High-resolution marine flood modelling coupling overflow and overtopping processes: framing the hazard based on historical and statistical approaches

Nicolae Lerma, Alexandre; Bulteau, Thomas; Elineau, Sylvain; Paris, François; Durand, Paul; Anselme, Brice; Pedreros, Rodrigo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-207-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-207-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-207-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 1

Research article

|

17 Jan 2018

Research article |

| 17 Jan 2018

High-resolution marine flood modelling coupling overflow and overtopping processes: framing the hazard based on historical and statistical approaches

Alexandre Nicolae Lerma, Thomas Bulteau, Sylvain Elineau, François Paris, Paul Durand, Brice Anselme, and Rodrigo Pedreros

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Jan 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 May 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review for "High-resolution marine flood modeling with coupled overflow and overtopping process: framing the hazard based on historical and statistical approaches". by Lerma et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jun 2017
- AC2: 'Answer to the anonymous referee comments', Alexandre Nicolae Lerma, 04 Sep 2017
RC2: 'Accepted', Philipp Schmidt-Thomé, 30 Jun 2017
- AC1: 'Answer to referee comments', Alexandre Nicolae Lerma, 04 Sep 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (21 Sep 2017) by Bruno Merz

Dear authors,

thanks a lot for your responses to the reviews. As you have seen, both reviewers are very positive about your manuscript. Although reviewer #2 rates the manuscript as excellent, I ask you for major revisions. Since the assessment of reviewer #2 is very very short, I have gone myself through the manuscript and found that a few things should be improved (besides the concerns and questions of reviewer #1):

- Scientific contribution of the work: Could you please put more emphasis on the scientific contribution? What is the novelty of the paper? There are some points on that in the Conclusions section, but I feel that this point should be made clearer, in particular in the Introduction.

- Issue of breaching of seafront defences: I understood that your model chain did not include breaching, although you attempted to include the breach of the 2013 storm, correct? I think it would be important for the reader to clearly understand whether your approach includes breaching, and if it does not, what this would mean for the results.

- Captions of tables and of (some) figures: I believe that the captions should be made more informative. Many readers will look at the figures and tables before reading the paper in detail. Hence, I ask you to provide more information in the captions, so that a reader can understand what is given in the table or figure without trying to find the associated text. For example, I recommend to explain the scenarios, and not only to give the acronyms, such as ENC1_SLR0.

- Errors, English and style issues: The manuscript contains quite some typos. There are some French words in the figures and tables, and the English needs improvement. The first 2 bullets in the reference list are dummies. Please check carefully the complete manuscript.

Below there is a list of minor comments.

Overall, I feel that the manuscript is very valuable, and I am looking forward to your revisions.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Minor comments:
- P. 2; L. 29: is it a factor of 10 (which would be 1 order of magnitude)?
- P. 1; L. 32: Here starts a very very long paragraph. I propose to split it into several paragraphs for easier reading.
- Could you please check carefully all the acronym and mathematical terms, and introduce them properly? I have the feeling that several acronyms / mathematical terms are used without explaining them (e.g. WFD, APSFR, Hs, Tp) when they are used for the first time.
- P. 3, L. 23: Could you please be clearer and more specific about the difference between return period of input variables and those of system responses, e.g. by giving an example? This would also help to better understand the last sentences of this paragraph where you discuss reliability methods – here I was not sure whether I completely understood what you meant.
- P. 5; L. 1: Please give a reference for the MEDNORD model.
- P. 5; L. 29: I had some problems in understanding which areas where used: > 20 m2 or 20-50 m2; isolated structures?
- P. 9; L. 16: Possibly related to my earlier comment: Please be more specific what you mean by “environmental contours”.

Hide

AR by Alexandre Nicolae Lerma on behalf of the Authors (26 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 Nov 2017) by Bruno Merz

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (12 Nov 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Authors have implemented my earlier comments. I have a few minor comments:
1. Page 3, line 9, why SWASH model is kept within brackets after NLSW model? Is it under the same family as NLSW?

2. Page 3, line 11, different in place of differents.

3. In Page 4, line 9, did you really used any reliability methods to assess the coastal flood risks? I don’t find this in the paper. Probably, this is a better idea to discuss these issues in the discussion section instead of right in the beginning. There are various ways discussed in the past, for example, design life level (Rootzén and Katz, 2013), to quantify the probability of exceeding a fixed threshold during the design life of a project, replacing the commonly used concept of average return period with reliability (Read and Vogel, 2015), and a risk-based decision-making approach integrating the concept of expected regret (Rosner et al., 2014).

4. Page 15, line 1, what is H&T04 method?

5. Page 15, lines 16 ~ 20, regarding SLR projection at different RCP levels, a recent paper by (Kopp et al., 2014) is worth mentioning in the discussion section of the manuscript though authors have not used them in their study.

References

Kopp, R. E., Horton, R. M., Little, C. M., Mitrovica, J. X., Oppenheimer, M., Rasmussen, D. J., Strauss, B. H. and Tebaldi, C.: Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites, Earths Future, 2(8), 383–406, 2014.

Read, L. K. and Vogel, R. M.: Reliability, return periods, and risk under nonstationarity, Water Resour. Res., 51(8), 6381–6398, doi:10.1002/2015WR017089, 2015.

Rootzén, H. and Katz, R. W.: Design Life Level: Quantifying risk in a changing climate, Water Resour. Res., 49(9), 5964–5972, doi:10.1002/wrcr.20425, 2013.

Rosner, A., Vogel, R. M. and Kirshen, P. H.: A risk-based approach to flood management decisions in a nonstationary world, Water Resour. Res., 50(3), 1928–1942, doi:10.1002/2013WR014561, 2014.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Nov 2017) by Bruno Merz

AR by Alexandre Nicolae Lerma on behalf of the Authors (30 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (04 Dec 2017) by Bruno Merz

AR by Alexandre Nicolae Lerma on behalf of the Authors (05 Dec 2017)

Short summary

In a context of rising sea levels linked to global warming, the issue of marine flood risk is becoming central to the management of low-lying coasts in the decades to come. The CRISSIS research program aims to propose a multidisciplinary, integrated and operational approach of marine flood risk, involving geographers, modellers, geomaticians and specialists in risk and crisis management. This work is dedicated to understand and simulate the hazard through historical and statistic approaches.