the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Aug 2021
Identification of Rip Current Hazards Using Fluorescent Dye And Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (A Case Study Of Drini Beach, Gunungkidul, Indonesia)
Abstract. Coastal tourism is a leading sector substantially contributing to the regional income of Gunungkidul Regency, Indonesia. However, with more tourists visiting the beach, more lives are threatened by coastal hazards. Rip currents are a channel of powerful, narrow, fast-moving water that can carry floating objects away from the shore, presenting one of the most common coastal hazards to swimmers. Unfortunately, most tourists are unaware of rip currents and their threats and how to avoid them. This study was designed to identify the types and dimensions of rip current in one of the regency’s tourist attractions, Drini Beach. For this purpose, an environmentally friendly fluorescent dye, Uranine, was injected from the shoreline, then the velocity and direction of its movements were observed from aerial video footage captured with a drone. Results showed stationary rip currents with a narrow channel, called a channel rip, with the mean dimensions: 250 m from the shoreline to the head and 10.25 m in width. A break in the reef flat can mostly generate rip currents at Drini Beach. It creates an area that is deeper than the surrounding reef flats through which water and the transported coastal sediments can flow easily offshore. Rip currents identified in this research provide the basis for disaster mitigation measures to reduce fatality.
- Preprint
(2052 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Stephen Leatherman, 03 Sep 2021
I have reviewed this article and find it acceptable for publication with minor corrections:
Table 1 title should indicate meters/sec, not m/minutes.
Discussion section is actually Results and Discussion
Ford and Williams on line 325--need complete reference
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-RC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Dear Prof Leatherman,
We would like to say thank you for commenting to our manuscript.
Regarding your suggestion, we will revise our manuscript as follow:1. Change the Table 1 title so it indicates meters/sec, not m/minutes.
2. Change the Discussion section to Results and Discussion
3. Complete the reference for Ford and Williams on line 325.
We appreciate your review and suggestion to improve our manuscript.
Best regardsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
-
AC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Hendy Fatchurohman, 10 Sep 2021
Dear Prof Leatherman,
We would like to say thank you for commenting to our manuscript.
Regarding your suggestion, we will revise our manuscript as follow:1. Change the Table 1 title so it indicates meters/sec, not m/minutes.
2. Change the Discussion section to Results and Discussion
3. Complete the reference for Ford and Williams on line 325.
We appreciate your review and suggestion to improve our manuscript.
Best regards,Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Oct 2021
The authors presented an interesting methodology to extract spatial/temporal visual information of rip currents. However, the study is limited to explaining the methodology of data acquisition with a limited interpretation of the results and its contribution to the understanding of the physical process under investigation. As a consequence, the work is more a type of fieldwork report than a full scientific paper. In fact, the stage of the study is classified as preliminary by the authors in the paper. Therefore I must reject the submitted paper for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Dear Referee,
We want to say thank you for your time reviewing our manuscript.
Thank you for pointing this out. We will improve the interpretation to provide more results, especially related to the physical process of the rip current. However, we consider this study preliminary since this method has never been applied in Indonesia. We found that this method is feasible, effective, and applied on a broader scale in Indonesia.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Sarah Trimble, 08 Nov 2021
Unfortunately, I do not recommend this paper for publication at this time. In general, it is a well written manuscript. There are some organization and grammar issues, but those are easily fixed. The barrier to publication is that this manuscript (as it is currently written) does not present new information or knowledge, and there is no motivation or research question being addressed. Although the first sentence of the conclusions states the motivation was to identify rips in this area, that is (a) the first time a clear motivation is stated and (b) that statement contradicts what the rest of the paper clearly shows: the dye release was performed here because it was a known rip current location. In conclusion, the observations of a single 20 min period of a rip current, with well-established methods, does not qualifies as scientifically significant.
However, I think the authors have the beginning of a quality paper. If additional observations and some additional analyses can be added to this paper, it could be resubmitted. For example, the authors might be able to rewrite the paper as presenting new data, if it represents the first dye-tracing with a drone. Another option is that the final statements in the conclusion could also be used as a guide for how to reframe the paper. Each of those could be emphasized throughout a rewritten manuscript as the driving reason for the research (see paper for additional comments on ways the manuscript can be reframed). In its present form, the paper is merely a description of a research effort. To be publishable, the manuscript must be reframed: with one or more research questions clearly being addressed, and increasing the material in each section to support the pursuit of that aim.
The authors themselves reference this work as preliminary. I sincerely hope that they have additional data, and/or can increase the descriptions of referenced literature and how their observations add to that literature. Perhaps they can include additional observations of dye released in this rip, wind and wave conditions, or analysis of tidal data to reveal new information about the behavior of this rip type. For publication, the authors must resubmit a more substantial manuscript that includes a scientific or technical question being addressed, additional observations, and expanded discussion of how their observations adds to the existing literature. Unfortunately, in its present form, the paper does not present new information and does not qualify for publication. I have uploaded a commented PDF with specific places that edits would be required in a future version of this manuscript.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Dear Dr. Sarah Trimble,
We want to say thank you for your time reviewing our manuscript.
Thank you for all of your suggestions. We consider this study preliminary since this method has never been applied in Indonesia. We found that this method is feasible, effective, and applied on a broader scale in Indonesia. However, we agree that supplementary data such as wind, tides, and wave conditions are necessary to determine the behavior of the rip. We also found that your comments in the supplementary file are constructive in reframing and improving our manuscript. We will improve our data and analysis so that this manuscript can be resubmitted or accepted for publication.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Stephen Leatherman, 03 Sep 2021
I have reviewed this article and find it acceptable for publication with minor corrections:
Table 1 title should indicate meters/sec, not m/minutes.
Discussion section is actually Results and Discussion
Ford and Williams on line 325--need complete reference
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-RC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Dear Prof Leatherman,
We would like to say thank you for commenting to our manuscript.
Regarding your suggestion, we will revise our manuscript as follow:1. Change the Table 1 title so it indicates meters/sec, not m/minutes.
2. Change the Discussion section to Results and Discussion
3. Complete the reference for Ford and Williams on line 325.
We appreciate your review and suggestion to improve our manuscript.
Best regardsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
-
AC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Hendy Fatchurohman, 10 Sep 2021
Dear Prof Leatherman,
We would like to say thank you for commenting to our manuscript.
Regarding your suggestion, we will revise our manuscript as follow:1. Change the Table 1 title so it indicates meters/sec, not m/minutes.
2. Change the Discussion section to Results and Discussion
3. Complete the reference for Ford and Williams on line 325.
We appreciate your review and suggestion to improve our manuscript.
Best regards,Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Oct 2021
The authors presented an interesting methodology to extract spatial/temporal visual information of rip currents. However, the study is limited to explaining the methodology of data acquisition with a limited interpretation of the results and its contribution to the understanding of the physical process under investigation. As a consequence, the work is more a type of fieldwork report than a full scientific paper. In fact, the stage of the study is classified as preliminary by the authors in the paper. Therefore I must reject the submitted paper for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Dear Referee,
We want to say thank you for your time reviewing our manuscript.
Thank you for pointing this out. We will improve the interpretation to provide more results, especially related to the physical process of the rip current. However, we consider this study preliminary since this method has never been applied in Indonesia. We found that this method is feasible, effective, and applied on a broader scale in Indonesia.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2021-221', Sarah Trimble, 08 Nov 2021
Unfortunately, I do not recommend this paper for publication at this time. In general, it is a well written manuscript. There are some organization and grammar issues, but those are easily fixed. The barrier to publication is that this manuscript (as it is currently written) does not present new information or knowledge, and there is no motivation or research question being addressed. Although the first sentence of the conclusions states the motivation was to identify rips in this area, that is (a) the first time a clear motivation is stated and (b) that statement contradicts what the rest of the paper clearly shows: the dye release was performed here because it was a known rip current location. In conclusion, the observations of a single 20 min period of a rip current, with well-established methods, does not qualifies as scientifically significant.
However, I think the authors have the beginning of a quality paper. If additional observations and some additional analyses can be added to this paper, it could be resubmitted. For example, the authors might be able to rewrite the paper as presenting new data, if it represents the first dye-tracing with a drone. Another option is that the final statements in the conclusion could also be used as a guide for how to reframe the paper. Each of those could be emphasized throughout a rewritten manuscript as the driving reason for the research (see paper for additional comments on ways the manuscript can be reframed). In its present form, the paper is merely a description of a research effort. To be publishable, the manuscript must be reframed: with one or more research questions clearly being addressed, and increasing the material in each section to support the pursuit of that aim.
The authors themselves reference this work as preliminary. I sincerely hope that they have additional data, and/or can increase the descriptions of referenced literature and how their observations add to that literature. Perhaps they can include additional observations of dye released in this rip, wind and wave conditions, or analysis of tidal data to reveal new information about the behavior of this rip type. For publication, the authors must resubmit a more substantial manuscript that includes a scientific or technical question being addressed, additional observations, and expanded discussion of how their observations adds to the existing literature. Unfortunately, in its present form, the paper does not present new information and does not qualify for publication. I have uploaded a commented PDF with specific places that edits would be required in a future version of this manuscript.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Dear Dr. Sarah Trimble,
We want to say thank you for your time reviewing our manuscript.
Thank you for all of your suggestions. We consider this study preliminary since this method has never been applied in Indonesia. We found that this method is feasible, effective, and applied on a broader scale in Indonesia. However, we agree that supplementary data such as wind, tides, and wave conditions are necessary to determine the behavior of the rip. We also found that your comments in the supplementary file are constructive in reframing and improving our manuscript. We will improve our data and analysis so that this manuscript can be resubmitted or accepted for publication.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-221-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Hendy Fatchurohman, 29 Dec 2021
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 976 | 478 | 59 | 1,513 | 50 | 51 |
- HTML: 976
- PDF: 478
- XML: 59
- Total: 1,513
- BibTeX: 50
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
