Modeling dependence and coincidence of storm surges and  high tide: methodology, discussion and recommendations  based on a simplified case study in Le Havre (France)

Ben Daoued, Amine; Hamdi, Yasser; Mouhous-Voyneau, Nassima; Sergent, Philippe

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3387-2020

Articles | Volume 20, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3387-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Advances in extreme value analysis and application to natural...

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3387-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 12

Research article

|

11 Dec 2020

Research article |

| 11 Dec 2020

Modeling dependence and coincidence of storm surges and high tide: methodology, discussion and recommendations based on a simplified case study in Le Havre (France)

Amine Ben Daoued, Yasser Hamdi, Nassima Mouhous-Voyneau, and Philippe Sergent

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Dec 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 28 Feb 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Ben Daoued et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Apr 2020
- AC1: 'Response to referee#1', Yasser Hamdi, 08 Jul 2020
RC2: 'REVIEW OF THE MANUSCRIPT (Modelling dependence and coincidence of storm surges and high tide: Methodology and simplified case study in Le Havre (France))', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Apr 2020
- AC2: 'Response to referee#2', Yasser Hamdi, 08 Jul 2020
RC3: 'Review of Amine Ben Daoued et al.', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Apr 2020
- AC3: 'Response to referee#3', Yasser Hamdi, 08 Jul 2020
RC4: 'Review of Ben Daoued et al', Anonymous Referee #4, 27 Apr 2020
- AC4: 'Response to referee#4', Yasser Hamdi, 08 Jul 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (20 Jul 2020) by Ivan Haigh

AR by Yasser Hamdi on behalf of the Authors (01 Aug 2020) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Aug 2020) by Ivan Haigh

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (01 Sep 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The corrections made by the authors improved the presentation of the results (by specifying the details of the implementation for instance), and enriched the discussion. I thank the authors for taking into account my recommendations. Yet, there are some residual moderate corrections that should be tackled before publication:

- The authors clearly state their research question in the abstract, lines 22-23 “The question we are trying to answer in this paper is then the coincidence and dependency essential for a combined tide and SS hazard analysis”, but they only give partial answers to it by highlighting the differences of the MSS-based with the SSS-based approach. Some elements of the conclusions could be used in the abstract to clarify this aspect. As far as I understand the conclusions, the authors outline the difference between a procedure using MSS and another one using SSS, and recommend a copula-based dependence modelling to overcome the MSS-induced bias. If correct, this could be better highlighted in the abstract.

- The title suggests that the authors propose a modelling approach of the coincidence, but the conclusion clearly state that (lines 455-456): “But without properly tackling the probability of coincidence concept …”, and the authors propose some modelling recommendations (for instance based on copula) – Sect. 6. The title should better reflect this aspect, for instance: “Modelling dependence and coincidence of storm surges and high-tide: Methodology, Discussion and Recommendations based on a simplified case study in Le Havre (France).”

- The authors highlight the absence of correlation between high tide and SSS (or MSS) by analyzing the Spearman’s correlation coefficients (Table 2). They draw their conclusion on the low order of magnitude (line 343): I recommend deriving the p-value to support the statistical non-significance. Besides, I recommend analyzing also the Kendall’s coefficients to have another proxy of dependence (Spearman's coefficients only correspond to one facet of dependence).

- line 343: ‘independents’ should be ‘independent’

- High et al. (2016) should le be Haigh et al. (2016).

- Figure 4 – top : what is the time series indicated by brown lines ?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Sep 2020) by Ivan Haigh

AR by Yasser Hamdi on behalf of the Authors (10 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (25 Sep 2020) by Ivan Haigh

AR by Yasser Hamdi on behalf of the Authors (12 Oct 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

This paper deals with the evaluation of the risk associated with coastal flooding by combining the tide with extreme storm surges (SSs). In this work, methods for tide and SS combination were compared. Le Havre in France was used as a case study. Overall, the example has shown that the return level estimates using different combinations are quite different. It has also been suggested that the questions of coincidence and dependency are essential for a combined tide and SS hazard analysis.