Study on Suburban Land Use Optimization from the Perspective of Flood Mitigation—A Case Study of Pujiang Country Park in Shanghai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors utilized Shanghai Pujiang Country Park as a case study, this paper conducts a simulation analysis to assess the flood mitigation effectiveness of three distinct land use patterns (Natural scenario, Scenario N; Complete urbanization scenario, Scenario U; Country Park Planning scenario, Scenario P) under five stormwater scenarios with return periods of 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 years. After reading the entire article, I feel that the author is not very good at writing and has many basic errors, mainly reflected in:

1.        In the author's unit, a Chinese comma appears.

2.        A complete article should include a discussion section, but the author did not write it.

3.        The title of the image is generally "Fig. 1".

No

Author Response

We want to express our respect and gratitude to you for your valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of this manuscript. We have carefully considered all the points that you raised. Besides, we have done a thorough and careful proofreading. Following the journal's instructions, a change-marked version of the manuscript has been submitted. We hope the revised manuscript is more suitable for publication in the journal. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has a unique perspective in its research approach, and the conclusions are deemed reliable. However, there are significant issues, including insufficient details in data presentation, lack of discussion content, and a lack of depth in the research results.

（1）The precision of land use data lacks clarification. The rationale for selecting land use data from 2013 needs to be explained. Detailed information on climate data, such as the number of stations, the existence of data gaps, and meteorological observation times, should be added. The accuracy of Google satellite data also needs clarification.

（2）In the methodology section, the classification of land use is overly simplistic, potentially leading to lower accuracy in flood risk assessment results. It is suggested to elaborate on these limitations in the research. Additionally, the omission of considering the role of drainage facilities in flood risk assessment diminishes the reference value of the study and represents a limitation.

（3）The flood risk results evaluated by the authors have not been effectively applied to land use optimization, with only a simplistic qualitative description of land use optimization. It is recommended to utilize land use simulation models in conjunction with flood risk analysis results for quantitative and spatial optimization of land use.

（4）The paper lacks detailed discussion. It is advised to include an objective evaluation of the applicability of the research methodology, comparison and explanation of existing research results from other scholars, discussion of the study's innovations, limitations, and prospects for future research.

（5）The majority of the cited literature is from five years ago. It is recommended to cite the latest literature available.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We want to express our respect and gratitude to you for your valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of this manuscript. We have carefully considered all the points that you raised. Besides, we have done a thorough and careful proofreading. Following the journal's instructions, a change-marked version of the manuscript has been submitted. We hope the revised manuscript is more suitable for publication in the journal. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors thoroughly analyzed the functioning of flood regulation in Pujiang Country Park in Shanghai. They used scenario-based methods from three land use scenarios under different precipitation conditions. The methodology is clear and organized, providing insight into how changes in land use affect flood regulation. I recommend publishing this article as it improves our understanding of the link between land use and flood regulation in urban areas. However, some adjustments are necessary to improve the quality and clarity of the work.

Comments to the Authors:

Introduction: In the last paragraph of the introduction, the central objective of the study is not clearly delineated. Additionally, some sections of this part adopt an approach more focused on methodology than the typical introductory content of a scientific article. A revision is recommended to clarify the central objective of the study at this point in the work.

2.3. Methodology

22.1 Study Area. Insert in the caption of the figure depicting the study area that this park is also located in China.

2.2 Data: In the last sentence of the data section, a more detailed description of the process used to formulate land-use scenarios based on satellite images from Google Maps is suggested. Was a specific method employed, such as clustering, or was the analysis predominantly visual? These details need to be clarified in the text.

2.3.1 Topographic Correction: The description of topographic correction can be improved. How exactly was this process conducted? The authors mention considering height above ground from building data, among other factors. It is recommended to specify whether a digital surface model or a digital terrain model was used. Additionally, it is important to clarify if these data are exclusively based on LIDAR. These points need to be more clearly outlined in the text.

Results: It is recommended to include a discussion paragraph that addresses the comparison between the results obtained in this study and other similar studies. This will contribute to a more comprehensive contextualization and a better understanding of the positioning of the work in relation to existing scientific literature.

Author Response

We want to express our respect and gratitude to you for your valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of this manuscript. We have carefully considered all the points that you raised. Besides, we have done a thorough and careful proofreading. Following the journal's instructions, a change-marked version of the manuscript has been submitted. We hope the revised manuscript is more suitable for publication in the journal. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is recommended for acceptance.

Author Response

Hi, thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to the academic editor. Please find the attached.

Best Wishes,

Hui

Author Response File: Author Response.docx