SWMM-Based Assessment of Urban Mountain Stormwater Management Effects under Different LID Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

SWMM-based Assessment of Urban Mountain Stormwater Management Effects Under Different LID Scenarios

The manuscript is interesting and it develops a LID system in the mountainous regions of built-up urban areas, helping alleviate stormwater problems and facilizing  water and soil conservation and reduce risks of urban flooding. Some comments should be clarified or modified.

 

The abstract is too long. The authors should rewrite and summarize it reaching about 150/200 words

Introduction should be improved, implementing references of other countries, which are different to Asia. Besides, the manuscript only has 30  references and it is not acceptable for a JCR journal.

The introduction should show the real need to do this research and it should define the weakness of the rest of published models

Section 2 and section 3 are focused on the method, which is shown in Figure 2. These section should be joined and the authors should summarize all subsection in order to help readers to understand and follow better the research. It is disorganized and it is difficult to follow.

Some of the figures could be remove because they cannot give any information (Fig 1, which is located on introduction when it is a case study)

The figures should be enumerated correctly. E.g., Figure 3 has foot of 4-1, 4-2, etc.

The equations should be enumerated and described all variables and units, according to guidelines of journal.

Figure 5 should be discussed and it is difficult to read due to used colours.

The section of setting model should be discussed not only put both tables with numbers. How did the authors choose these values? Are they constant in all area of mountain?

Table 3 can be removed and the values can be commented in the text

Table 4 should be justified all values of variables.

Figure 10 should be improved in terms of quality. In general, the results graphics have low quality and they are difficult to read. Besides, the authors should difference between different sub-figures when they join different pictures (e.g., figure 12)

The discussion of the results should be improved and compared with other published researches to show the impact of this research in the research community. It will obligate to authors to rewrite the different conclusions, showing the real novel of this research and its applicability in other real case studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Define SWMM and LID in the title. Do not use abbreviations in the title.

All abbreviations must be defined in the first appearance in the text. As such, please, define SWMM and LID in the abstract.

The abstract is too long and the main novelty of this research is not addressed. What is your main contribution to the area of stormwater usages?

The introduction does not address the main motivation of the needs and benefits from this paper. What are the main challenges and contributions to the field? Why your study is important?

The literature review is ignored by the authors. The authors must review recent papers in the area of urbanization and logistics. I highly request to search well-known authors in the field such as Prof. Fathollahi-Fard, Prof. Guangdong Tian and Prof. Dulebenets. For example, I request to add the following papers to the literature review:

Statistical optimization, soft computing prediction, mechanistic and empirical evaluation for fundamental appraisal of copper, lead and malachite green adsorption. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23, 100219.

Implementation of solar energy in smart cities using an integration of artificial neural network, photovoltaic system and classical Delphi methods. Sustainable Cities and Society, 103149.

Sustainable Closed-loop Supply Chain Network for an Integrated Water Supply and Wastewater Collection System under Uncertainty, Journal of Environmental Management, 275, 111277.

After adding more relevant papers, the authors must review them and identify the literature gaps. What are your main contributions?

The quality of Figure 2 is unacceptable.

Before defining the sub-sections in Section 2 and 3, please, talk about what you want to say in the sub-sections.

The quality of Figure 4 must be improved.

Please, add a number for each equation and formula.

Some tables and figures can be transformed into the appendix.

Provide a discussion for managerial insights which should be separated from the conclusion.

Please, talk about your future research recommendations in the conclusion. How other researchers can contribute or make an improvement to your study?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is technically very sound. It has investigated an innovative technique - LID scenarios for mountain regions. My minor comments are as follow:

• English proof reading is required in some paragraphs. Please do a further proof reading.
• Units are missing for some parameters in few tables. Please carefully  check units for all tables. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors clarified the different suggestions.

Author Response

We have carefully reviewed and modified the English language. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments very well. The revised draft can be accepted. 

Author Response

We have carefully reviewed and modified the English language. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.