to explain the intention of the article and the findings.

Comments 4:  Important comments: After using several software and different resolutions, the authors did not tell readers what the standard is to compare which one is better or preferable. Without the standard, it is hard to convince readers to choose which method or which resolution.

R= The text was restructured to establish more clearly the differences between the different software and DEMs used, with the precise purpose of establishing the need for a standard in the in situ application of these tools.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised MS looks OK to me.

Author Response

Comments 1: The revised MS looks OK to me.

Response: We appreciate your observations and comments, which improved this article. Reviewer 3 asked us to reorganize and summarize the conclusions and recommendations, so that was the only change that was made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors partially followed reviewer indications, including some field validation of the reconstructed morphology. In my opinion, only application of hydraulic modeling, coupled with field measure, could provide a significant validation.

I think the paper can be anyway accepted in present form. 

Author Response

Comments 1: Authors partially followed reviewer indications, including some field validation of the reconstructed morphology. In my opinion, only application of hydraulic modeling, coupled with field measure, could provide a significant validation. I think the paper can be anyway accepted in present form. 

Response: We appreciate your time and recommendations, which undoubtedly improved this work. We understand the concern of taking the analysis to a hydraulic model, and that is precisely why this work is relevant, in making the corresponding authorities see the need to establish guidelines for the preparation of previous studies at the study sites that lead to facilitate hydraulic analyses, since if the input data the discrepancies between the models will also be substantial. On the other hand, we let you know that reviewer 3 asked us to summarize and reorganize the conclusions, so that was the last change made.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It must be emphasized that you put effort into improving the manuscript. Still, I am not convinced about the novelty of your research. 

I went through the manuscript many times, and I noticed that:

- you did not consider formatting the references according to the manuscript template despite the issue was raised from the first submission;

- The conclusion section is not organized in a logical way of ideas, from the novelty to the main findings and then recommendations. It is also too long, so it must be completely rewritten. 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English must be improved.

Author Response

Comments 1: It must be emphasized that you put effort into improving the manuscript. Still, I am not convinced about the novelty of your research. 

Response 1: We greatly appreciate your time, observations, and recommendations, which undoubtedly improved this work. About the novelty of the work, in our research, we found that although the use of DEM in conjunction with GIS tools is widely extended, there is, however, very little literature about the guidelines for their application in urban basins, at least in the case of Mexico. Hence, this research is relevant to show the different results between these tools, which suggests the need to standardize the protocols for using and applying these tools in Mexico.

Comments 2: I went through the manuscript many times, and I noticed that:

- you did not consider formatting the references according to the manuscript template despite the issue was raised from the first submission;

Response 2: This observation was addressed by what was established by the publisher.

Comments 3: The conclusion section is not organized in a logical way of ideas, from the novelty to the main findings and then recommendations. It is also too long, so it must be completely rewritten. 

Response 3: The conclusions and recommendations section was restructured and summarized according to the suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript is acceptable. However, the authors should arrange all tables in the same page. For example, Table 4 has two parts in different pages.

Author Response

Comments 1: The revised version of the manuscript is acceptable. However, the authors should arrange all tables in the same page. For example, Table 4 has two parts in different pages.

Response 1: We appreciate your time and instructions, which undoubtedly improved this article. The aforementioned tables were edited.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I reviewed the manuscript again, and I think you did not notice some of my previous observations.

Firstly, here is how you must present the references from the journal template:

1.        Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

2.        Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.

3.        Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.

4.        Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work. Abbreviated Journal Name year, phrase indicating stage of publication (submitted; accepted; in press).

5.        Author 1, A.B. (University, City, State, Country); Author 2, C. (Institute, City, State, Country). Personal communication, 2012.

6.        Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D.; Author 3, E.F. Title of Presentation. In Proceedings of the Name of the Conference, Location of Conference, Country, Date of Conference (Day Month Year).

7.        Author 1, A.B. Title of Thesis. Level of Thesis, Degree-Granting University, Location of University, Date of Completion.

8.        Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).

Secondly, the Introduction does not contain any quantitative comparisons of your methods to emphasize the best one from specific viewpoints.

The Abstract is too long and does not provide information that clarifies the manuscript's content. Please reformulate it. For example, the first three lines and 6-9 are unnecessary.  The formulation from the last nine lines in the Introduction is vague. Please reformulate giving some quantitative information. Moreover, please mention the GIS tools used in the analysis.

It is necessary to perform a deep comparison of your results with the findings of other scientists. 

The conclusions are too general. There is no quantitative aspect of the comparison. Please reformulate to include some.

hydrological analyses.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to express the research more clearly.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

I reviewed the manuscript again, and I think you did not notice some of my previous observations.

Firstly, here is how you must present the references from the journal template:........

Response 1: The recommendation of the journal format was followed, and the bibliography was adjusted.

Comments 2:  Secondly, the Introduction does not contain any quantitative comparisons of your methods to emphasize the best one from specific viewpoints.

Response 2: Indeed, we have the limitation that a few pieces of literature discuss comparing the different tools. Although ArcGIS is widely used and reputed for hydrological analysis, there is little to do a quantitative analysis.

Comments 3: The Abstract is too long and does not provide information that clarifies the manuscript's content. Please reformulate it. For example, the first three lines and 6-9 are unnecessary.  The formulation from the last nine lines in the Introduction is vague. Please reformulate giving some quantitative information. Moreover, please mention the GIS tools used in the analysis.

Response 3: Following the review instructions, the abstract was reformulated, and the software used was included.

Comments 4: The conclusions are too general. There is no quantitative aspect of the comparison. Please reformulate to include some.

Response 4: Following the review instructions, the conclusions were reformulated, and some quantitative aspects were included.

 

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read this version of the manuscript, and I noticed no significant improvement in the content.

1. The abstract is too general.

2. The introduction does not provide significant information related to the article's topic and does not emphasize the necessity of your work. Moreover, a limited number of substantial references related to the topic is noticed.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the used software?

4. More comments on the results are necessary.

5. Have any other studies been performed using all three software? What are their results?

6. The references are not in the correct template yet.

 

Author Response

1. The abstract is too general.

R1: The abstract was restructured, mentioning the programs used and showing quantitative data on the results.

2. The introduction does not provide significant information related to the article's topic and does not emphasize the necessity of your work. Moreover, a limited number of substantial references related to the topic is noticed.

R2: The introduction of this article emphasizes the need to carry out these types of studies using high-resolution DEMs. Despite this, little information of this type is found in the literature.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the used software?

R3: Added paragraph in section 2.2. which describes the advantages and disadvantages of using each program

4. More comments on the results are necessary.

R4: More than the results, the discussion was expanded.

5. Have any other studies been performed using all three software? What are their results?

R5: In the conclusions and recommendations, some research results that used some of these programs were included; however, the research focuses more on the algorithms used to calculate morphometric parameters, which are the same algorithms used in this research.

6. The references are not in the correct template yet.

R6: The format of the references was reviewed and modified using the same font style, and the DOIs were added, as indicated in the journal template.