Geographic-Information-System-Based Risk Assessment of Flooding in Changchun Urban Rail Transit System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a framework for the assessment of flood risk to urban rail using the example of Changchun. The description of the framework and methodology is sound and the paper is generally well written. I have a slight concern in that the validation is kept quite short. Could the validation be expanded ? Also, the authors state that flood risk to urban rail is generally an important consideration. Could the authors have chosen a different city for which more validation could have been done ? The framework developed by the authors appears to me to be a nice approach that should be used in the design stage of new urban rail systems rather then as a after-thought after the system has already been built and brought into operation. The authors should consider this potential change of perspective in the application of their research.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The frequent occurrence of urban flooding has put the metro system under threat, which can have a great impact on people's travel and safety, so it is crucial to assess the risk of urban flooding in the metro system. The topography is one of the most important factors affecting flood modeling accuracy. This study created an assessment database containing 22 indicators and proposed a GIS-based method to comprehensively assess the urban flood risk in the metro systems. However, there are several suggestions for further improvement as follows:
1. Please redraw Figure 1, to confirm that the map of China is displayed correctly.
2. The structure of the paper is suggested to be revised:
Section 2 study area and data
Section 3 Methodology
3. 22 indicators must give clear reasons for their choice.
4. Check the format of the paper again, for example:
Line 165-166, font size is different.
Line 336, repetition of punctuation.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Some comments/suggestions for improving the manuscript are included below.
Introduction: focuses primarily on China. You should start with a global overview and then focus on the problem in China. Please include some case studies from different countries (either using the same methods as you did in your study to analyze the risk of flooding or using alternative methods) to make this paper global (readable by everyone). These references could be utilized in your discussion section to compare the outcomes of your paper to their results.
Figure 2: The writing in the orange block in Figure 2 is unclear. Please make the texts in the orange boxes black.
3.2. Data sources: The authors only include a table under this heading. Please describe the data included in this table and provide a caption for it.
Figures 3-7, for example, the paper has many figures; it is preferable to place each two maps opposite each other to reduce the number of pages and make the paper solid
4.2.1. AHP hierarchical analysis method to calculate the subjective weights: The tables in this section do not have captions. Each table must have a caption.
6.2.1. Regional flooding risk: there is a figure without a caption in this section. The caption was added in Figure 8 (section 6.2.2. Validation). Figure 8 should be moved to section 6.2.1. Regional flooding risk (containing these two maps), or made as two separate figures (Figures 8 and 9).
Figure 10. Subject work characteristic (ROC) curve: Actuality, I couldn't make sense of this figure. More explanation is required.
Discussion: The debate/comparison with other studies (alternative techniques or subject areas) is lacking. Please compare your findings to other studies in these areas (the references listed in the introduction or other published works).
Conclusions: The author should give some recommendations, such as the limitations of the methodologies utilized or/and actions that can be performed based on the acquired findings, as well as possible future works.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The quality of presentation in this paper is very weak:
There is no numbering and captioning for tables.
There is no space between most of the words.
In Section 6, there is a figure with no caption.
In Section 4.2.1, there is a table with no caption, and the table is not formatted.
In the abstract, background knowledge on the problem addressed needs to be added to some extent.
The literature review is still incomplete.
The introduction section should contain the research gaps in summarized form. Clearly mention the novelty of this work.
Methodology is worse organized and methodology not clear.
The validation of results is not enough.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors responded to the comments.
Author Response
We have added an attachment, please check it out
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The abstract needs to edit.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We have added an attachment, please check it out.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
