Socio-Economic Assessment of Green Infrastructure for Climate Change Adaptation in the Context of Urban Drainage Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Literature review can be expanded.

 

The analysis should state clearly under what future climatic conditions the results are based on, for example which cases of extreme climate due to global warming are used.

The differences in results between Barcelona and Badalona can be further explained.

Author Response

Please find our replies attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally speaking, the paper is well-written and well-structured.   I only have two queries about the paper:

1) How can be the benefits (lines 191-201) calculated? If simulation was used, there should be some sensitivity analyses on the simulation results. However, I cannot see the sensitivity analyses in the paper.

2) What are the limitations of the research?

Perhaps, an agenda for further research can be added after the conclusion.

Author Response

Please find our replies attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction: the ste-of-the-art seems to be sufficient to present previous research on this topic. However, the authors should state what is still missing in these studies, if any, and how this paper positions with regard to the cited literature and what it aims to contribute to.
Lines 94-97: the whole sentence is not clear
Figure 1: the text precedeing the figure does not provide sufficient description and context to understand this figure
Figure 2: quality and readability could be improved
In general, it is not clear why these two test sites have been chosen and which issues, specific of these two sites, the proposed approach should address
Line 115: "proposed" by whom? There is no particular context to explain this sentence
Lines 124 and 128/132: the authors should specify what type of bioretention cells they are referring to
Section 2.1.2 and Figure 2: it is not clear where GI are distributed in Badalona, they should be shown in Figure 2. Furthermore, it is not clear if GI mentioned in the text refer to the city planning or if they have been actually built.
Reference [11] from which part of the costs have been sourced is 14-year old and seems to be outdated. Why did the authors choose this source for setting this parameter?
Section 2.4.1: The authors specify the costs but, because the majority of their sources are unplished documents and internal research projects (line 163), it is difficult to assess these cost values. How can these values be assessed compared to other values in the literature?
Line 164: "somewhat average scenario", it is not clear compared to what this scenario is considered average.
Lines 202-227: the methodological approach text is quite descriptive and includes several details and numbers. However, I feel that in the end the workflow is not clear and it is difficult to understand how the different GI in Barcelona and Badalona have been accounted with regard to flooding in the 1D/2D 202 (urban drainage / overland flow) models and the damage model. Therefore, although the outcomes of the analysis seem to be reasonable, the whole chapter "Results" is difficult to be assessed.
My main comment is therefore to improve the methodological approach description and explain better how the modelling has been set up.

Author Response

Please find our replies attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting case study on an important topic. However, some work must be carried out to improve the paper to be suitable for publication.

In the Introduction section the Authors should present the studied problem in relation to the most important, already published papers in this scope. In this section authors refer to 8 items of literature, some more references should be added, eg. Venkataramanan et.al 2020: Knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behavior related to green infrastructure for flood management: A systematic literature review; Wilkerson et.al 2018: The role of socio-economic factors in planning and managing urban ecosystem services.

Materials and methods section must be improved. Figures should be shifted to the next section. They do not fit to the section content. Figures in this section should show land use structure of studied cities, and the urban fabric density. More specific info should be added in the description of the case studies. I would like to know what is a ratio of impervious surfaces in both cities, what is the share of green areas, what factors cause limited drainage capacity, what percentage of the city's area is currently connected to the sewage system, what is the annual rainfall, etc. In sections 2.1.1. and 2.1.2. some info should be added about the selection criteria of different types of GI. I would like to know what unpublished documents and internal research projects were taken into consideration in costs analysis (section 2.4.1.). What ecosystem services are

The result section must be developed. There is a need of deeper reflection of obtained results. Simple comparison of both case studies is not enough. It would be good to define the relationship between various factors affecting such and no other costs or benefits. These two case studies are in many cases incomparable, they should be reduced to a common denominator. What ecosystem services were calculated? This is not properly explained in the Method section.

Proper discussion is missing. In this section all of obtained results should be compared in a clear and concise way with those already published. the Authors discuss only some of them.

Other remarks: there are typos in the text, literature is not cited everywhere in line with the journal's requirements, key words should not repeat the words used in the title.

 

Author Response

Please find our replies attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors has made great job to make the manuscript stronger. In my opinion the paper is worth for publication.