L40 and below: also vulnerability of parked vehicles 元8: here “direct” make sense because it is associated to losses. “such as roads in the Alps and along the Sava river” L23: “more precise” – is it possible to quantify it, with numbers? I think a simple title “Flood risk assessment of the European road network” would be much more effective. Also, to my knowledge, “direct losses” is the correct term (rather than “direct risk”). This because, until specified, could be misinterpreted (direct risk? Direct assessment? Direct method?). L19 and in general: I find the term “direct” very misleading. Other detailed comments (some also not minor) are included in the following list. The “new” damage curves could be a paper on their own, if well-documented and validated. Perhaps, this work is trying to achieve too much in just one paper. I can’t accept this refence case as validation of all the curves (or even the motorway one). Also, even assuming this reference case as appropriate, the model estimation ranges from €3.4m to €28.6m (!) – when the comparison value is €3.8m. In particular, because this refer to one road type only (motorway), whereas damage curves were developed for six road types (Table 1). However, I see major criticalities in validation damage curves applied at EU level with a 7x7m reference case. 5.Ĥ) I understand that Sec.3.4 is about offering a sort of validation of the “new” damage curves. 5 is about areas that are different compared to Fig. This point is even not discussed or considered in the paper, and I expected authors to address it properly.ģ) I don’t understand, and I invite authors to explain, why Sec. So perhaps, applying such a coarse flood hazard to a detailed exposure could not make sense. This because the uncertainty of the model simulation (cm? dm? m?) should be compatible with the road dimension (two lanes road, ~6m) and the scale of the object. Usually for “object-based” assessment analysis to roads in cities the resolution is ~5m (or less). I am wondering if this is compatible with an assessment of flood impact to roads. So, I would revisit the paper and omit the “object-based” approach is new.Ģ) the resolution of the hazard domain is 100m (!). Perhaps, what is new here is the application of the method at European scale and the damage curves. Many works in literature (included some of those cited by the paper) assessed the water depth by overlaying road links and flood footprint I would say this is a “normal procedure” of spatial analysis at urban scale. Despite I value the work in its nature, my review is critical because it identified these flaws that appeared straightforward to me.ġ) What is has been defined as “object-based” approach is NOT a new approach. However, I find also major issues that I outline below. I recognise the multi-institutional and -discipline effort, as well as the European scale of it. Overall, this is a very interesting and complex case study. Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript. Please also note that this decision does not necessarily imply acceptance of the manuscript in the journal NHESS, and it still will depend on your reply (and subsequent edits to your manuscript) to referees comments, as well as on the reviewer comments of the revised version. If you have any questions regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript. Further, the reviewers provided detailed reports highlighting all the points you should address in the revisions to make the paper stronger.Īccording to your responses, I am very positive about the new version of the manuscript and that you will take up their remarks.Īs a next step, please upload the revised marked up (track changes) version of your manuscript. According to the referees' recommendations, I decide on major revisions of your manuscript. Two referee reports are available which raise important issues regarding the comprehensibility of your approach, the reasoning for assumptions, and clarity of presentation. Thank you very much again for submitting your interesting manuscript ''Direct flood risk assessment of the European road network: an object-based approach' to NHESS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |