Assessing Reliability, Resilience and Vulnerability of Water Supply from SuDS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Flooding in urban, suburban and peri-urban areas of Mexico is a common and recurring problem. The proximate cause of this phenomenon is a lack of drainage capacity.  However, the root causes although well-known present an intricate mix of factors (for example, poor enforcement of land use laws and regulations) that has proven difficult to address. 

This manuscript proposes a particular solution to flooding for a specific peri-urban area of Mexico, on the outskirts of a state capital (Querétaro) in the Bajío region.

Apart from Table 1 (return periods for rain events) obtained from a secondary source, the manuscript offers no data on past flooding events in the area of study. The textual description presented is generic and could equally apply to any number of other areas in the country. Figures 1 and 2 are poorly designed and uninformative.

The solution proposed: green roofs - lamination park - vegetated channel, is merely technical and presents no innovation as such.  The multiple root causes of the problem, which would present significant barriers for implementation, are not recognized. Moreover, no discussion is offered about expected costs relative to expected benefits.

The manuscript, as a proposal for an urban renewal/improvement project, is incomplete and unconvincing. More importantly, it is hard to see a scientific contribution. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Hard to read in many places, extensive editing required.

Author Response

Flooding in urban, suburban and peri-urban areas of Mexico is a common and recurring problem. The proximate cause of this phenomenon is a lack of drainage capacity.  However, the root causes although well-known present an intricate mix of factors (for example, poor enforcement of land use laws and regulations) that has proven difficult to address. 

This manuscript proposes a particular solution to flooding for a specific peri-urban area of Mexico, on the outskirts of a state capital (Querétaro) in the Bajío region.

Apart from Table 1 (return periods for rain events) obtained from a secondary source, the manuscript offers no data on past flooding events in the area of study. The textual description presented is generic and could equally apply to any number of other areas in the country. Figures 1 and 2 are poorly designed and uninformative.

The solution proposed: green roofs - lamination park - vegetated channel, is merely technical and presents no innovation as such.  The multiple root causes of the problem, which would present significant barriers for implementation, are not recognized. Moreover, no discussion is offered about expected costs relative to expected benefits.

The manuscript, as a proposal for an urban renewal/improvement project, is incomplete and unconvincing. More importantly, it is hard to see a scientific contribution. 

 

While we totally disagree with your comments, we would like to thank you for your work. Your comments, however detailed, are completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. As is precisely and clearly indicated through the paper, the article does not "propose a particular solution to flooding for a specific peri-urban area of ​​Mexico" nor does it develop a "proposed solution: green roofs - lamination park - vegetated channel". The research starts from an assigned SuDS configuration to develop two novelties:

- consider the management aspect of the hydraulic system in ordinary conditions (flood events are not presented as irrelevant); the SuDS is configured as a multi-resource and multi-user water resources system to which a management model can be applied that simulates the behavior of the system in satisfying competing uses;

- evaluate the performance of the SuDS in satisfying these uses through a Resilience-Reliability-Vulnerability (RRV) approach for which a new methodology is presented and applied.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Hard to read in many places, extensive editing required.

 

Thanks for this comment. The paper has been extensively edited.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The paper Is very interesting and well written and I have only few tips and advice:

 

Thank you for considering the paper as a “interesting and well written”. Also, thank you for your useful suggestions: we agree with you on some comments/minor revisions that have improved the quality of the paper.

 

-Abstract: Please write some results of your study;

 

Thank you for your useful suggestions: we agree with you on some comments/minor revisions that have improved the quality of the paper.

 

-Introduction (from 28 tò 29): this sentence requires references.

Please see:

• Miller, J. D., & Hutchins, M. (2017). The impacts of urbanisation

and climate change on urban flooding and urban water quality: A

review of the evidence concerning the United Kingdom. Journal of

Hydrology: Regional Studies, 12, 345-362.

• Mobilia, M., Longobardi, A., Amitrano, D., & Ruello, G. (2023). Land

use and damaging hydrological events temporal changes in the

Sarno River basin: potential for green technologies mitigation by

remote sensing analysis. Hydrology Research, 54(3), 277-302.

• Zhou, Q., Leng, G., Su, J., & Ren, Y. (2019). Comparison of

urbanization and climate change impacts on urban flood volumes:

Importance of urban planning and drainage adaptation. Science of

the Total Environment, 658, 24-33.

-Introduction (from Line 43 tò 44): this sentence requires

references. Please see:

• Jato-Espino, D., Charlesworth, S. M., Bayon, J. R., & Warwick, F.

(2016). Rainfall–runoff simulations to assess the potential of SuDS

for mitigating flooding in highly urbanized catchments.

International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(1), 149.

• Chapman, C., & Hall, J. W. (2022). The potential for sustainable

drainage systems (SuDS) in a regional urbanization project.

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 922890.

• Marko, I., Wittmanová, R., Hrudka, J., & Stanko, Š. (2021,

December). The effectiveness of SuDS measures in reducing the

rainwater runoff from urbanized areas. In IOP Conference Series:

Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1209, No. 1, p. 012021). IOP

Publishing.

 

Suggested references are of great value in the field of water resources and some have been included in the revised paper.

 

-Introduction ( from 115 tò 130): these sentences should be moved

where you the describe the case-study;

 

Done

 

-introduction (from 101 tò 111): the description of the model should

be moved where you describe the mothodology;

 

Done

 

-Introduction: in this section there should be a brief and concise

description of the work and the authors should clearly explaine the

elements of novelty of the work;

 

A concise description of paper novelty has been inserted.

 

-Rrv methodology: avoid using an acronym for the First time in a

title;

 

The acronym was explained in the previous paragraph (line 277 at page 2)

 

-Tables: the tables should be recalled within the text (only tables

9,10 and 11 are cited within the text);

 

Tables and figures are recalled.

 

-Discussion: a section with discussion is missing. It could be

integrated into the section of results (results and discussions). In

this new paragraph, a comparison with the results of previous

works should be carried out .

 

A new paragraph in the Results and Discussion section has been added.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Chapter 6 describes the results of the performed simulations and summarizes the main conclusions.

However, I recommend supplementing the discussion of these results by taking into account the results of similar model works. And thus follow on from the introductory chapters, where the introductory discussion is well described.

 

Author Response

Chapter 6 describes the results of the performed simulations and summarizes the main conclusions. However, I recommend supplementing the discussion of these results by taking into account the results of similar model works. And thus follow on from the introductory chapters, where the introductory discussion is well described.

Thank you for your useful suggestion: we agree with you that the additional result discussion has improved the quality of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Urban flooding is a growing concern influenced urbanization and climate. The Sustainable Drainage Systems provide a revolutionary change to treat the urban flooding. The research is meaningful, and well organized. There are some more suggestions maybe useful for the further editing.

1.    The abstract need some more quantitive conclusions. 

2. The GIS DEM map could be used in figure 1and figure 2, et al.

3. Line 57-63, the “SUDS” should be replaced by “SuDS”?

4. Line 65, the “RWH” should be explained. The same problem also needs carefully check all through the manuscript.

5. Line 277, the “Suds” should be replaced by “SuDS”?

6. The text could be refined, and some short paragraph could be merged.

 

 

Author Response

Urban flooding is a growing concern influenced urbanization and climate. The Sustainable Drainage Systems provide a revolutionary change to treat the urban flooding. The research is meaningful, and well organized. There are some more suggestions maybe useful for the further editing.

Thank you for considering the research as “meaningful, and well organized”. Also, thank you for your useful suggestions: we agree with you on the comments/minor revisions that have improved the quality of the paper. Specifically, all your comments have been accepted through the revised paper.

1. The abstract need some more quantitive conclusions. 

Done

2. The GIS DEM map could be used in figure 1and figure 2, et al.

Fig.1 has been cancelled and Fig. 2 background has a orthorectified image

3. Line 57-63, the “SUDS” should be replaced by “SuDS”?

Done

4. Line 65, the “RWH” should be explained. The same problem also needs carefully check all through the manuscript.

The acronym has been cancelled

5. Line 277, the “Suds” should be replaced by “SuDS”?

Done

6. The text could be refined, and some short paragraph could be merged.

The paper has been extensively edited.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    

Comments on the Quality of English Language

   

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the revised version. I did not find any mistakes.