Integrating Critical Infrastructure Networks into Flood Risk Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Though the communicated manuscript entitled "The Integration of Critical Infrastructure Networks into Flood 2 Risk Management Workflow" has some points of interest, I think that the general presentation of the research is very poor and needs several essential modifications and clarification before it can be considered again for possible publication. 

This study focuses on integrating Critical Infrastructure Networks into Flood Risk Management workflow. This manuscript may be considered as a 'Review Paper' based on its structure and content. However, it still has to be significantly improved to reach at the publication standard.

Some of the suggestions are as follows:

1. Title needs to be revised.

2. Abstract does not have any technical details. It has only suggestions, recommendations, directions, need of the hour, etc. Add technical detail from the case study here.

3. Formatting of the paper is very poorly done. Please revise as per the journal standard.

4. Recent references need to be added. It seems that referencing has been done via some software. At several points, there was some problem while citing the references and the following message is coming up "Error! Reference source not found.". Correct all these.

5. Indentation is not properly managed throughout the manuscript. Kindly do this.

6. Point 2 is Literature Review, then again, point no 4 is Literature Review, how could it be possible? Not only this, after point no. 4. Subheadings were stated from 3. This shows the lack of concentration of the author and the importance of the paper to them.

7.  "Error! Reference source not found.". Check this at line no 303.

8. All the figures are pasted as image file. Texts are not clear. Do the needfull.

9. Give the equation number properly (in Equ. 1).

10. Fig. 4 and 7 are cartographically not correct. 

11. Replace all the figures with High-resolution figures.

12.  Lack of motivation. The issue that the authors want to face is not adequately described and it is too vague. The first part of the introduction is useless since it does not help the reader to focus on the problem that the authors want to solve.

13.  I cannot see any general conclusions from this work. Again, what is the advance in respect of our similar papers?

14. the methodology used in this work, represented for example by figure 2, is not new. What is novel on this? 

15. Discussion needs to be improved in according to the study

Therefore, according to my standards, this paper should be rejected in its present form. I encourage the authors to deeply revise their manuscript and resubmit their research.

Some of the research articles may be followed are:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031472

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.011

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101172

https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology6020038

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

please find attached my direct response to your comments. THank you for your contributions which helped us improve this manuscript.

Greetings,

Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

General Comments

I am happy to see that the quality of this work is significantly improved from last submission, and I believe that the content of this current manuscript fits for publication. The entire paper is better organized for readers to follow. The literature review section clearly stated the current flood risk assessment workflow. The explaination on methods used to integrate critical infrastructure is structured according to the literature review section, and is closely connected with the case study. Figures, tables, and maps are also greatly improved. All my questions are addressed.

There are still formatting issues throughout the paper. Though they are not errors in content, they distract reviewers from the ideas and conclusions of your paper (which is its true value that reviewers and readers would like to find) and hinders your paper from timely publication. Please be patient and remeber to proofread your next paper before submission.

 

Detailed Comments

1. Section 2 Literature Review, line 151 ‘For big infrastructure projects a successful communication us build upon the possibilities of public participation [47].’

Instead of ‘us’, I think the authors meant ‘is’.

 

2. Section 2 Literature Review, line180 ‘Murdock et. al [44] used the disruption of critical infrastructure services the expected disruption for quantification.’

Should add ‘as’ here.

 

3. Section 3 Line 336. ‘For the decision-maker, a range of flood consequence types can be offered to describe the current flood risk situation as shown in.’

Missing the table name.

 

4. Section 4 Literature Review and Section 5

These two sections are entirely repetitive. Starting from Line 339 ‘This work will begin with a literature review on state-of-the-art and state-of -the-science of flood risk management…’ to Line 609 ‘The CI service disruption is to be added to the risk matrix of consequences.’

Please remember to adjust the subheadings after removing these paragraphs.

 

5. Section 5, Line 635 ‘…for new potential measure reducing reducing the flood risk…’

Remove one ‘reducing’.

 

Regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

please find attached my direct response to your comments. Thank you for your contributions which helped us improve this manuscript.

Greetings,

Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

1. The paper has numerous error in citing/referencing tables/figures.

2. Too much literature review; hardly any discussion about the methodologies, biases, limitations, assumptions, and results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

please find attached my direct response to your comments. Thank you for your contributions which helped us improve this manuscript.

Greetings,

Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

This research work is on a topic of relevance and general interest to the readers of the journal. In the light of the above, there are no specific grounds for opposing the publication of this research work however major revision are needed to improve the readability and to highlight the novelty of its content. I suggest revising the whole structure of the paper, as well as improving the English translations. Some sentences are very difficult to understand and many words are affected by spelling mistakes. I suggest also reconsidering the actual subdivision into paragraphs and subparagraphs since it is particularly hard to detect a formal and conceptual distinction. I suggest also stating clearly the objectives of this study in the introduction as well as the importance of this study in relation to the existing literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

please find attached my direct response to your comments. Thank you for your contributions which helped us improve this manuscript.

Greetings,

Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have revised this manuscript thoroughly. Work appreciated. Though, I would like to mention a few points: (a) Tables 1-6 should be in table format (row and column), (b) the quality of all figures needs to be enhanced because in-texts are not visible at most of the places, (c) caption of fig 5 is misplaced and cartographically not correct, (d) figure 8 & 9 are also cartographically not correct, (e) References need to be checked, check alignment and assign proper numbering to them.

Author Response

The reply to the first reviewers comments has been added in a separate document.
Thank you for your support!
Greetings, Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

COMMENTS:

The manuscript has greatly improved as compared to the first draft. The study aims to integrate CI and its cascade potential value into FRM using a case study for Accra, Ghana.

There are no major issues found in the methodology.

Please consider the following minor issues to improve your manuscript:

1.       Highlight your significant findings in the abstract.

2.       Improve the quality of the images/figures included in the manuscript.

3.       Tables 1 to 6: retype the table rather than inserting a screenshot/photo

4.       Headings and sub-heading numbering in Literature Review is very confusing; please recheck this.

(1) Introduction;

(2) Literature Review; (comprising 10/27 pages of the manuscript)

                Integrating CI is the steps of FRM

1.       Hazard Identification & Probability Occurrence

2.       No Subheading title (maybe Consequences?)

 

1.       Determination of Risk for CI Consequences

2.       Flood Risk Assessment: Acceptance or Denial

3.       Risk Reduction – Enabling Prevention and Mitigation Measures for CI

4.       Coping with Residual Risk

               

(3) Case Study?

                3.1 CI Network Model Setup

                3.2 Model Characteristics

                3.3 Results and Risk Matrix

                3.4 Potential Measures for CI and Decision-Making Matrix

(4) ?

(5) Discussion;

(6) Conclusion

5. Several Chapter numbers (like Chapter 3.4, Chapter 4.5) are misleading since there are no subsections with these numbers.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The reply to the first reviewers comments has been added in a separate document.
Thank you for your support!
Greetings, Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Check the formatting at multiple places, as the captions are misplaced. The manuscript may be accepted in its current form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aims and objectives are within the scope of the journal. The research gaps have been identified and addressed correctly for meaningful knowledge. The results are well drafted and analysed using the latest scientific methods and innovative. The article is expected to receive a good number of citations in the coming days. The study is innovative and provides a robust, statistically sound, and controlled environment. The conclusion is well written, linked to research questions and supports the findings and results.

 

A few suggestions which can improve the quality of the manuscript:

1. From Fig no 2, Polygon I, II, and III is missing from text. It is advised to refer Polygon I, II, and III in the text.

2. In Fig no 4 and 7, use high quality image, scale is missing, legend is missing, latitude and longitudes are also missing. Needs improvement.

3. In Fig no 6, use multiple colour to show different stages.

4. In Figure no 5, abbreviation from X and Y axis is missing. Kindly provide that.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
thank you for your valuable feedback which I gladly embedded in my submission.
I had the feeling that your comments helped me to improve the quality of my scientific work.

In the following lines I am directly addressing your comments:

- I have revised the density of citation and identified a few locations where I added more literature
- The conclusions have been rewritten to address the objective of this publication more precisely. Thus the presented results support the conclusion in a better way.
- Figure 2,4,5 and 7 have been modified to meet the expectations that were formulated during the review.
-- Figure 2 was complemented with a more extensive legend
-- The quality of Figure 4 and 7 was increased and a more scientifc layout ensured.
-- Figure 5 was restructured to become more clear.

- The comment on Figure 6 was not entirely clear since colouring is already used to define the associated sector of point elements. In case this modification is crucial for your positive recommendation please let me know.

I have incorporated the biggest comments in a "track changes" version of the document where I am also replying to comments made.
Feel free to check there for more information.

Thank you again for your support. Greetings,
Roman Schotten

Reviewer 2 Report

This article offers an ambitious approach to CIN modeling for FRM that considers many different criteria, factors, and constraints. It offers visually compelling heuristic tables, graphs, and maps. However, the overall argument and key takeaways for decision makers who may be interested in borrowing this CIN framework are muddled. I suggest revising the article for coherence, and considering how to make apparent the significance of the modeling for a broader audience, including key decision makers in the Ghanaian context. I would also suggest including more information about the consortium of Ghanaian and German partners. Elaborate on what you mean by qualitative participation and stakeholder engagement. The article offers a rich quantitative methodological discussion, but the data sources themselves are obscured. As suggested in the discussion, there is great uncertainty in this approach to modeling, access to case study data appear limited, and much of the modeling appears to be based on assumptions that are not triangulated through qualitative reasoning. I'm a bit confused about what you mean about leaving out stakeholders on line 495. The authors' comments on participatory methods on 525 appear to contradict this statement. Formatting errors need to be corrected on line 111, 112, 158, 374, 499. Check for missing punctuation points on line 155 and elsewhere. 158-159 contains an incomplete sentence, and check English grammar on 512-513.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

your critical perspective on our publication is greatly appreciated. After the consideration of your comments I gained more confidence in the quality of our publication.

Your review inspired me to majorly rewrite the publications text, improve the structure and argumentation. The statement we want to make with this publication is sharpened throughout the text.

For a more detailed response to your comments and suggestions please see the attachment of this reply form.
In case you have more questions I am always happy to answer. Feel also free to contact me directly if this is easier for you.

Again I would like to thank you for taking your time. I hope the revised version of this manuscript meets your standard.
Best regards, 
Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Comments for Article,  Sustainability- 1935695

General Comments

This article explained a method of integrating critical infrastructure into flood risk management, and then illustrated it with a case study.

The narratives in section 1 are too general and lack sufficient details. The methods used for the case study are not clearly explained. The structure and subheadings are confusing. The article also cites the same author’s paper that has not been published, which makes the methodology hard to follow. The figures / maps are not carefully made,

 

Abstract

1. The first 6 lines of the abstract are introducing background of research. While background is important, it might be better if more weights are put on your research conclusions or proposed new methods.

Introduction

1.       The purpose of this introduction can be better emphasized. It seems that the authors try to explain: CI is important as UN, UE, and Germany have included it in their policies, but the current flood risk management procedure does not consider it. It is suggested that the section of ‘State of the Art-Flood Risk Management Directives appreciation of CI’ should be shortened, and more information is needed for the section of ‘State of the Science CI in FRM’.

2.       Is figure 1 a procedure proposed by authors or cited from literature? If proposed by authors, please provide justifications.

Section 1. Integration of Critical Infrastructures into the Steps of Flood Risk Management

1.       In this section, the authors are doing literature review and introducing the method they used for case study at the same time, which is very confusing. Pleas reorganize the sections so that your review, proposed methodology, and case study results are separate and clear.

2.       Lines 158-159, what are examples of model-, data-, or stakeholder-based hazard maps. Why are they relevant to this article?

3.       Line 191. Please further explain ‘Population Time’ as it is an important metrics used in your study. It is inappropriate to cite a paper that is not yet published for such an important criteria.

4.       Lines 195-197, other metrics are mentioned. Are they proposed by the authors or cited from other papers? Are they used in your case study? Provide citations, equations, or justifications for these metrics.

5.       Lines 218-219. Please introduce the context if it is used instead of only citing it.

Section 2 Results- Case Study for Multi-Sectoral Critical Infrastructure Network Model Utilized for Flood Risk Management Procedure-Accra, Ghana

1.       Line 370-374. Lack descriptions of Promaides software, the build-up and calibration of the hydrodynamic model, and the specific statistical analysis of return periods.

2.       Figure 4. In the right map, edges of Odaw watershed is cut off.

3.       Lines 384-387. Who are individual stakeholders and what does ‘collaborative stakeholder’ mean?

4.       Title of Figure 5 is where CPV first appears in the paper. Does this often happen in the published paper? It should be explained with equations previous to the result discussion section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

your contributions and comments to this paper have been extremely helpful for me. Your input is greatly appreciated and I have the feeling to submit a much higher manuscript now than before!

Below I would like to briefly address your concerns expressed in the answers of the questionnaire catalogue:
The improvisation of the language style got a lot of attention in the processing of the first submission. Several private peer reviewers and more extensive grammar study have led to the current form of the manuscript.

The content, arrangement and argumentation of the manuscript have been modified majorly to address your concern. This helped a lot to make the argumentation and objective of the paper more approachable and understandable.
The literature referenced in this article has been extended where necessary and the reference to another paper of this work is clarified. Another technical paper which is cited in this work was revised and resubmitted recently. It will be made available as a pre print in case this submission should overtake the previous one.

You can find a more extensive reply to comments and suggestions in the document attached to this reply form.

Again I would like to thank you for your time in helping me improve my scientific contributions. I am always happy to meet and discuss further also if this process is finalized.

Best regards,
Roman Schotten

Author Response File: Author Response.docx