A Framework of Dam-Break Hazard Risk Mapping for a Data-Sparse Region in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
Thank you for your study concerning the danger and risk of floods following a hypothetical dam break in Indonesia.
The article is full of information and it shows that there is a lot of work behind it. This great work, however, in my opinion has not been well expressed and well presented and for this reason it often appears confusing.
First of all, the guidelines of the journal are not well followed and respected, especially in the citations of the bibliography and in the insertion of figures/tables/equations in the text.
Subsequently, the English language needs to be significantly improved. There are a lot of repetitions and in my opinion editing by an English-speaking native can improve the readability and understanding of the article.
The thing that in my opinion creates more difficulties in understanding the text is that a chapter of methodology is missing, but there are hints of methodology scattered here and there that do not make it clear which are the real methods used and which is the introduction, results, discussions, etc. I would suggest restructuring the article to separate the methodology from everything else.

Some more detailed comments are present in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for considering this manuscript. We have tried to accommodate all of your feedback. However, since we have rearranged the manuscript, we are unable to highlight the response one by one. We have basically summarized our responses as given in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The review comments are listed in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for considering this manuscript. We have tried to accommodate all of your feedback. However, since we have rearranged the manuscript, we are unable to highlight the response one by one. We have basically summarized our responses as given in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article describe a complete study in terms of hydrological, hydraulic, and hazard mapping for a hypothetical breaching of an earthen dam. In particular the authors applied their study to Ketro dam in Central Java (Indonesia).
The results of the research are very interesting.
In my opinion the article can be improved in these points:

1. in the figure 3 the authors missing the unit of measure of the scale colours of the legend;
2. the figure 14 can be improved by adding a visual indication where is the dam.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for considering this manuscript. We have tried to accommodate all of your feedback. However, since we have rearranged the manuscript, we are unable to highlight the response one by one. We have basically summarized our responses as given in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript uses the TRMM/CHIRPS and ground data to map the dam-break hazard risk. Authors are kindly advised to consider the following minor yet essential comments. Please kindly highlight your changes in the revised version.
Please revise the abstract according to the journal guideline. It must be under 200 words. The research question, method, and the results must be briefly communicated. The abstract must be more informative.

I advise considering using standard keywords to better present the research.

Describe abbreviation when first appear. insert acronyms table.

Although the introduction is extended, the research gap and literature review are very weakly described.

Elaborate on the method used and why used this method. Correct citations to the mathematical model are missing.

The description of the materials and methods are not adequate. Your paper must-have a "materials and method section".

 

Cite the equations in. several other claims and equations are not cited.
Please elaborate and discuss more on the results.

Elaborate and work on the validation.

Although the paper has appropriate length and informative content, several parts must be improved and written in better grammar and syntax. It would be essential if authors would consider revising the organization and composition of the manuscript, in terms of the definition/justification of the objectives, description of the method, the accomplishment of the objective, and results. The paper is generally difficult to follow. Paragraphs and sentences are not well connected. And most importantly, equations are not numbered correctly. Please also consider reducing the similarity.
 
I suggest having four paragraphs in the introduction for; describing the concept, research gap, contribution, and the organization of the paper. The motivation has the potential to be more elaborated. You may add materials on why doing this research is essential, and what this article would add to the current knowledge, etc. The originality of the paper is not discussed well. The research question must be clearly given in the introduction, in addition to some words on the testable hypothesis. Please elaborate on the importance of this work. Please discuss if the paper suitable for broad international interest and applications or better suited for the local application? Elaborate and discuss this in the introduction.
State of the art needs significant improvement. A detailed description of the cited references is essential. Several recently published papers are not included in the review section. In fact, the acknowledgment of the past related work by others, in the reference list, is not sufficient, e.g., "Salcedo-Sanz, S., Machine learning information fusion in Earth observation: A comprehensive review of methods, applications and data sources. Information Fusion", "Choubin, B., Earth fissure hazard prediction using machine learning models. Environmental research", "Ensemble models of GLM, FDA, MARS, and RF for flood and erosion susceptibility mapping: a priority assessment of sub-basins. Geocarto International" and "Lei, X., GIS-based machine learning algorithms for gully erosion susceptibility mapping in a semi-arid region. Remote Sensing". Consequently, the contribution of the paper must be more clear. Furthermore, consider elaborating on the suitability of the paper and relevance to the journal.

Kindly note that references cited must be up to date.

Limitations and validation are not discussed adequately.

The research question and hypothesis must be answered and discussed clearly in the discussion and conclusions. Please communicate the future research. The lessons learned must be further elaborated in the conclusion by discussing the results to the community and the future impacts. What is your perspective on future research? Will you suggest applying machine learning methods in the future work? how machine learning will improve your results? please discuss.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for considering this manuscript. We have tried to accommodate all of your feedback. However, since we have rearranged the manuscript, we are unable to highlight the response one by one. We have basically summarized our responses as given in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for considering and responding to all my advice and revisions. I thank you for that. The manuscript, in my opinion, is considerably improved compared to the first submission and can now be considered ready for publication.

I would just like to give you one last piece of advice, which can also be done in the final editing phase: do not place a figure breaking a sentence in half; to facilitate the readability of the article I recommend you first to finish the sentence or the concept, then put the figure.

Thank you very much and good work.