Towards multi-objective optimization of large-scale fluvial landscaping measures

Straatsma, Menno W.; Fliervoet, Jan M.; Kabout, Johan A. H.; Baart, Fedor; Kleinhans, Maarten G.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1167-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1167-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Flood risk assessment and management

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1167-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 6

Research article

|

17 Jun 2019

Research article |

| 17 Jun 2019

Towards multi-objective optimization of large-scale fluvial landscaping measures

Menno W. Straatsma, Jan M. Fliervoet, Johan A. H. Kabout, Fedor Baart, and Maarten G. Kleinhans

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Jun 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 19 Sep 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'review', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Oct 2018
- SC1: 'Reply to Referee #1', Menno Straatsma, 18 Oct 2018
- AC4: 'Final response to R1', Menno Straatsma, 23 Dec 2018
RC2: 'review', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Oct 2018
- AC1: 'Final response to R2', Menno Straatsma, 23 Dec 2018
RC3: 'Review of "Low-hanging fruits..."', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Oct 2018
- AC2: 'Final response to R3', Menno Straatsma, 23 Dec 2018
SC2: 'Review', Holger Sandberg, 12 Nov 2018
- AC3: 'Final response to Sandberg', Menno Straatsma, 23 Dec 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (14 Jan 2019) by Cristina Prieto

AR by Menno Straatsma on behalf of the Authors (08 Feb 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Feb 2019) by Cristina Prieto

RR by Mitja Brilly (27 Feb 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 Mar 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Apart from local corrections and integrations, the new version of the manuscript has been modified essentially in the "discussion" section. Indeed, the discussion is now better focalized. However, the essence of the paper has not been modified. Main points are:

1. Evaluation of the strategies for flood hazard mitigation is based on a variety of tools. Complexity of the approach requires a variety of input variables. All this is indeed positive, as multi-parameters / multi-objectives analyses are important tools for decision making in complex societal problems. I consider this the most interesting part of the paper but, I explained in my previous review, I find the results of the present stage of the process little conclusive. Methodology is OK, but its efficacy and significance is still to be validated.

2. A specific point of interest with respect to the methodology is table 4 and related discussion. The issue is not trivial and has some general validity.

3. As already said, I am not able to judge novelty and significance of results related to the ecological part.

4. The use of Delft3D Flexible Mesh may be not standard from a technical point of view, but does not represent any conceptual innovation from the scientific point of view.

5. I am not very sure which are the "findings [which] will be surprising for many readers". As said, I consider the hydraulic results (figure 6 and related comments) as just obvious from a qualitative perspective, while their quantitative values have no generality. Expected effects of changing downstream boundary condition, roughness, cross-sections width, flood plain elevation are described in any textbook of river hydraulics. I do not personally know all the authors, by I am sure that Marteen Kleinhans can agree on this. As a consequence of these hydraulic relations, many of the trade-offs are also obvious. It may be that results on ecological indicators are not obvious, I have already admitted my ignorance on this.

At the end of the story: I fully agree on the potential of multi-disciplinary, multi-parametric, multi-objective analyses as a tool for supporting negotiation among stakeholders and decision-making. I appreciate this manuscript for the description of the approach with respect to traditional hydraulic-only analyses. I see some useful methodological suggestions which may be of use in a variety of contests. I cannot see any general conclusion.
I do not consider anything written in the paper to be wrong, nor necessarily trivial. I see this as a weak paper for publication on NHESS in terms of take-home message. Evaluation of its potential interest to the readers of the journal is obviously left to the editor.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Mar 2019) by Cristina Prieto

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (12 Mar 2019) by Cristina Prieto

AR by Menno Straatsma on behalf of the Authors (23 Apr 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 Apr 2019) by Cristina Prieto

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (06 May 2019)

RR by Mitja Brilly (09 May 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (18 May 2019) by Cristina Prieto

AR by Menno Straatsma on behalf of the Authors (20 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (26 May 2019) by Cristina Prieto

AR by Menno Straatsma on behalf of the Authors (27 May 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

Climate adaptation of deltas is a hot topic given their high population density in many countries. We quantified trade-offs between hydraulics, potential biodiversity, implementation costs, and the number of land owners involved, using a newly developed tool called RiverScape. With our approach, we move towards finding integrated solutions at the scale of a large river in a delta to support the negotiations among stakeholders in the decision-making process.