the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Flood simulation with the RiverCure approach: The open dataset of the Águeda 2016 flood event
Ana M. Ricardo
Rui M. L. Ferreira
Alberto Rodrigues da Silva
Jacinto Estima
Jorge Marques
Ivo Gamito
Alexandre Serra
Abstract. Floods are among the most common natural disasters responsible for severe damages and human losses. Combining numerical modelling with user-friendly tools for geographically referenced data has been adopted to increase preparedness and reduce vulnerabilities. This paper describes the numerical dataset of hydrometric variables that characterize a flood event occurred in February 2016 in the Portuguese Águeda river, shortly defined as Agueda.2016Flood. The dataset was numerically produced and managed through the RiverCure Portal, a collaborative web platform connected to a validated shallow-water model featuring modelled dynamic bed geometries and sediment transport. The dataset Agueda.2016Flood can be used as a starting point to design other experiments and tools, and to learn and apply the proposed approach by directly using the RiverCure Portal. This dataset includes modelled hydrodynamic data (output data) and the topographic, geometrical, land-use and hydrologic data (input data) necessary to carry out the numerical simulation of the flood event.
Ana M. Ricardo et al.
Status: open (until 27 Jun 2023)
-
RC1: 'Review of the paper Flood simulation with the RiverCure approach: The open dataset of the Águeda 2016 flood event By Ana M. Ricardo et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 May 2023
reply
The paper provides a use case for web-based high-level hydraulic analysis tool, designed to conduct numerical simulation from the data provided by user himself in order to access the outcomes of severe flooding. The case study suggests such assessment with the dataset on severe flooding event happened in February 2016 in the Agura River in Portugal.
The paper is a significant leap in shifting towards a new paradigm in hydrology (see e.g. (Rigon et al., 2022)): from Models as an Application (MaaA), e.g. installed on one’s desktop, to Model as a Service (MaaS) – high-level environment designed for numerical experiments and results’ visualization, located on the remote server and using graphical or API interface for user interaction (e.g. data handling and model setup).
The paper is well-organized and provides key features of the work motivation and the basic concept of the RiverCure portal, the data used for the numerical experiments and how the dataset is organized. Furthermore, apart from the input data the authors included the model output into the dataset as an instance of how the initial data could be utilized.
Having said that, I see several drawbacks in the dataset and the describing paper.
The paper structure could be improved. Section 2.2 Input data that describes only the spatial data is followed by Section 2.3 Output data, next Section 3 is called Data records and contains Section 3.1 Input data and Section 3.2 Output data again, which is very confusing. I suggest the authors combine the two sections to describe the data consistently – for input and output, spatial and temporal data separately.
The dataset handling should be improved. It took me a while to understand how I could download the data from the hydroshare.org website. The download process might be better documented for users not familiar with hydroshare.org or Bagit download tool. I suggest the authors prompt the download in Section 5 Data and code availability.
The dataset contents should also be improved. The listed spreadsheets Agueda_hydrometric_PonteRedonda.xlsx and Agueda_hydrometric_Ribeiro.xlsx contain only the streamflow discharge timeseries, contrary to what is stated on lines 159 – 167. The data spans for 16 days of hourly records at two gauges for streamflow discharge for the entire flooding event in February 2016
The river discharge and rain gauges locations could have been provided as a spatial coverage as well (e.g. geojson).
As of May 8th, 2023, an attempt to load the layers to QGIS desktop 3.28.3 (Windows 10) via the provided links ended up as a failure (Web Map Service https://geoserver.hydroshare.org/geoserver/HS-937927473a3a4e66a07a2e2fdd9d581e/wms?request=GetCapabilities, Web Coverage Service https://geoserver.hydroshare.org/geoserver/HS-937927473a3a4e66a07a2e2fdd9d581e/wcs?request=GetCapabilities). Please check the data availability.
The http://rivercure.inesc-id.pt/ portal is a well-designed but not very useful tool unless you get an instant guest access. Several days after I requested the access to DemoOrganization it is still pending. Without the access visiting the portal narrows to browsing some satellite maps. However, the RiverCure portal functionality may not be the main aim of the dataset and paper.
I suggest the authors address the mentioned issues, revise the dataset and the manuscript accordingly, and both could be accepted for publication after consistently improved.
Line-wise and figure-wise technical comments:
L157: special – spatial
Fig. 4: Please round the values in the map legend
References:
Rigon, R., Formetta, G., Bancheri, M., Tubini, N., D’amato, C., David, O., and Massari, C.: HESS Opinions: Participatory Digital eARth Twin Hydrology systems (DARTHs) for everyone - a blueprint for hydrologists, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4773–4800, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4773-2022, 2022.
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-100', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 May 2023
reply
In their manuscript “Flood simulation with the RiverCure approach: The open dataset of the Águeda 2016 flood event”, Ricardo and colleagues present a web platform designed to integrate hydrodynamic and morphodynamic modelling tools and input data, together with an exemplary application in the context of a hydrodynamic simulation of the Águeda river flood in 2016. For this purpose, the authors provide both the input data (DEM, surface roughness, model domain) and the model output (water level, flow velocity, etc.).
The manuscript is fairly well written and organised. I appreciate the effort of the River Cure Portal (RCP) as a platform to allow for the web-based integration of data and models in the context of hydrodynamic simulations. The data is accessible via https://www.hydroshare.org which I was not aware of before, but which appears to adhere to FAIR principles. The dataset itself, though, is insufficiently documented in some parts, and the presentation of the data in the manuscript appears partly incorrect (see below under technical comments).
The main issue of this contribution is, however, that the presented dataset does not at all meet the review criterion of “significance”, neither with respect to the aspects of “uniqueness” nor “usefulness”. As for “uniqueness”, the model input data for the case of the Águeda river flood largely consists of data which is available to the public via other channels (the global ASTER-DEM, public land use and land cover data from which Manning-Strickler’s friction coefficient is derived, public rain gauge (or discharge?) records). The usage and pre-processing of these data to produce the case study input is undemanding. The output data, in turn, cannot be considered unique either, as it can be re-produced by any hydrodynamic model at moderate computational cost. In fact, the existence of RCP makes it even easier to produce the published model output. The criterion of “usefulness” is of course more subjective, but I do not see that the published dataset allows for any new approaches to address pressing research questions in the field. The authors themselves do not highlight any specific research questions or application cases for the data except that it “[..] can be used as a starting point to design other experiments and tools, and to explore the RiverCure Portal”.
I would like to emphasise, again, that I welcome the concept and implementation of the RCP (although I cannot say how it compares to alternatives frameworks). However, neither the design of the RCP nor the included HiSTAV model are within the scope of ESSD which is about the publication of unique and useful data. I therefore recommend rejecting the manuscript.
Apart from that, I have a few technical comments which are, however, not to be considered comprehensive:
- The data in the data repository is insufficiently documented. Not all files contain metadata, and there is no document that provides an overarching overview of the dataset as an entrypoint to users.
- Section 3.1 (3): this subset of data is desribed as precipitation data (the term “udometric” is highly uncommon), but the actual data files appear to contain discharge data - quite confusing. None of these files contain any metadata.
- Appendix: The RSL-based “Context”-definition of the data might be interesting within the RCP, but I think it is irrelevant in the context of the data presentation.
- l. 68: “included in the above input data list” - where is that?
- l. 71: “altimetry” - do you mean DEM?
- l. 136: “periodicity”? Do you mean “interval”?
- l. 208: the reference Ricardo et al. (2022) is missing in the reference list
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-100-RC2
Ana M. Ricardo et al.
Data sets
Águeda.2016Flood Ana M. Ricardo, Alberto Silva, Jacinto Estima, Rui M. L. Ferreira, Jorge Marques, Ivo Gamito, and Alexandre Serra http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/937927473a3a4e66a07a2e2fdd9d581e
Ana M. Ricardo et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 183 | 27 | 7 | 217 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 183
- PDF: 27
- XML: 7
- Total: 217
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1