Below you can find my comments, suggests and corrects about the “Manuscript ID: hydrology-2899675 – Development of green disaster management toolkit to achive carbon neutrality goals in flood risk management” submitted to Hydrology Journal.

Description of the submitted manuscript:

The manuscript addresses the issue of the impact of CO2 emissions on revitalization and flood control works in small watercourses. It introduces a method (GDMT - Green Disaster Management Toolkit) to assess this impact based on existing techniques and software toolkits, as well as reference values for emissions by type of materials and services. The method was applied to the Ha-gok stream in Korea in a section with a length of 42 meters, and for three scenarios of vegetation use aimed at absorbing CO2. The result demonstrated that the use of concrete is the most significant factor contributing to emissions, and in none of the scenarios was zero CO2 emission achieved. The authors also attempted to correlate CO2 emissions with various physiographic characteristics of watercourses; however, no correlation was detected with any of them. Nevertheless, they determined a nonlinear multi-regression equation to predict CO2 emissions for watercourse revitalization projects.

General Comment:

The manuscript provides an acceptable assessment of CO2 emissions for the Ha-gok stream; however, it lacks a more detailed description of the project, including figures and comparisons with other revitalization projects worldwide. Concerning the CO2 emission predictor based on data not correlated with physiographic characteristics, there is not a clear reasoning for minimal confidence in its utilization. Finally, there is no mention of the hydrological sizing of flood control structures or the necessity for them to align with predictions due to climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which is the central concern of the manuscript itself.

Specific Comments:

Table 2 – What are the definitions of each function analyzed (runoff reduction, water resources protection, and water quality enhancement) for the facilities and the criteria to classify them?;

Equation 1 – Note that the symbol for the scalar product is the dot (•), and so we sometimes refer to the scalar product as the dot product. Also, comment if the CU_i would represent CO₂ absorption;

Line 338 – Verify the value of 564,119 tons of CO2, which is the sum of soil works in the table 5 (147,592 + 56,773 + 40,026 + 359,714) = 604,105 tons of CO2;

Table 5 – The sum of ratio (%) does not match 100%;

Equation 3 – Add declaration to variable “L”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We hope this document finds you well. We are writing to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our paper titled "Development of green disaster management toolkit to achieve carbon neutrality goals in flood risk management." Your thoughtful evaluation and feedback are greatly appreciated.

We have carefully considered the comments and suggestions provided in your review. They have been immensely helpful in enhancing the quality and clarity of our research. Your insights have prompted us to delve deeper into certain aspects of our study, and we believe that addressing your recommendations will significantly strengthen the overall impact of our work.

We are pleased to inform you that we have revised the manuscript in accordance with your feedback. The changes are approximately Tables 2 and 5 and Equations 1 and 2 and the text related to them. We are confident that these modifications were able to address the concerns raised during the review process.

Once again, we would like to extend our gratitude for your valuable input. Your expertise and attention to detail have undoubtedly contributed to the improvement of the paper. We are hopeful that the revised manuscript meets your expectations and merits your approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of the revised manuscript.

Warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Can you make a better link with the intensity of the crisis, the hazard and your toolkit ?
How do you take waste (disaster waste) into account when considering carbon? The management of this waste can have very different impacts on the environment.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are pleased to inform you that we have revised the manuscript in accordance with your feedback. The changes are approximately title, figure, table and main text regarding on the results and discussion and conclusions to them. We are confident that these modifications were able to address the concerns raised during the review process.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of the revised manuscript.

Warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on "Development of green disaster management toolkit to achieve carbon neutrality goals in flood risk management"

This paper developed a carbon emissions and absorption calculation toolkit (GDMT) for Korean flood risk management projects.

The research utilized GDMT to assess the carbon footprint of restoration projects in three scenarios and found that the use of vegetation shelter blocks and green infrastructure contributed to lowest emission and highest carbon absorption. They also developed a simple nonlinear multi-regression equation to predict carbon emissions based on the length of small stream restoration projects which needs further improvement.

My main comments are listed below:

1. Clarity and Language Use:

• Language needs improving, for example, in the title, "achieve" is misspelled as "achive". The paper sometimes poses readability challenges, particularly when sentences become overly complex due to lengthy clauses. Simplifying these into shorter, clearer sentences could greatly improve comprehension. It would be advantageous to distill complex ideas into more manageable segments, with each sentence conveying a distinct point. This approach would not only enhance clarity but also make the paper more accessible to a broader audience.

2. Literature Review:

• It's crucial to establish a strong connection between existing toolkits related to carbon calculations and their relevance to flood risk management. Clarifying this relationship will strengthen the context of your study.

• In Table 2, the criteria for classification and the method for determining performance levels are not entirely clear. A detailed explanation of these aspects would greatly aid in understanding the basis of your assessments.

• The literature review section could be more effective in highlighting the research gap your study aims to fill. Summarizing existing limitations and directly linking them to the objectives of your research could provide a clearer roadmap for your study's contribution.

3. Results and Discussion:

• Equation (2) introduces variables and coefficients that are not fully explained, which might leave readers puzzled. A more detailed breakdown of these components would be beneficial.

• The observation regarding a small number of streams contributing significantly to emissions warrants further explanation. Shedding light on the underlying reasons could offer valuable insights.

• In Figure 3, the absence of key metrics such as correlation coefficients makes it difficult to gauge the accuracy and reliability of the presented data. Incorporating these metrics could substantially enhance the figure's informative value.

• The prediction formula presented in Formula (3) raises some questions. Regarding the prediction formula and its efficacy, there seems to be a reliance on a singular predictor for estimating carbon emissions. This approach prompts several questions about the model's comprehensiveness and accuracy: It would be insightful to know how much of the variance in carbon emissions this predictor accounts for. You mentioned the determinant coefficient is reported as 0.546, does this suggests that approximately 54.6% of the variance is explained by the model? However, this leaves a substantial portion of the variance (around 45.4%) unaccounted for. Could you elaborate on the factors or predictors that might explain this remaining variance? The selection of this particular predictor warrants a deeper discussion. Why was this predictor chosen over others, and what are its advantages and limitations in the context of your study? Further clarification on the determinant coefficient would also be beneficial. If it represents the proportion of variance explained by the model, discussing the implications of the unexplained variance could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the model's limitations and areas for future improvement.

• Figure 4 would benefit from a discussion on the metrics used to assess prediction skill, such as NSE or KGE values. Comparing these with findings from previous studies could help in contextualizing the effectiveness of your predictions.

• The innovative aspects of your toolkit and prediction formula could be further highlighted. Discussing how your approach differs from and improves upon existing methodologies could underscore the novelty of your work.

4. Conclusions:

• The conclusions section currently reads more like a summary than a set of definitive conclusions. Streamlining this section into concise bullet points could make the takeaways more accessible and memorable for readers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Clarity and Language Use:

• Language needs improving, for example, in the title, "achieve" is misspelled as "achive". Sometimes the sentences is confusing and redundant. The paper sometimes poses readability challenges, particularly when sentences become overly complex due to lengthy clauses. Simplifying these into shorter, clearer sentences could greatly improve comprehension. It would be advantageous to distill complex ideas into more manageable segments, with each sentence conveying a distinct point. This approach would not only enhance clarity but also make the paper more accessible to a broader audience.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of the revised manuscript.

Warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper about Development of green disaster management toolkit to achive carbon neutrality goals in flood risk management has an interesting subject related to the evaluation of the carbon emissions and absorption based on the unit volume of materials and processes employed in 22,300 small stream restoration projects in Korea.

The paper is well organized but before be accepted for publication neend some improvement. These improvement can made in the intoduction part where authors must clearly desribe the novelty of the research made. Also in the introduction part the authors must conect their research with the same researches amde in the field worldwide. Also the results and discussion part must be rewritten because the discussion is missing complelty.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are pleased to inform you that we have revised the manuscript in accordance with your feedback. The changes are approximately Introduction and Conclusions. We are confident that these modifications were able to address the concerns raised during the review process.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of the revised manuscript.

Warm regards,

General Comment: The paper is well organized but before be accepted for publication neend some improvement. These improvement can made in the intoduction part where authors must clearly desribe the novelty of the research made. Also in the introduction part the authors must conect their research with the same researches amde in the field worldwide. Also the results and discussion part must be rewritten because the discussion is missing complelty.

Answer for general comment: To enhance accessibility and memory for readers by summarizing and adding the responses to specific comments you pointed out and rewriting the research results, the introduction and conclusions have been rewritten as attached document titled “Journal of Hydrology.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors expanded the comments in the conclusions section, corrected, and improved specific aspects throughout the manuscript. However, the main objective of successfully adjusting a predictive equation for CO2 emissions was not achieved. This is evidenced in Figure 4, where we can identify a significant uncertainty in the method. Predicted CO2 emissions of 300 tons can vary within the range from over 10² to 10³ tons of CO2, rendering this prediction of little utility.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are pleased to inform you that we have written your response based on your feedback. Once again, we would like to extend our gratitude for your valuable input. Your expertise and attention to detail have undoubtedly contributed to the improvement of the paper. We are hopeful that our answer meets your expectations and merits your approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of the revised manuscript.

Warm regards,

General Comment: The authors expanded the comments in the conclusions section, corrected, and improved specific aspects throughout the manuscript. However, the main objective of successfully adjusting a predictive equation for CO2 emissions was not achieved. This is evidenced in Figure 4, where we can identify a significant uncertainty in the method. Predicted CO2 emissions of 300 tons can vary within the range from over 10² to 10³ tons of CO2, rendering this prediction of little utility.

Answer for general comment: As you pointed out, the prediction equation in Figure 4 may not be useful in predicting the amount of CO₂ emissions by small stream restoration projects outside the range of 10² to 10³ tons of CO₂ emissions. However, the CO₂ emissions from the small stream restoration project in Korea are in the range of 33.4 to 1,965 tons as described in the main text. Thus, we expect that the prediction equation developed in here will not be unreasonable in using it to predict the CO₂ emissions by the small stream restoration project in Korea.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made progress in addressing some of the concerns I previously raised, notably enhancing the manuscript's language and readability. However, there remain significant issues that were not adequately resolved.

Regarding my third comment on Table 2, the criteria for classification and the methodology for determining performance levels remain vague. An in-depth explanation of these elements is crucial for a thorough understanding of the evaluation framework employed in your study. The provided response did not fully clarify these aspects.

Regarding to my earlier Specific comment 7, I appreciate the authors calculate the correlation, but I'm concerned about the low correlation between the characteristics and CO2 emissions. This is related to my earlier Specific comment 8, I 'm skeptical of the predictability of length if the correlation is only 0.453,which appears limited, casting doubt on the model's reliability.

In my earlier Specific comment 8, my recommendation for a more comprehensive discussion on this prediction methodology was unfortunately not reflected in the revised manuscript.

Regarding to my earlier Specific comment 9,while it is acknowledged that the model's low predictive skill is not solely attributed to the unique method employed, providing quantitative skill assessments rather than relying on a singular scatter plot would facilitate a more informative evaluation of the model's performance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we deeply apologize for missing some things in the process of checking and writing the answers. We have carefully considered the comments and suggestions provided in your review. They have been immensely helpful in enhancing the quality and clarity of our research. Your insights have prompted us to delve deeper into certain aspects of our study, and we believe that addressing your recommendations will significantly strengthen the overall impact of our work.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of the revised manuscript.

Warm regards,

General Comment: The authors have made progress in addressing some of the concerns I previously raised, notably enhancing the manuscript's language and readability. However, there remain significant issues that were not adequately resolved.

Regarding to my earlier Specific comment 7, I appreciate the authors calculate the correlation, but I'm concerned about the low correlation between the characteristics and CO2 emissions. This is related to my earlier Specific comment 8, I 'm skeptical of the predictability of length if the correlation is only 0.453, which appears limited, casting doubt on the model's reliability.

In my earlier Specific comment 8, my recommendation for a more comprehensive discussion on this prediction methodology was unfortunately not reflected in the revised manuscript.

Answer for general comment: In the research, only items closely related to disaster risk management were selected to evaluate the performance level of each facility from the perspective of disaster risk management. In other words, items with relatively little relevance to disaster management, such as ecological landscape improvement and thermal environment improvement, were excluded from the level evaluation. In addition, since the conceptual results made through interviews with experts and local government officials in existing studies were summarized, the level of performance was included in the literature review because it was not the analysis result of the research.

We also think it is reasonable to question the reliability of the prediction equation. However, this is a problem based on the limitations of the data, and we don't think there is a problem with the methodology itself. If related research is conducted in the future and high-quality data are secured, it is expected that the methodology of this study and the methodology suggested will be able to derive reliable predictive equations.

Our response to a more comprehensive discussion of the prediction methodology is reflected in the revised conclusion, please review it again.

We fully agree with the concerns about the reliability degradation of models that rely on a singular scatter plot. However, our analysis shows that existing information does not reach a suitable level for model construction in terms of coefficient of determination and homogeneity of variance, so we were forced to use only a single piece of information such as length of small stream restoration projects. Related contents are included in the main text as follows.

However, it was difficult to find an appropriate correlation and homogeneity of variance due to the large variation in carbon emissions by small stream restoration project as all small streams across the country have different watershed characteristics and project condition such as the amount of materials and equipment required for each small stream restoration project.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

Development of Green Disaster Management Toolkit to Achieve Carbon Neutrality Goals in Flood Risk Management

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI