Integration of Building Information Modeling and Stormwater Runoff Modeling: Enhancing Design Tools for Nature-Based Solutions in Sustainable Landscapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript presents an innovative approach to integrating BIM and PCSWMM for enhancing nature-based solutions (NbS) in urban stormwater management. The potential of this integration to improve the design, implementation, and assessment of NbS is significant and timely.

However, to ensure the manuscript meets the high standards expected and can make a substantial contribution to the field, some improvements are requested:

- The methodology section requires more detailed explanations of the BIM and PCSWMM integration process. Specific technical steps, software version details, and parameter settings should be clearly articulated to ensure reproducibility;

- While the paper integrates various innovative approaches, a more comprehensive literature review on recent advancements in BIM, PCSWMM, and their application in nature-based solutions (NbS) is needed. This should include a discussion on limitations and strengths observed in previous studies;

- The discussion should be expanded to include the potential impact of the proposed NbS on broader urban water management practices; and

- Additionally, considerations on the scalability and adaptability of the solutions to different urban contexts and climates would be valuable.

I believe that addressing these points will not only clarify the technical aspects of your work but also highlight its importance and applicability to a wider audience. I book forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments. Our responses to all reviewers, including comments from the editor, are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article aims to combine BIM Methodology with NBS design applied to stormwater runoff. The paper has interest, as currently BIM methodology is being applied to almost all engineering aspects, centering all project data around a 3D model. Nevertheless, my primary concert is that the link between BIM methodology and hydraulic modeling, as well as its application is not sufficiently demonstrated. So I recommend a major revision. 

Almost all the paper is centered on NBS description and drainage calculations, which are widely described, but the role of BIM is not clear. The drainage network and NBS configuration are introduced in PCSWMM, but there is no description of the Civil 3D developed model (are NBS modeled as BIM objects? if so, how are they integrated? how is Civil3D data shared with PCSWMM?  is the design data stored back in the model / NBS?) nor a common database or collaborative effort under a CDE. In order to demonstrate the benefits of integrating BIM methodology with hydraulic modelling, its use should be properly justified, and also the need of having the school model (apart from visualization, which is valuable, but not shown in the paper).

Minor comments:

- Delete "accessed 3/1/24" from line 144. It should be included in references section

- Line 252. Include url as footnote or in the references section, as well as accessed data. Same for line 261 url., line 380, line 385 

- Figure 2. correct title: (b) Design by... Also, use the same style in all figures (in fig 2 (a)(b) are used. In fig 3, 3a, 3b, are used)

- Line 308. BIM model of the school is shown in fig2. Fig3 shows the real site. 

- Check references (i.e, line 953)

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments. Our responses to all reviewers, including comments from the editor, are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

As the manuscript is with a good quality of written and presentation of developed ideas, it can be accepted to be published.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments. Our responses to all reviewers, including comments from the editor, are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have integrated BIM software, with a dynamic and conceptual hydrologic/hydraulic model to enhance the analytical tools for landscape design. Authors have illustrated the model integration through a case study. The model results showed that even with the 100-year rainfall event, the existing Metro Forest pond storage capacity was sufficient so that flooding on the property would not occur.

There are some suggestions to the authors:

1 The annotation in the figures is relatively vague, such as in Fig 5.

2 In each section, the author gives the problems and solutions, and this way of writing and problem-solving ideas are relatively rare in the paper, such as in 2.5.1.

3 The URL is given directly in the paper. Does the author consider giving in the appendix of the paper, such as https://www.materialepyramiden.dk/?

4 The paper emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary collaboration to effectively 702 develop and assess NbS design. This part should give a detailed explanation.

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments. Our responses to all reviewers, including comments from the editor, are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have observed the effort dedicated to the requested corrections. The changes made, including adjustments in modeling and analyses of NbS scenarios, have significantly improved the clarity and depth of the study. The enhanced use of BIM and PCSWMM to explore the performance of NbS in rain events of different intensities is a notable aspect, as well as the inclusion of more detailed data on the NbS design and the rationale for the applied nature-based construction solutions. However, while the improvements are evident and most of the revisions have been satisfactorily addressed, there are areas that could benefit from additional attention. The discussion on the scalability of the NbS solutions and their applicability in different urban contexts has been expanded, but still lacks details on the barriers to implementation and possible strategies to mitigate these challenges. Additionally, I would recommend a further review of the methodological aspects related to the integration of BIM data into PCSWMM, to ensure that the approach is clearly explained and can be reproduced or applied by other researchers in the field. That said, I believe the revisions made so far have effectively addressed many of the points previously raised. I encourage the authors to consider these final observations to further enhance the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments. We attach our response and revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have taken into account my previous comments and have extended information related to BIM methodology applied to the specific case study. However I have the following comment: the workflow presented after the scenarios description is a bit confusing; maybe a process map, as usual in BIM methodology will help to understand how authors federate the different models, how is the information flow performed and which parameters (in-built/user-defined/extended data) are defined and exported to PCSWMM or the cost software for performing calculations. Authors also state that process suffer of information losing, but no explanation about how they fix the issue is included. 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments. We attach our responses and revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have revised according to the reviewers.

The authors have revised according to the reviewers.

Author Response

Thank you for your support and helpful comments that have improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have been taken into account my previous comments.