the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Parameter dynamics of distributed hydrological model in simulating or forecasting flood processes of urbanizing watersheds
Abstract. In the past decades, the world has experienced rapid urbanization and observed the appearances of large amount urbanizing watersheds with enhanced flooding, which has a constant changing land use/cover(LUC) types as the most significant feature. Simulating and forecasting urbanizing watershed flood processes faces great challenges, one is how to relate model parameters with the changing LUCs to secure an accurately and reliable simulation and forecasting results. In this study, a methodology for simulating and forecasting urbanizing watershed flood processes is proposed, which employs Liuxihe model as the watershed hydrological model. This methodology sets up the Liuxihe model with latest terrain properties, then derives initial parameter look-up table based on terrain properties, and optimizes it if there is observed hydrological data. If there is LUC changes, then the parameters are updated with the changed LUCs based on the optimized parameter look-up tables. Case study in a highly urbanizing watershed in the Pearl River Delta Area in southern China has shown that this method acquires accurate and reliable flood processes simulation results. Further more, this study has proven an assumption that the hydrological model parameters are LUC stationary, i.e., with the LUC changes, the parameter look-up table will not change, parameter look-up table optimized in a specific time with current LUCs will not change even the LUCs changed. With this assumption, the parameter look-up table only needs to be optimized once. This is a science question that has not been not well answered yet by the scientific communities.
- Preprint
(2324 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-233', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Nov 2023
The paper has its value and represents a fair contribution to the scientific community mostly towards the discussion of the needed for adopting dynamic parameter optimisation in hydrological models by answering a so-far not completely answered scientific question. However there are many aspects of the manuscripts that ought to be corrected/included before the paper may pass through a peer-review process. After the completion of these corrections I will consider the paper for peer-review in HESS and personally I believe it would fit the journal.Â
1. The paper requires substantial gramatical revisions. The structure is therefore confusing to the readers and need a proper revision in terms of the appropriate use of the English language.
2. Â 1. INTRODUCTION: The paper aims mainly to answer an interesting research question regarding the need or not of optimising hydrological parameters after significant LUC changes at catchment level. I miss a proper cover of the current literature about the subject in the introduction. Remember that this part is needed to prepare the reader to what is gonna be mainly discussed in the paper. Therefore, the authors need to cover recent publications in the subject. Other studies where they considered the optimisation and got similar results? or not? Unless there is no literature about this topic (which I doubt) the authors should cover this more properly.
3. 2.2. HYDROLOGICAL DATA: Remember to always cite the sources of the dataset used. Where is the source of the streamflow used? Is there an official government website? Where readers can obtain the same dataset in order to reproduce the present work?
4. The methodology is confusing. You need to provide a proper and enjoyable workflow guiding the readers to what you did. what were your hypothesis and what they might expect. Think that your readers might want to reproduce this work in a coherent work and then write the most direct, and at the same time sufficient, as possible. Consider the use of flowcharts or framework figures to help the reader to understand the work-flow.Â
5. 3.3. Dynamic parameter updating and parameter stationary: This entire section is very confusing, The authors do not make clear what they actually did here. Please consider restructuring this section since it is one of the most important of the manuscript.Â
6. 5 Discussions: Â This part should still be part of the results and not of the discussion.Â
7. The authors need to include a proper discussion in the paper. The current discussion part is actually part of the results and cannot be considered a discussion. For the discussion the authors need to explore the current literature and how close/different are the results found by other authors to the results presented here. This paper conclusions have a big potential for the subject, but to be properly effective they need to be as much as possible discussed in view of what has been done/ is being done by others.Â
After these recommendations are met I believe that the paper will be ready for a peer-review by the Journal.Â
Best regards,Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-233-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2023-233', Tadd Bindas, 12 Nov 2023
See the supplemental document for my full review.Â
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-233', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Nov 2023
The paper has its value and represents a fair contribution to the scientific community mostly towards the discussion of the needed for adopting dynamic parameter optimisation in hydrological models by answering a so-far not completely answered scientific question. However there are many aspects of the manuscripts that ought to be corrected/included before the paper may pass through a peer-review process. After the completion of these corrections I will consider the paper for peer-review in HESS and personally I believe it would fit the journal.Â
1. The paper requires substantial gramatical revisions. The structure is therefore confusing to the readers and need a proper revision in terms of the appropriate use of the English language.
2. Â 1. INTRODUCTION: The paper aims mainly to answer an interesting research question regarding the need or not of optimising hydrological parameters after significant LUC changes at catchment level. I miss a proper cover of the current literature about the subject in the introduction. Remember that this part is needed to prepare the reader to what is gonna be mainly discussed in the paper. Therefore, the authors need to cover recent publications in the subject. Other studies where they considered the optimisation and got similar results? or not? Unless there is no literature about this topic (which I doubt) the authors should cover this more properly.
3. 2.2. HYDROLOGICAL DATA: Remember to always cite the sources of the dataset used. Where is the source of the streamflow used? Is there an official government website? Where readers can obtain the same dataset in order to reproduce the present work?
4. The methodology is confusing. You need to provide a proper and enjoyable workflow guiding the readers to what you did. what were your hypothesis and what they might expect. Think that your readers might want to reproduce this work in a coherent work and then write the most direct, and at the same time sufficient, as possible. Consider the use of flowcharts or framework figures to help the reader to understand the work-flow.Â
5. 3.3. Dynamic parameter updating and parameter stationary: This entire section is very confusing, The authors do not make clear what they actually did here. Please consider restructuring this section since it is one of the most important of the manuscript.Â
6. 5 Discussions: Â This part should still be part of the results and not of the discussion.Â
7. The authors need to include a proper discussion in the paper. The current discussion part is actually part of the results and cannot be considered a discussion. For the discussion the authors need to explore the current literature and how close/different are the results found by other authors to the results presented here. This paper conclusions have a big potential for the subject, but to be properly effective they need to be as much as possible discussed in view of what has been done/ is being done by others.Â
After these recommendations are met I believe that the paper will be ready for a peer-review by the Journal.Â
Best regards,Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-233-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2023-233', Tadd Bindas, 12 Nov 2023
See the supplemental document for my full review.Â
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yangbo Chen, 06 Jan 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
407 | 123 | 40 | 570 | 26 | 36 |
- HTML: 407
- PDF: 123
- XML: 40
- Total: 570
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1