Designing with Ecosystem Modelling: The Sponge District Application in İzmir, Turkey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper "Designing with Ecosystem modelling. The Sponge District application in İzmir, Turkey " is interesting, but it needs some corrections.
Introduction: Please add here more citations, which inlude information of climate changes (internatinal laws, directives etcs...)
Purpase: now it is not clear, please formulate it in better vesrion
You have to add hypothesis, it will be better for all shape of paper
Discussion should be improved, becouse this part will be connected with hypothesis and resulsts.
Some parts of discussion are presented results, so it should be in chapter: resulsts.
Figures
Fig.1-3, please mark more visible border of country
Fig. 11 - it is not clear, is it Yours map or it was prepared by the others - there is no information about author of this fig.
Author Response
The paper "Designing with Ecosystem modelling. The Sponge District application in İzmir, Turkey " is interesting, but it needs some corrections.
Thank you so much for your observation, we are grateful to receive this appreciation.
Introduction: Please add here more citations, which inlude information of climate changes (internatinal laws, directives etcs...)
Thank you so much for your observation, we added more citations. We added references for the citations while track changes is off. Mendeley does not work well when it is open.
Purpose: now it is not clear, please formulate it in better version
Thank you so much for your observation, we reformulated the purpose to make it clearer.
You have to add hypothesis, it will be better for all shape of paper.
Thank you so much for your observation, we added our hypothesis to manuscript.
Discussion should be improved, because this part will be connected with hypothesis and results.
Thank you so much for your observation, we connected the discussion part with our hypothesis.
Some parts of discussion are presented results, so it should be in chapter: results.
Thank you so much for your observation, we made the arrangement in the light of your feedback.
Figures
Fig.1-3, please mark more visible border of country
Thank you so much for your observation, we made the country border more visible.
Fig. 11 - it is not clear, is it Yours map or it was prepared by the others - there is no information about author of this fig.
Thank you so much for your observation, we added the source of the figure 11.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a sound research topic. The paper is good to read, but some parts of the manuscript seems confused between introduction-methods-results. I suggest careful reading of the article and restructuring the paper according to standards listed in the Instruction for Authors
line 83: what do you mean by slope areas? Please be more specific.
line 87, 336: Vague. How these 'pixels that flows into the stream' should be understood?
lines 119-143: references needed
Figures 1 and 2: it would be very recommended to add grid coordinates as well as legends and maybe a small subset maps representing the location of the study area in the wider context.
Please provide grid coordinates to all other maps.
lines 195-199: These sentences should appear in the introduction, where you state the research goals of the study
line 287: reference needed
Author Response
The paper deals with a sound research topic. The paper is good to read, but some parts of the manuscript seems confused between introduction-methods-results. I suggest careful reading of the article and restructuring the paper according to standards listed in the Instruction for Authors
Thank you so much for your observation, we are grateful to receive this appreciation.
line 83: what do you mean by slope areas? Please be more specific.
Thank you so much for your observation, we changed the term to a more understandable one.
line 87, 336: Vague. How these 'pixels that flows into the stream' should be understood?
Thank you so much for your observation, we made the corrections according to your feedback.
lines 119-143: references needed
Thank you so much for your observation, we added references. We added the references while track changes is off. Mendeley does not work well when it is open.
Figures 1 and 2: it would be very recommended to add grid coordinates as well as legends and maybe a small subset maps representing the location of the study area in the wider context.
Thank you so much for your comment, in the light of your recommendation we added grid coordinates to all maps and small subset maps representing the location of the area.
Please provide grid coordinates to all other maps.
Thank you so much for your comment, we added grid coordinates to all maps.
lines 195-199: These sentences should appear in the introduction, where you state the research goals of the study
Thank you so much for your comment, we made the correction according to your observation.
line 287: reference needed
Thank you so much for your observation, we added references. We added the references while track changes is off. Mendeley does not work well when it is open.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is the review of the manuscript entitled „Designing with Ecosystem modelling. The Sponge District application in İzmir, Turkey”.
The subject may attract interest to the readers. In general, this manuscript is well organized and written, with a comprehensive literature review, detailing the framework approach of the study, clearly stated methodology and nicely presented findings. The manuscript provides sufficient background information regarding the topic proposed.
However, the following requests/suggestions could be taken into account to improve the quality of the manuscript:
The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings, and highlight novelty. The authors have not made an emphasis on highlighting what the added value or differentiating character is with respect to other similar research found in the literature.
It would also be useful to present the main highlights of the paper, and at the end of the introduction, an overview of the article structure would be helpful.
The authors can highlight the usefulness of the study in its practical applicability.
The conclusions need to be written better. The authors should highlight 3-5 bullet points that represent the main findings of this work, not general considerations.
The conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantifying main research findings.
Presentation and language issues:
- the quality of figures should be improved (especially see Figures 3, 11, 13)
- L248 provide reference not a link, for software provide references and specify in the references list,
- define all notations that are used where the concept appears first mentioned in the text,
- there are some typos in the manuscript... please double-check,
- please check the format of the text and make sure it corresponds to the template.
Author Response
The subject may attract interest to the readers. In general, this manuscript is well organized and written, with a comprehensive literature review, detailing the framework approach of the study, clearly stated methodology and nicely presented findings. The manuscript provides sufficient background information regarding the topic proposed.
Thank you so much for your observation, we are grateful to receive this appreciation.
However, the following requests/suggestions could be taken into account to improve the quality of the manuscript:
The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings, and highlight novelty. The authors have not made an emphasis on highlighting what the added value or differentiating character is with respect to other similar research found in the literature.
Thank you so much for your observation, we have added parts to highlight the novelty of the manuscript. Also, we mentioned how it differs from other studies following your feedback.
It would also be useful to present the main highlights of the paper, and at the end of the introduction, an overview of the article structure would be helpful.
Thank you so much for your observation, we made the additions you recommend.
The authors can highlight the usefulness of the study in its practical applicability.
Thank you so much for your observation, we highlighted the usefulness of the study in its practical applicability.
The conclusions need to be written better. The authors should highlight 3-5 bullet points that represent the main findings of this work, not general considerations.
Thank you so much for your observation, we highlighted the bullet points of the study.
The conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantifying main research findings.
Thank you so much for your observation, we added the missing perspectives related to the future researches, quantifying the main research findings.
Presentation and language issues:
- the quality of figures should be improved (especially see Figures 3, 11, 13)
Thank you so much for your observation, we replaced the figure 11 and figure 13 with better resolution versions, yet this is the maximum resolution for the exported figures from excel like Figure 3.
- L248 provide reference not a link, for software provide references and specify in the references list,
Thank you so much for your observation, we linked the reference. We added the references while track changes is off. Mendeley does not work well when it is open.
- define all notations that are used where the concept appears first mentioned in the text,
Thank you so much for your observation, we checked and fixed the mistakes.
- there are some typos in the manuscript... please double-check,
Thank you so much for your observation, we corrected the typos in the manuscript.
- please check the format of the text and make sure it corresponds to the template.
Thank you so much for your observation, we followed the template.
