Flood Risk Assessment Index for Urban Mobility with the Aid of Quasi-2d Flood Model Applied to an Industrial Park in São Paulo, Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please revise lines 36 to 38.

More relevant keywords should be provided.

Introduction logic is very difficult to follow. It appears that some disjointed sentences were included in the introduction without purpose.

The error in lines 80 and 81 (and also other sections) must be corrected.

The table 1 summarized a few studies, but overlooked a great number of papers. This table needs revision; see

·       Zhang, Ning, and Alice Alipour. "Flood risk assessment and application of risk curves for design of mitigation strategies." International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 36 (2022): 100490.

·       Roy, Suvendu. "Flood-Induced Transport Infrastructural Losses in India: Regional Assessments." Spatial Modelling of Flood Risk and Flood Hazards. Springer, Cham, 2022. 185-201.

·       Najafi, Mohammad Reza, Ying Zhang, and Nick Martyn. "A flood risk assessment framework for interdependent infrastructure systems in coastal environments." Sustainable Cities and Society 64 (2021): 102516.

·       Fahad, Md Golam Rabbani, et al. "A Decision-Making Framework Integrating Fluid and Solid Systems to Assess Resilience of Coastal Communities Experiencing Extreme Storm Events." Reliability Engineering & System Safety 221 (2022): 108388.

In addition, the list of frequently used software can be found in 

I propose that the authors divide the first section into an introduction and a literature review. The literature review must be more substantive.

The research purpose and objective should be stated explicitly.

The theoretical and practical contributions of the research should be highlighted in the introduction.

The adopted research methodology requires additional clarification.

There are blank pages on pages 5, 6,...

The flood vulnerability assessment presentation on page 7 should be improved.

In the materials and methods section, authors should provide a brief description of the case's location.

The authors should provide a managerial perspective on how this research can aid in the development of response strategies, such as evacuation planning, see:

Insani, Nur, et al. "Short-notice flood evacuation plan under dynamic demand in high populated areas." International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 74 (2022): 102844. And Maziar, Mohammad Mojtahedi, and Martin Loosemore. "Enhancing evacuation response to extreme weather disasters using public transportation systems: A novel simheuristic approach." Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 7, no. 2 (2020): 195-210.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have tried to incorporate all recommendations in the text.
We added the suggested articles to the literature review. And we review the points mentioned for each change suggestion.
We believe that all the comments added quality to the paper.

We would like to inform that we revised the text in lines 36 to 38 and improved the text. We also added keywords that are more representative according to our suggestion.

We agree that the introduction was difficult to follow so we rewrote it to improve understanding, highlighted the research purpose, objective and contributions. We also divide the text in introduction and bibliographic review. We believe that the suggestion contributed to improving the result.

We also added some more references and replaced the table 1 with writing content.

In the research methodology item, we improved the text and site description but being careful to maintain the industry anonymous.

We also improved the text in flood vulnerability assessment presentation item.

At the Discussions and Conclusions item we provided a perspective in how can our research contribute the readers/users.

Finally, we would like to thank you for your contribution to our research.

The response to the review report is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Matheus Martins de Sousa

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your studies are interesting and based on a new research approach, however, they need to be refined and extended in some places. You should correct all editing errors and missing references.

The introduction should contain such literature that you can refer to it more broadly in the discussion and on its basis compare and discuss the results of your research with the results of other authors.

Section 2 should be divided into 2.1 Study area, 2.2 Methodological framework or Research procedure.

You can also show separately  information about using Materials/Data. In this case the proposed divison is like this: 2.2 Data and 2.3 Research procedure. In my opinion title: Reserch procedure in the case of your research is the most convinient.

Lines 81-82 should be corrected (error in text editing, missing references).

Lines 131, 132, 133 should be deleted (editing error).

Line 345, 353 editing errors.

Figure 1. Adopted methodology - You should correct the inscriptions in the drawing for better readability and a better effect. Black or dark graphite will be better than light gray.

Line 312 - missing a reference to ANA (National Water Agency)

Line 316 editing error.

Point 3. Case study. Figure 3 from this point should be moved to Study area. In point 2.1 Study area You should describe the area of research more precisely (line 300-302) and show its location in relation to the city and the city in relation to the country.

Point 3 should be called Results 

Point 4. Discussion and Conclusion. You should discuss your research procedure and results with those of other authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have tried to incorporate all recommendations in the text.
We added new articles to the literature review. And we review the points mentioned for each change suggestion.
We believe that all the comments added quality to the paper.

We would like to inform that all editing errors and missing references were corrected.

In addition, we divided the introduction text into Introduction and Literature Review and added more references.

We also divided Section 2 into 2.1 Study area and 2.2 Research procedure. In 2.1 section, we provided more information in the site description but being careful to maintain the industry anonymous.

We changed the Section 3 name to “Results” and undertook a greater discussion about our research procedures and obtained results, as suggested.

We also changed Figure 1 to correct the inscriptions in the drawing.

Finally, we would like to thank you for your contribution to our research.

The response to the review report is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Matheus Martins de Sousa

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form