Precondition Study of a Sponge City: Comprehensive Assessment of the Vulnerability of an Urban Rainwater System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- The novelty of the study should be discussed.

2- How the study can enhance the efficiency of urban rainwater systems. It should be discussed.

3- The obtained results should be expanded to the similar cases to be advanced technology in urban rainwater system.

The level of English language should be modified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Table 4 & 5, Figure 2: It is suggested to add ‘note’ explaining the table headers just like table 3. Typically, tables and figures to provide better understanding for the readers, but the current form with many acronyms doesn’t do it.

Line 289: It looks like the physical and social indexes are one of most conclusive keys in the study. It is strongly suggested to mention the indexes in the methodology sections, regarding not just the factors but the indexes (e.g. meaning, implying, applications of the indexes).

Line 341: Regarding examining vulnerability, which index has higher priority (or weighting) between the physical and social indexes? It will be better to discuss regarding this in the result or conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

-The text requires a through revision to ensure consistency in symbol usage. For instance, in Lines 172-172, CI and RI should be italicized to align with equations 6 and 7. Additionally, Line 296 should be reviewed.

-In the case study section, a more detailed explanation of the data collection approach is needed. This should include the population size (sample), selection criteria, and methodology for scoring.

-Certain statements in the text require references. For example, in Lines 175-176, it is stated that "When CR<0.10, it is considered that the consistency of the judgment matrix meets the requirements." However, in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the inconsistency ratio (IR) should be assessed, ideally aiming for a value less than or equal to one for accurate expert responses. Was IR controlled in the present study? If so, it should be explained in the text. If not, justification is needed. Citing other studies (e.g., https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2541, https://iwaponline.com/aqua/article/72/6/1042/95295) that employ this criterion would strengthen the argument.

-A list of notations (Lines 196-204) should be included in the manuscript for clarity.

- Line 301, "In the face of rainfall intensities with a return period exceeding 5a...,". what does "5a" mean here?

-Section "3.2. Assessment of Vulnerability" could potentially be merged with section "3.3 Results," as it may enhance coherence.

-The conclusion section requires thorough revision. Some elements, such as Figure 3 and its corresponding explanations, might be better suited for the discussion section. In the conclusion, focus on highlighting key findings, discussing limitations and strengths of the work, and providing guidelines for generalizing the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

There are numerous shortcomings in the work, which require it to be revised.

Firstly, the abstract is brief and does not provide clear information to engage readers to continue reading the paper.

The Case Study chapter is merged with the Results, whereas it should be a separate chapter with a graphical representation depicting the geographical location of the research area.

There are no references for this area being described, and it is suggested to include a spatial map illustrating the described land cover structure or the location of the mentioned objects.

The Results and Discussion are poorly written, lacking references from the introduction and failing to discuss the obtained results.

The Conclusion is poorly written as well, and a graphical representation should not be included in it; rather, it should provide your observations on the work. Reading this paper gives the impression that the Results and Discussion chapters have been interchanged with the Conclusion.

This paper needs to be revised again to make it suitable for publication in this journal. The references provided are insufficient for this issue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have polished their manuscript admirably. In my view, it is now suitable for publication in its current state.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors of the paper have corrected according to the given comments and suggestions from the reviewer, the paper can now be accepted for publication.