Urban Road Drainage Failure Analysis and Rehabilitation Planning in Juba City, South Sudan: Integrating Hydrological Modelling, Failure Mode Diagnostics, and Cost-Benefit Optimisation

Received on 2024-02-18. Editorial and review checks completed on 2024-04-05. Accepted on 2024-04-20. DOI reserved as 10.5281/zenodo.19248564. Prepared for publication in African Journal of Community and Environmental Health. Publication package dated 2024-05-02.

No author-facing review comments were entered.

Recommendation: major revision

This study addresses a critical urban infrastructure challenge in Juba City, South Sudan, with a comprehensive methodology integrating field surveys, hydrological modelling, and cost-benefit analysis. The work is timely and relevant, particularly as the first systematic engineering analysis of drainage failures in this context. However, significant methodological limitations and insufficient contextualisation undermine its rigour and practical applicability, requiring substantial revisions before publication.

The study addresses an important gap with a multi-disciplinary approach, but methodological flaws and insufficient critical analysis of data and assumptions significantly weaken its scientific contribution. Major revisions are required to enhance rigour, transparency, and contextual relevance before it meets publication standards.

Recommendation: reject

This study attempts to analyse drainage failures in Juba City using hydrological modelling and cost-benefit optimisation. While addressing an important urban challenge, the manuscript suffers from critical methodological flaws, insufficient data validation, and questionable analytical rigour. The integration of multiple approaches appears superficial rather than systematic, undermining the reliability of findings. The study lacks proper contextualisation within existing literature and fails to address fundamental limitations in data quality and modelling assumptions.

The manuscript contains fundamental methodological flaws that undermine its scientific validity. The hydrological modelling lacks proper validation, data collection methods are inadequately documented, and the integration of different analytical approaches appears superficial. These issues are too substantial for revision within normal review timelines.

Recommendation: major revision

This study addresses a critical urban infrastructure problem in Juba City with a comprehensive methodological approach. The integration of field surveys, hydrological modelling, and cost-benefit analysis is commendable. However, significant methodological limitations and incomplete reporting undermine the validity of findings. The manuscript requires substantial revision to address fundamental issues with data quality, model assumptions, and analytical transparency before it can be considered for publication.

Major revision is required due to fundamental methodological concerns that affect the study's validity. The hydrological analysis relies on questionable assumptions without proper validation, while the economic evaluation appears incomplete. These issues must be addressed before the manuscript can advance through peer review.

Editorial Report Manuscript: Urban Road Drainage Failure Analysis and Rehabilitation Planning in Juba City, South Sudan: Integrating Hydrological Modelling, Failure Mode Diagnostics, and Cost-Benefit Optimisation Journal: African Journal of Community and Environmental Health Authors: Aduot Madit Anhiem Correspondence: Reviewer Summary: - Reviewer 1: major revision Major issues (3): The reliance on the Rational Method for hydrological modelling in a complex urban catchment is a major weakness; more sophisticated models (e.g., SWMM) should be employed or justified given Juba's specific conditions., The manuscript lacks critical discussion of data limitations, particularly the reliability and spatial representativeness of 42 years of rainfall data from a single airport station for city-wide analysis., The cost-benefit analysis appears overly optimistic; assumptions about future maintenance costs, discount rates, and benefit quantification (especially social benefits) require thorough justification and sensitivity analysis. Minor issues (3): The abstract exceeds typical length limits and contains incomplete sentences (cut off mid-analysis)., Inconsistent referencing to figures and tables throughout the text disrupts readability., The introduction provides insufficient background on South Sudan's institutional and financial constraints, which are crucial for contextualising rehabilitation feasibility. - Reviewer 2: reject Major issues (3): Inadequate validation of hydrological modelling parameters - reliance on single rainfall station data and the Rational Method without proper calibration against observed flood events raises serious questions about model accuracy, Questionable data quality and sampling methodology - field survey covering only 26.4km of drainage infrastructure without clear sampling strategy or statistical power analysis, Superficial integration of multiple methodologies - the claimed integration of hydrological modelling, failure diagnostics, and cost-benefit analysis appears disjointed rather than systematic Minor issues (3): Poor literature review - insufficient engagement with existing urban drainage studies in similar African contexts, Inconsistent formatting and presentation - mixed citation styles and incomplete reference list, Overstated claims of novelty - while focused on Juba, the methodological approach is not particularly innovative - Reviewer 3: major revision Major issues (3): The Rational Method application lacks justification for its suitability in Juba's complex urban environment, with no discussion of limitations or validation against observed flood events., The 42-year rainfall record from a single airport station may not represent spatial variability across Juba's 28 sub-catchments, potentially biasing IDF curves and subsequent capacity calculations., The cost-benefit analysis appears incomplete in the provided text, lacking details on cost estimation methods, benefit quantification, discount rates, and sensitivity analysis for key assumptions. Minor issues (3): The abstract exceeds typical length limits and contains technical details better placed in methodology sections., The manuscript uses both British and American English spellings inconsistently (e.g., 'optimisation' vs 'calibrated')., The affiliation listing with multiple institutions requires clarification regarding primary institutional support and ethical approval. Editorial Decision: reject Ethics & Transparency Checklist: - Conflicts of interest: Not stated - Funding disclosure: Not stated - Data availability: Not stated - Ethics approval (if applicable): Not stated - Review method: Automated reviewer simulation (requires human verification before publication). Required Changes (consolidated): - Replace or substantially justify the use of the Rational Method with a more appropriate hydrological model for an urban setting, detailing its limitations. - Expand the methodology section to explicitly address data limitations, uncertainty analysis, and assumptions in both hydrological modelling and economic appraisal. - Restructure the abstract to be concise and complete, ensuring it accurately reflects the full study's scope and key findings. - Strengthen the discussion by comparing findings with similar studies in other African cities and explicitly addressing practical implementation barriers in Juba's context. - The reliance on the Rational Method for hydrological modelling in a complex urban catchment is a major weakness; more sophisticated models (e.g., SWMM) should be employed or justified given Juba's specific conditions. - The manuscript lacks critical discussion of data limitations, particularly the reliability and spatial representativeness of 42 years of rainfall data from a single airport station for city-wide analysis. - The cost-benefit analysis appears overly optimistic; assumptions about future maintenance costs, discount rates, and benefit quantification (especially social benefits) require thorough justification and sensitivity analysis. - Conduct proper hydrological model calibration using observed flood data and multiple rainfall stations - Provide detailed methodology for field survey design including sampling strategy and quality assurance procedures - Strengthen literature review with specific focus on urban drainage studies in similar developing city contexts - Include sensitivity analysis for cost-benefit assumptions and clearly document all economic parameters - Inadequate validation of hydrological modelling parameters - reliance on single rainfall station data and the Rational Method without proper calibration against observed flood events raises serious questions about model accuracy - Questionable data quality and sampling methodology - field survey covering only 26.4km of drainage infrastructure without clear sampling strategy or statistical power analysis - Superficial integration of multiple methodologies - the claimed integration of hydrological modelling, failure diagnostics, and cost-benefit analysis appears disjointed rather than systematic - Substantially revise the methodology section to justify model selections, document data limitations, and validate hydrological outputs against independent observations. - Complete and transparently report the cost-benefit analysis methodology, including all assumptions, parameter values, and sensitivity testing. - Provide explicit discussion of study limitations regarding data quality, model simplifications, and generalisability of findings. - Standardise language to British English conventions throughout and restructure the abstract to focus on key findings rather than methodological details. - The Rational Method application lacks justification for its suitability in Juba's complex urban environment, with no discussion of limitations or validation against observed flood events. - The 42-year rainfall record from a single airport station may not represent spatial variability across Juba's 28 sub-catchments, potentially biasing IDF curves and subsequent capacity calculations. - The cost-benefit analysis appears incomplete in the provided text, lacking details on cost estimation methods, benefit quantification, discount rates, and sensitivity analysis for key assumptions.

Response to Reviewers Reviewer 1 - Comment: Replace or substantially justify the use of the Rational Method with a more appropriate hydrological model for an urban setting, detailing its limitations. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Expand the methodology section to explicitly address data limitations, uncertainty analysis, and assumptions in both hydrological modelling and economic appraisal. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Restructure the abstract to be concise and complete, ensuring it accurately reflects the full study's scope and key findings. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Strengthen the discussion by comparing findings with similar studies in other African cities and explicitly addressing practical implementation barriers in Juba's context. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. Reviewer 2 - Comment: Conduct proper hydrological model calibration using observed flood data and multiple rainfall stations Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Provide detailed methodology for field survey design including sampling strategy and quality assurance procedures Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Strengthen literature review with specific focus on urban drainage studies in similar developing city contexts Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Include sensitivity analysis for cost-benefit assumptions and clearly document all economic parameters Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. Reviewer 3 - Comment: Substantially revise the methodology section to justify model selections, document data limitations, and validate hydrological outputs against independent observations. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Complete and transparently report the cost-benefit analysis methodology, including all assumptions, parameter values, and sensitivity testing. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Provide explicit discussion of study limitations regarding data quality, model simplifications, and generalisability of findings. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript. - Comment: Standardise language to British English conventions throughout and restructure the abstract to focus on key findings rather than methodological details. Response: Addressed in the revised manuscript.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19248564
OJS: Pending
Zenodo: Pending