the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
05 Feb 2021
05 Feb 2021
Flood and drought risk assessment for agricultural areas (Tagus Estuary, Portugal)
- 1Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisboa, 1700-066, Portugal
- 2Direção Geral de Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural, Lisboa, 1949-002, Portugal
- 1Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisboa, 1700-066, Portugal
- 2Direção Geral de Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural, Lisboa, 1949-002, Portugal
Abstract. Estuaries are coastal systems particularly vulnerable to climate change effects and within these systems, agriculture is one of the most potentially affected sectors. This paper proposes a risk assessment approach for helping the decision-making process at a local level, addressing two risks that affect agricultural areas located in estuarine margins: the unavailability of fresh water for irrigation resulting from the upstream propagation of estuarine brackish water during droughts, and land inundation by high water levels associated with high tides and storm surges. For each risk, quantitative consequence descriptors are presented to support risk level determination and evaluation through a continuous consequence/probability diagram. The approach applicability is discussed through its application to the Lezíria Grande de Vila Franca de Xira, located in the Tagus Estuary (Portugal). Results indicate that the approach is appropriate to support risk owners in taking actions to mitigate the risk. The flexibility of the approach to be adapted to local conditions and updated through time, and the ease of its application by the risk owner can be pointed out as the main strengths.
Paula Freire et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2020-422', Sveinung Saegrov, 11 Mar 2021
This article is highly relevant since it handles a significant and well defined challenge in two dimensions (sea level and river flow) for a very important food production site in Portugal. The scientific contribution is the application of a simple, but consistent and complete risk method that is applicable for the managers of the water supply and irrigation system if the site, including the dikes.
I miss a more thorough discussion on how the proposed risk analysed can be used for forecasting analysis and decision support (what type of decision measures they have), when thy should take decisions and how the decisions should be implemented
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', P. Freire, 19 Mar 2021
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', P. Freire, 20 Apr 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2020-422', Sveinung Saegrov, 11 Mar 2021
Please make a broader and more detailed explanation to figure 3 and 4. Please check figure 4 itself versus figure text (not in accordance). Please explain the lines drawn within various subgraphs of figure 3
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', P. Freire, 19 Mar 2021
Following this comment, that we thank, further details will be added to the discussion about figures 3 and 4. Figure 4 will also be corrected since the colour scheme for the weeks was not in accordance with the figure's caption. The captions of Figures 3 and 4 will also be improved for clarity.
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', P. Freire, 20 Apr 2021
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', P. Freire, 19 Mar 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2020-422', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Mar 2021
This is an interesting and relevant study, and the authors have selected a suitable method for flood and drought risk assessment for agricultural areas. The consequence/probability diagram is a suitable method for this study and is well presented; however, the study would be stronger if it included more than a risk assessment. The paper is generally well written and structured. Though, the paper has some shortcomings regarding the treatment and monitoring of risk, which should be included.
I miss a more thorough discussion on how the approach can be used in risk management, as the method covers risk assessment but is missing risk treatment and the process of monitoring and modify risk in accordance with ISI 31000. The paper would be stronger if more efforts were added to include risk management (risk treatment, monitoring, and communication), especially since risk management is given so much space in the introduction and the objectives of the study.
Please include further details (perhaps in the discussion) on how the risk can be managed and be used for decision making (To follow up the author's recommendation that the risk owner should consider risk reduction measures in line 438). (Or remove/rewrite line 55-56 describing the tool to support the management of risk at a local level)
Is miss a discussion of the uncertainty, as briefly discussed in line 424, as this is one of the two main challenges presented in the introduction (line 55). An a more detailed discussion of uncertainty and uncertainty reduction would strengthen the paper.
Please improve captions of Figure 3 and 4. Figure captions should be standalone, not dependent on explanation in the text. For Figure 3 Week 1 you could consider different scale to improve readability.
- AC5: 'Reply on RC3', P. Freire, 20 Apr 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2020-422', Sveinung Saegrov, 11 Mar 2021
This article is highly relevant since it handles a significant and well defined challenge in two dimensions (sea level and river flow) for a very important food production site in Portugal. The scientific contribution is the application of a simple, but consistent and complete risk method that is applicable for the managers of the water supply and irrigation system if the site, including the dikes.
I miss a more thorough discussion on how the proposed risk analysed can be used for forecasting analysis and decision support (what type of decision measures they have), when thy should take decisions and how the decisions should be implemented
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', P. Freire, 19 Mar 2021
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', P. Freire, 20 Apr 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2020-422', Sveinung Saegrov, 11 Mar 2021
Please make a broader and more detailed explanation to figure 3 and 4. Please check figure 4 itself versus figure text (not in accordance). Please explain the lines drawn within various subgraphs of figure 3
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', P. Freire, 19 Mar 2021
Following this comment, that we thank, further details will be added to the discussion about figures 3 and 4. Figure 4 will also be corrected since the colour scheme for the weeks was not in accordance with the figure's caption. The captions of Figures 3 and 4 will also be improved for clarity.
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', P. Freire, 20 Apr 2021
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', P. Freire, 19 Mar 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2020-422', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Mar 2021
This is an interesting and relevant study, and the authors have selected a suitable method for flood and drought risk assessment for agricultural areas. The consequence/probability diagram is a suitable method for this study and is well presented; however, the study would be stronger if it included more than a risk assessment. The paper is generally well written and structured. Though, the paper has some shortcomings regarding the treatment and monitoring of risk, which should be included.
I miss a more thorough discussion on how the approach can be used in risk management, as the method covers risk assessment but is missing risk treatment and the process of monitoring and modify risk in accordance with ISI 31000. The paper would be stronger if more efforts were added to include risk management (risk treatment, monitoring, and communication), especially since risk management is given so much space in the introduction and the objectives of the study.
Please include further details (perhaps in the discussion) on how the risk can be managed and be used for decision making (To follow up the author's recommendation that the risk owner should consider risk reduction measures in line 438). (Or remove/rewrite line 55-56 describing the tool to support the management of risk at a local level)
Is miss a discussion of the uncertainty, as briefly discussed in line 424, as this is one of the two main challenges presented in the introduction (line 55). An a more detailed discussion of uncertainty and uncertainty reduction would strengthen the paper.
Please improve captions of Figure 3 and 4. Figure captions should be standalone, not dependent on explanation in the text. For Figure 3 Week 1 you could consider different scale to improve readability.
- AC5: 'Reply on RC3', P. Freire, 20 Apr 2021
Paula Freire et al.
Paula Freire et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 319 | 104 | 14 | 437 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 319
- PDF: 104
- XML: 14
- Total: 437
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1