Puebla City Water Supply from the Perspective of Urban Water Metabolism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very good analysis of water movement through an entire region, although there was not enough data in some evaluated compartments.

The only thing that authors should correct is eliminate yellow highlighted text in line 664 and in table 7 (first line, third column)

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The only thing that authors should correct is eliminate yellow highlighted text in line 664 and in table 7 (first line, third column)

Response 1: Thank you very much for your review, the correction has already been made in the document.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very interesting and very well thought out and written, the methodology is clear and the results are clear and relevant.  It is recommended to include a discussion associated with the validation of the results and an ibcertainty analysis, mainly associated with the Monte Carlo simulations. Future scenarios associated with public policies for urban water management in the area should be discussed.

The paper is very interesting and very well thought out and written, the methodology is clear and the results are clear and relevant.  It is recommended to include a discussion associated with the validation of the results and an ibcertainty analysis, mainly associated with the Monte Carlo simulations. Future scenarios associated with public policies for urban water management in the area should be discussed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Thank you very much for your review of our article.

Point 1: The paper is very interesting and very well thought out and written, the methodology is clear and the results are clear and relevant.  It is recommended to include a discussion associated with the validation of the results and an ibcertainty analysis, mainly associated with the Monte Carlo simulations. Future scenarios associated with public policies for urban water management in the area should be discussed.

Response 1: We have prepared an Supplementary Information Document on the Monte Carlo Simulation Method that includes the suggested information. We have included comments in the text that address public policy issue.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very dense with good information and an interesting urban case study. However, the main concern I have about the paper is with respect to assumptions and methodology. I have the following comments:

1. General comments:

a) The paper is written for a Mexican reader. It assumes many concepts and local situations. It will be difficult if it is not given a background to understand local legal situations. For example, what is CONAGUA?

b) One of the main limitations of the study is the quality and uncertainty of the information. How this can affect the results? How valid are the assumptions made due to the availability of local data?

c)  It can interesting to indicate how hydrological characteristics of urban areas are heavily modified related to the natural watersheds.

d)  The results need more discussion and they must be faced with those of other authors for other cities.

2. Title: The study is concentrated on the water balance of a medium-sized Mexican city. Therefore the word metabolism needs more analysis to be included in the title. It is well documented that a business-as-usual approach to urban water management will not address social and environmental change, including climate change and population growth in cities. The paper needs to go more than only quantify the water mass balance of urban areas. It needs to generate quantitative indicators of UWM.  Metabolism studies that have focused on water, which we refer to as UWM evaluations, have used an urban water mass balance method to quantify all natural and anthropogenic flows of water through a defined urban area, from which performance indicators can be generated (See Kenway et al., 2011;  Serrao-Neumann et al., 2019)

3. Methodology

3.1 The software STofflussANalyse (STAN) was developed by the Vienna University of Technology to perform material flow analysis according to the Austrian standard ÖNorm S 2096 (Material flow analysis - Application in waste management). How valid is it to use this software for an Urban Water metabolism study? Were there any bibliographical references to support its use?  

3.2 It is not clear the following aspects regarding either the application of the Monte Carlo method with a single normal distribution with their parameters and transformations. Specifically, 

a) Please, it can be helpful to define Input Parameters and Probability Distributions if any. Identify the key input parameters of the water metabolism model that have inherent uncertainties. These parameters may include rainfall intensity, evapotranspiration rates, water consumption patterns, groundwater recharge rates, and others. For each uncertain parameter, assign a probability distribution that represents the uncertainty.

b) Generate Random Samples: Using the assigned probability distributions, generate random samples for each uncertain parameter. The number of random samples to generate will be determined by the target accuracy of the simulation.

c) Run the Simulation: For each set of random samples, run the water metabolism model to simulate the water flow and mass balance for the urban area. Use the randomly generated parameter values as input to the model. This will generate a set of results corresponding to each random sample.

d) Aggregate Results: Aggregate the results from all the simulation runs to analyze the distribution of outcomes. This may include analyzing the statistical properties of the mass balance, such as mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and percentiles.

e) Sensitivity Analysis (Optional): Perform a sensitivity analysis to identify which input parameters have the most significant impact on the water metabolism model's results. This analysis helps in understanding the factors that contribute most to the uncertainties in the system.

f) Interpretation of Results: Interpret the simulation results to gain insights into the behavior of urban water metabolism under uncertain conditions. Identify potential areas of concern, sources of uncertainty, and opportunities for improvement in water management practices.

4. The sampling method needs a more statistical basis. How valid is it to use Google Forms for informants selected using a snowball method? How were selected the informants? What is the snowball method? Is any reference to this method reported in the literature?

5. The are some references missing references to support the method used. For example, the estimation of bottled water consumption and water distributed by tanker trucks using a Monte Carlo simulation.

6. Page 9. Lines 306-307. This region receives 2,011.21 Mm3 /yr of precipitation, which feeds the surface runoff of the region with 305.95 Mm3 /yr, while 1,588.75 Mm3/yr is evapotranspirated. I think the value for evapotranspiration is a little high (80% precipitation) and the runoff value is low. How are these values compared to others reported in the literature for other cities?

7. Why is used a volume for electricity generation? Is there any dam? These are not mentioned in the document. It can be a water right registered in the REPDA for electricity generation that it was never effective

8. Pages 15-16. It can be better to call “unidentified outflow” instead of “balanced” outflow. Since the word balance can be confused.

9. Page 1, lines 43-44- ... impacts of climate change such as a reduction of precipitation in mid-latitudes where the City of Puebla is located. Is there a local reference where this impact is analyzed?

10. The conclusion “..... is effective for generating profits to service providers and water-related business”,  in the abstract, is not included in the paper´s conclusion. Besides, it is not analyzed in the paper, therefore it can not be a conclusion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

NA

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Thank you very much for your review of our article.

Point 1.a: The paper is written for a Mexican reader. It assumes many concepts and local situations. It will be difficult if it is not given a background to understand local legal situations. For example, what is CONAGUA?

Response 1a:  Footnotes were added indicating the definitions and functions of the acronyms related to the public institutions mentioned in the article.

 

Point 1.b: One of the main limitations of the study is the quality and uncertainty of the information. How can this affect the results? How valid are the assumptions made due to the availability of local data?

Response 1b: The Monte Carlo simulations only included bottled water and water transported by tanker truck, which constitute 1.52% (of the studied area) and 6.08% (of the central city) of the total estimated urban water metabolism. In other words, 98.48% (of the studied area) and 93.92% (of the central city) of the Urban Water Metabolism model for Puebla is based on information provided by official institutions, which means that the level of uncertainty is similar to other models developed using official data from their respective countries. The official sources of information are indicated in sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.3.

National Water Commission (CONAGUA) uses the water rights registered in the REPDA to determine the water availability per aquifer and this information is published in the official update documents of all aquifers in Mexico. Please refer to the following page for more information.

Water rights (line 205) in the UWM model were exclusively employed for the part of the model that excludes the central city, which was indicated in the methodology as the least detailed part of the model (it does not include water uses). In the central city, we used the empirical data provided by SOAPAP (water utility). In this regard, we remarked that in Mexico, unlike developed countries, there are problems with the availability of information not only in the area of water, but in various aspects, so using water rights as a proxy is a first step to approach the UWM. One objective of the study was to develop the UWM model despite information-related obstacles. We believe the model contributes to knowledge because it responds to the situation in which many cities in developing countries, such as México, face.

The assumption of 500 additional liters stored via alternative methods in dwellings is based on field observations. In the city of Puebla and surrounding towns, due to the scarcity of water, it is common for homes to store water in buckets, barrels, floor-level water tanks, or pools. As an example, a small apartment may have up to two 200-liter water barrels plus buckets, or small houses may have an extra in-floor water tank (450 or 750 liters). By storing water, some city residents manage to cope with water shortages between tap water supplies (tandeos), which in some neighborhoods occur only once a week or even more.

 

Point 1.c: It can interesting to indicate how hydrological characteristics of urban areas are heavily modified related to the natural watersheds.

Response 1c: Comments on the subject of watersheds have been included in the text.

 

Point 1.d: The results need more discussion and they must be faced with those of other authors for other cities.

Response 1d: Our model aimed to address the complex water issues of Puebla, so we did not conduct a comparative analysis with other cities. We think that conducting comparative analysis would be an excellent idea when we generate a dynamic model that allows us to make future predictions.

 

Point 2: Title. The study is concentrated on the water balance of a medium-sized Mexican city. Therefore the word metabolism needs more analysis to be included in the title. It is well documented that a business-as-usual approach to urban water management will not address social and environmental change, including climate change and population growth in cities. The paper needs to go more than only quantify the water mass balance of urban areas. It needs to generate quantitative indicators of UWM.  Metabolism studies that have focused on water, which we refer to as UWM evaluations, have used an urban water mass balance method to quantify all natural and anthropogenic flows of water through a defined urban area, from which performance indicators can be generated (See Kenway et al., 2011; Serrao-Neumann et al., 2019)

Response 2: An indicator was proposed in section 2.5. Additionally, a ratio between bottled water consumption and water distributed by the water company for domestic uses was integrated into the results text. Also, a comparison was drawn on a Cartesian plane between water imported from outside the central city and the distribution losses in the water company's network. The explanation and justification for this are provided in the text.

 

Point 3.1:  The software STofflussANalyse (STAN) was developed by the Vienna University of Technology to perform material flow analysis according to the Austrian standard ÖNorm S 2096 (Material flow analysis - Application in waste management). How valid is it to use this software for an Urban Water metabolism study? Were there any bibliographical references to support its use?

Response 3.1: The MFA method is based on the first law of thermodynamics, which applies to all material flows. In this regard, the program facilitates a material balance regardless of the flow type. The STAN program has been used in water-related studies, as described in Gutiérrez-Espinosa's (2016) doctoral thesis in Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico.

 

Point 3.2: It is not clear the following aspects regarding either the application of the Monte Carlo method with a single normal distribution with their parameters and transformations. Specifically, 

1. Please, it can be helpful to define Input Parameters and Probability Distributions if any. Identify the key input parameters of the water metabolism model that have inherent uncertainties. These parameters may include rainfall intensity, evapotranspiration rates, water consumption patterns, groundwater recharge rates, and others. For each uncertain parameter, assign a probability distribution that represents the uncertainty.
2. Run the Simulation: For each set of random samples, run the water metabolism model to simulate the water flow and mass balance for the urban area. Use the randomly generated parameter values as input to the model. This will generate a set of results corresponding to each random sample.
3. Aggregate Results: Aggregate the results from all the simulation runs to analyze the distribution of outcomes. This may include analyzing the statistical properties of the mass balance, such as mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and percentiles.
4. Aggregate Results: Aggregate the results from all the simulation runs to analyze the distribution of outcomes. This may include analyzing the statistical properties of the mass balance, such as mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and percentiles.
5. Sensitivity Analysis (Optional): Perform a sensitivity analysis to identify which input parameters have the most significant impact on the water metabolism model's results. This analysis helps in understanding the factors that contribute most to the uncertainties in the system.
6. Interpretation of Results: Interpret the simulation results to gain insights into the behavior of urban water metabolism under uncertain conditions. Identify potential areas of concern, sources of uncertainty, and opportunities for improvement in water management practices.

Response 3.2: A supplementary information document on Monte Carlo simulation process could be useful in addressing these doubts.

 

Point 4: The sampling method needs a more statistical basis. How valid is it to use Google Forms for informants selected using a snowball method? How were selected the informants? What is the snowball method? Is any reference to this method reported in the literature?

Response 4: The snowball method was used to select informants. It is a sampling method where initial informants identify new informants, and so on. We are aware that this sampling method is not probabilistic, and it is desirable to use a probabilistic one. Despite its limitations, implementing the snowball method alongside the Google Forms online platform helped us to overcome two obstacles, the first refers to the problem of feasibility caused by limited research resources, while the second one was imposed by the sanitary measures implemented in the city of Puebla due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. The online platform also allowed us to place images in multiple-choice answers, which enriches the text and facilitates comprehension for people with restricted vocabulary. In turn, this helped to reduce potential noise in the collected data. You can find the link to the survey in the supplementary information document.

A similar method was used in the article "Modelling consumers behaviour towards e-waste management: a planned behaviour theory approach" by Kulkarni NIrzar (2022), conducted in the city of Nagpur, India.  Like our study, the aforementioned study recognizes the limitations of the snowball sampling method. However, both studies require obtaining information from the population during the COVID-19 pandemic and are conducted in cities located in the global south.

In the fifth paragraph of section 3.5.1., the amount of bottled water estimated for the city of Puebla, Mexico City, and Tepic were compared, where the estimated flow for Puebla was in the midpoint of the others two cities.  

 

Point 5: The are some references missing references to support the method used. For example, the estimation of bottled water consumption and water distributed by tanker trucks using a Monte Carlo simulation.

Response 5: No prior studies have been found that use the above method to estimate water flows for bottled water and tanker trucks for an entire city. However, the work of Brunner & Helmut (2005) suggests a Monte Carlo simulation when the input variables are assumed to be known.

 

Point 6: Page 9. Lines 306-307. This region receives 2,011.21 Mm3 /yr of precipitation, which feeds the surface runoff of the region with 305.95 Mm3 /yr, while 1,588.75 Mm3/yr is evapotranspirated. I think the value for evapotranspiration is a little high (80% precipitation) and the runoff value is low. How are these values compared to others reported in the literature for other cities?

Response 6: The magnitude of runoff was determined by utilizing the methodology prescribed in the Mexican standard NOM-011-CONAGUA-2015, specifically subsection A.1.2.1, which requires a runoff coefficient calculated using the procedure in subsection A.1.2.1.1. For this study, the runoff coefficient was 0.152, which indicates that 15.2% of the precipitation tends to runoff. These findings are consistent with the study by Martínez-Austria & Vargas-Hidalgo (2016), who estimated the coefficient to be 0.169. Their coefficient is higher because their study focused on water harvesting in parking lots, while our study covered less impervious surfaces and therefore the coefficient is slightly lower.

The unit 'mm' shown in Figure 3 refers to the amount of precipitation that runs off in a given area. One millimeter of precipitation is equivalent to one liter of water collected in an area of one square meter, on a yearly basis.

 

Point 7: Why is used a volume for electricity generation? Is there any dam? These are not mentioned in the document. It can be a water right registered in the REPDA for electricity generation that it was never effective

Response 7: According to REPDA data, there is a flow of 114 Mm3/yr of water intended for electricity generation in the central city. However, the data is inconsistent as there are no dams for electricity generation in the area. The only power plant is thermoelectric, and the amount of water consumed is much smaller (In the first paragraph of section 3.2.7.). Since the data was inconsistent, it was excluded from the water uses in the central city (Table 8) but retained in the general model to maintain balance in the study area and congruence with the official data.

We didn't catch your comment about the M&M company, which we understand is a private hydrocarbon transportation company headquartered in Monterrey. The electricity in Mexico is managed by a parastatal company called the Comisión Federal de Electricidad.

 

Point 8: Pages 15-16. It can be better to call “unidentified outflow” instead of “balanced” outflow. Since the word balance can be confused.

Response 8: We agree with the observation, the changes were made in the document.

 

Point 9: Page 1, lines 43-44- ... impacts of climate change such as a reduction of precipitation in mid-latitudes where the City of Puebla is located. Is there a local reference where this impact is analyzed?

Response 9: Although there are no comprehensive local climate change studies for Puebla, larger scale studies indicate a potential decrease in mid-latitude, so in the first paragraph of the introduction we cited an article and IPCC report that mentions this. In addition, we also cited the IPCC WGI Interactive Atlas webpage, which indicates with moderate certainty that precipitation may decrease in the North Central American region in the future.

 

Point 10. The conclusion “..... is effective for generating profits to service providers and water-related business”,  in the abstract, is not included in the paper´s conclusion. Besides, it is not analyzed in the paper, therefore it can not be a conclusion.

Response 10: Modifications have been made to the conclusion.

Reviewer 4 Report

1.      Abstract. This section mainly described the experimental results, which cannot provide readers with a good understanding of the content of the work. It is recommended to add important research data to make this section more comprehensive.

2.      It is crucial to show the novelty of this work. It is recommended to conduct a detailed analysis of the previous research in the introduction section, and explain the differences between this manuscript and previous work. Furthermore, the novelty of this manuscript can be further emphasized.

3.      This manuscript uses many abbreviations, which can create obstacles for reading. It is suggested to add a list of abbreviations to increase the readability of the manuscript.

4.      Wastewater treatment is very important for the operation of cities. Recently, some wastewater and waste treatment methods have emerged, such as “Thallium-mediated NO signaling induced lipid accumulation in microalgae and its role in heavy metal bioremediation” and “Insights into the Effect of Rhamnolipids on the Anaerobic Fermentation and Microalgae Lipid Production of Waste Activated Sludge: Performance and Mechanisms”, which can help improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

Thank you very much for your review of our article.

Point 1: Abstract. This section mainly described the experimental results, which cannot provide readers with a good understanding of the content of the work. It is recommended to add important research data to make this section more comprehensive.

Response 1: The abstract has been modified.

 

Point 2: It is crucial to show the novelty of this work. It is recommended to conduct a detailed analysis of the previous research in the introduction section, and explain the differences between this manuscript and previous work. Furthermore, the novelty of this manuscript can be further emphasized.

Response 2: The modifications were implemented in the fifth paragraph of the introduction.

 

Point 3: This manuscript uses many abbreviations, which can create obstacles for reading. It is suggested to add a list of abbreviations to increase the readability of the manuscript.

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised all acronyms to be defined in their first mention. We have also included a footnote briefly describing the acronyms of official institutions.

 

Point 4: Wastewater treatment is very important for the operation of cities. Recently, some wastewater and waste treatment methods have emerged, such as “Thallium-mediated NO signaling induced lipid accumulation in microalgae and its role in heavy metal bioremediation” and “Insights into the Effect of Rhamnolipids on the Anaerobic Fermentation and Microalgae Lipid Production of Waste Activated Sludge: Performance and Mechanisms”, which can help improve the quality of this manuscript.

Response 4: Thank you very much for suggested articles. The problem with water treatment in Puebla is that it either doesn't exist or, if it does, it's limited to primary treatment, so the implementation of a modern treatment method in this context would be complicated in our opinion. Nonetheless, we'll take your suggestion into account and share it with our colleagues who are experts in water treatment processes.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the article complies with all requests and is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is now better written and more readable. I am confident that the authors performed careful and thorough data processing. However, I still have the following comments based on the changes made:

1. General comments:

b) One of the main limitations of the study is the quality and uncertainty of the information. How this can affect the results? How valid are the assumptions made due to the availability of local data?

Please indicate in the document the study limitations related to quality and sufficiency of data. This is a big issue.

d)  The results need more discussion and they must be faced with those of other authors for other cities.

Here the idea is to comment on the main results and their congruence with others reported in the literature.

2.  Title: The study is concentrated on the water balance of a medium-sized Mexican city. Therefore the word metabolism needs more analysis to be included in the title. It is well documented that a business-as-usual approach to urban water management will not address social and environmental change, including climate change and population growth in cities. The paper needs to go more than only quantify the water mass balance of urban areas. It needs to generate quantitative indicators of UWM.  Metabolism studies that have focused on water, which we refer to as UWM evaluations, have used an urban water mass balance method to quantify all natural and anthropogenic flows of water through a defined urban area, from which performance indicators can be generated (See Kenway et al., 2011;  Serrao-Neumann et al., 2019).

Ok. It was improved partially.

3. Methodology

3.2 It is not clear the following aspects regarding either the application of the Monte Carlo method with a single normal distribution with their parameters and transformations. Specifically, 

OK. The supplementary document on the Monte Carlo simulation process is very useful in addressing these doubts. It should be included as supplementary data when published.

3.  Page 9. Lines 306-307. This region receives 2,011.21 Mm3 /yr of precipitation, which feeds the surface runoff of the region with 305.95 Mm3 /yr, while 1,588.75 Mm3/yr is evapotranspired. I think the value for evapotranspiration is a little high (80% precipitation) and the runoff value is low. How are these values compared to others reported in the literature for other cities?

Urban surfaces are very complex and runoff coefficients for different surface types are very different. Although, the magnitude of runoff was determined by utilizing the methodology prescribed in the Mexican standard NOM-011-CONAGUA-2015, please cite other DIRECT surface runoff and ET values reported for other cities.

9.  Page 1, lines 43-44- ... impacts of climate change such as a reduction of precipitation in mid-latitudes where the City of Puebla is located. Is there a local reference where this impact is analyzed?

This is a speculation since no local studies support this fact.

 Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for your review, the correction has already been made in the document.

 

The paper is now better written and more readable. I am confident that the authors performed careful and thorough data processing. However, I still have the following comments based on the changes made:

General comments:

Point 1.b: One of the main limitations of the study is the quality and uncertainty of the information. How this can affect the results? How valid are the assumptions made due to the availability of local data?

Please indicate in the document the study limitations related to quality and sufficiency of data. This is a big issue.

Response 1.b: A section numbered 3.6.1. was added, which includes a paragraph addressing your suggestion.

 

 

 

Point 1.d: The results need more discussion and they must be faced with those of other authors for other cities.

Here the idea is to comment on the main results and their congruence with others reported in the literature.

Response 1.d: Thank you for the suggestion. We include comments about sustainable water management in the aquifer related to what Scott concludes in his article (first paragraph, section 3.1), a suggestion related to the loss indicator proposed by Paul. Reba et al. (fifth paragraph, section 3.2.5.), the contrast of the runoff coefficient of the Martinez Austria study and the one indicated by Council G modelling guidelines (first paragraph, section 3.2.7.), and the coincidence between energy intensity and water quality expressed by Lee M et al. (fourth paragraph, section 3.3).

Regarding the comparative analysis between cities, we consider that it can only be made in general terms, since the diversity of cities and their characteristics, the differences in methods and data availability and consistency of data (time scale and spatial scale). Since the purpose of the paper is not a comparative analysis, this suggestion, despite being attractive will require to analyze not just results but methods and data to actually be able to compare our study with other cases.

 

Point 2 Title: The study is concentrated on the water balance of a medium-sized Mexican city. Therefore the word metabolism needs more analysis to be included in the title. It is well documented that a business-as-usual approach to urban water management will not address social and environmental change, including climate change and population growth in cities. The paper needs to go more than only quantify the water mass balance of urban areas. It needs to generate quantitative indicators of UWM.  Metabolism studies that have focused on water, which we refer to as UWM evaluations, have used an urban water mass balance method to quantify all natural and anthropogenic flows of water through a defined urban area, from which performance indicators can be generated (See Kenway et al., 2011;  Serrao-Neumann et al., 2019).

Ok. It was improved partially.

Response 2:  We plan to consider it in an upcoming study where we will develop future scenarios based on the proposed baseline. However, in the final two paragraphs of section 3.2.5., we provided details on clandestine tapping in the distribution network and proposed including this flow as a component of the water losses indicator. A commentary was also included at the end of the conclusion.

 

 

3. Methodology

Point 3.2: It is not clear the following aspects regarding either the application of the Monte Carlo method with a single normal distribution with their parameters and transformations. Specifically, 

1. The supplementary document on the Monte Carlo simulation process is very useful in addressing these doubts. It should be included as supplementary data when published.

Response 3.2: Thank you for your comment, the supplementary information document will be included in the published information.

 

Point 6:  Page 9. Lines 306-307. This region receives 2,011.21 Mm3 /yr of precipitation, which feeds the surface runoff of the region with 305.95 Mm3 /yr, while 1,588.75 Mm3/yr is evapotranspired. I think the value for evapotranspiration is a little high (80% precipitation) and the runoff value is low. How are these values compared to others reported in the literature for other cities?

Urban surfaces are very complex and runoff coefficients for different surface types are very different. Although, the magnitude of runoff was determined by utilizing the methodology prescribed in the Mexican standard NOM-011-CONAGUA-2015, please cite other DIRECT surface runoff and ET values reported for other cities.

Response 6: We added footnote (number 9) to the end of the first paragraph in Section 3.1, including the information recommended by your review. With this exercise, we noted that the Martinez Austria article has the lowest runoff coefficient. This led us to reassess our argumentation on rainwater harvesting in the first paragraph of section 3.2.7.

For the calculation of surface runoff, we adhered to Mexican regulations to produce outcomes that meet the standards necessary for decision-making in Mexico.

 

 

Point 9:  Page 1, lines 43-44- ... impacts of climate change such as a reduction of precipitation in mid-latitudes where the City of Puebla is located. Is there a local reference where this impact is analyzed?

This is a speculation since no local studies support this fact.

Response 9: We deem it crucial to emphasize the influence of climate change on the water crisis. For this reason, we change our argument in the first paragraph to the retreat of the glaciers in the volcanoes surrounding the city of Puebla and its impact on water availability. According to one of the articles that support the above, the decrease in precipitation is the main cause of the glaciers' retreat.