Evaluation and Improvement Measures of the Runoff Coefficient of Urban Parks for Sustainable Water Balance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
For Author:
1. Abstract should be pruned with the solution process. However, the significant conclusions of the paper must be briefly mentioned at the last paragraph of abstract. Need modification.
2. Fig.3 legend is required.
3. For better understanding of work, a working flowchart is required.
4. The Table. 8 regression equations formulation needs to explain properly. Otherwise, the study will be not meaningful.
5. In Table 3, the references need to include.
6. In Fig.4, the fit description is not for better understand. Author needs to explain carefully.
7. Modify the ‘Conclusion’ section. It should be specific. Restate the hypothesis briefly and summarize the key findings throughout with further applications.
8. It is so confusing to identify the parameters if there is no ‘Nomenclature’ section. Add a nomenclature in alphabetical order.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable opinions and suggestions that have greatly helped in improving our manuscript.
We have attached below our point-by-point responses to all your comments.
Furthermore, we have opted for the English Calibration Service (MDPI).
If further corrections and revisions are required, we would be happy to proceed with the same.
We have revised and improved our manuscript according to your suggestions and advice.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic and objective of the study are very relevant and important in current situations. The methods that are used to analyze the data are appropriate. Owing to the important topic, this paper would deserve to get published. However, I have a few suggestions that I believe should be addressed before the paper is published.
· The text is a little heavy, confusing and hard to understand the meaning throughout the paper. I strongly recommend authors to have the manuscript reviewed and checked by a native English speaker with sufficient knowledge of the research topic being studied.
· The authors should consider adding a discussion section to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated in this study.
· The conclusion section should clearly highlight the major findings, the overall contribution of the current study, limitations, future directions, and applicability of the current study in regions around the world and how it benefits water managers.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable opinions and suggestions that have greatly helped in improving our manuscript.
We have attached below our point-by-point responses to all your comments.
Furthermore, we have opted for the English Calibration Service (MDPI).
If further corrections and revisions are required, we would be happy to proceed with the same.
We have revised and improved our manuscript according to your suggestions and advice.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Purpose of the study was to estimate the runoff coefficient according to land-cover types in urban parks. Results of the study may have important application in control of stormwater runoff in urban area. Authors may wish to consider the following in revision of their manuscript.
1. Authors may wish to consider the effect of seasons of the year on results of the study.
2. Water balance was based on 4 types of land cover in park. Authors may wish to comment on the effect of ignoring other area, which is last column in table 3, on results of the study. What is the error.
3. Please comment on the differences in vegetation in testing site and parks, which will have on the prediction of results of the study.
4. Please comment on the effect of different types of soils underneath land cover will have on the results of the study.
5. Please comment on the limitations of methodology used in this study.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable opinions and suggestions that have greatly helped in improving our manuscript.
We have attached below our point-by-point responses to all your comments.
Furthermore, we have opted for the English Calibration Service (MDPI).
If further corrections and revisions are required, we would be happy to proceed with the same.
We have revised and improved our manuscript according to your suggestions and advice.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
