Multicriteria assessment framework of flood events  simulated with vertically mixed runoff model in  semiarid catchments in the middle Yellow River

Li, Dayang; Liang, Zhongmin; Zhou, Yan; Li, Binquan; Fu, Yupeng

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2027-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2027-2019

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2027-2019

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

Articles | Volume 19, issue 9

Research article

|

13 Sep 2019

Research article |

| 13 Sep 2019

Multicriteria assessment framework of flood events simulated with vertically mixed runoff model in semiarid catchments in the middle Yellow River

Dayang Li, Zhongmin Liang, Yan Zhou, Binquan Li, and Yupeng Fu

Download

Final revised paper (published on 13 Sep 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Feb 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2019
- AC1: 'Answer to RC#1', Binquan Li, 10 Apr 2019
RC2: 'Interactive comment on “Multicriterion assessment framework of flood events simulated with the vertically mixed runoff model in semiarid catchments in the middle Yellow River” by Dayang Li et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Mar 2019
- AC2: 'Answer to RC#2', Binquan Li, 10 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (09 May 2019) by Joaquim G. Pinto

AR by Binquan Li on behalf of the Authors (10 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (29 May 2019) by Joaquim G. Pinto

AR by Binquan Li on behalf of the Authors (06 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Jul 2019) by Joaquim G. Pinto

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (19 Jul 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Some specific comments:

- I do not understand why you write quotation marks on classification-reliability throughout the text.
- I would try to avoid as much parenthesis as possible, such as in page 2 line 17 to line 19, or when you are citing figures. Please, rewrite all Figure citations in the text without parenthesis (E.g. in page 8 line 20: "in Fig. 3a and 3g" or in page 8 line 22: " Fig. 3a, b, c, d, g and h.)
- In page 5 line 15, change the word realized.
- In page 6 line 10, remove the second semicolon.
- In page 6 line 17, Change part of the sentence "Due to strong spatial variability..."
- In page 6 line 29, add some indicators when you are citing the two parts, e.g. "The FCRA framework consists on two parts: i) flood classification and ii) flood reliability assessment."
- In page 8 line 24, add "the" before "other catchments".
- In page 8 line 24, you should explain to which range you are referring. Please, explain it not only in the figure caption but also in the text.
- In page 9 line 13, please rewrite the sentence "this simulation ... conceptual models".
- In page 10 line 25, add "a" before "better performance".
- In page 11 line 26, separate the references of Beven 2011 and Beven 2001.
- In page 12 line 7 and line 22, change the hyphen for a dash.
- In page 13 line 9, remove the space in the end of the DOI number
- In page 14 line 20, add the year the pages and the volumen of the reference.
- In Table 2, change the caption, as I think the values of the parameters are just recomendations from other authors and not the calibrated parameters of this paper.
- In Figure 1, I would add some other information in the caption, such as the raingauging net.
- In Figure 3, please rewrite the last sentence of the Figure caption. Separate the sentence by a dot and not only by a comma, and also reference the outlier mark in the Figure.
In Figure 5, in the first sentence of the caption, when you are explaining the simulated peak flows, I would wirte just "circles" and then explain why some are solid and the others are empty, becouse after that you only explain the meaning of the solid ones.

Besides these comments, I have some other general comments.
- As noted in the previous review, there are (now more than before) some parts of the text in impersonal form, while other paragraphs are in personal form (page 7 lines 13 and 17, page 10 line 8). I would recommend maintaining the coherence in the text.
- Besides, although you have corrected many errors in the references, I recommended to add as much information as possible in order to track the papers you are referring. So, It is very important to add the DOI number whenever is possible. Please, add more doi numbers to the references, specially to those who are easy to find.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Jul 2019)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (28 Jul 2019) by Joaquim G. Pinto

AR by Binquan Li on behalf of the Authors (01 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Flood forecasting in semiarid regions is always poor, and a single-criterion assessment provides limited information for decision making. Here, we propose a multicriteria assessment framework (FCRA) to assess the most striking feature of an event-based flood – the peak flow. One hundred flood events are modeled in the middle Yellow River with four hydrological models. Our results show that the FCRA may help decision makers improve their diagnostic abilities in the early flood warning process.