Predictors of Variations in Residential Water Consumption in Central Texas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper analyzes the water consumption patterns in San Antonio, Texas.

First, I want to report a few typos and style details you may want to check:

• line 156: the point at the end of the sentence is missing
• line 165: you could remove "that" since it is already present in the listed sentences;
• line 198: "characteristics" is misspelt;
• line 243: "variables" is misspelt;
• line 259: is GPD supposed to be AGPD?
• line 278: missing parenthesis after 0.46
• lines 291-294: 19.6% and 5.9% don't add up to 25%, the first one appears to be 19.1%
• line 324: "The estimated the amount..."
• Line 359: a sentence seems to be hanging. "...did not appear to predict"
• line 402: "square" is misspelt
• some of the references to the tables are wrong as if a couple of tables were removed after writing them (table 6 and 7 don't exist)
• according to MDPI Citations Style Guide, in the reference list: "For every author, list the last name first, then the first letter of the first name and, if available, the first letter of the middle name."
  The "First Author et al." should be used for the citations within the text, not in the reference list. Please check it.
• the International System of Units is the standard for scientific papers. Please replace local units with IS units.

Regarding the contents of the paper, I have a few questions and comments:

• The title of the paper refers to the seasonal variation in the water consumption, but all the analyses and the proposed solutions seem to be relative to the water consumption itself, which is the real problem, rather than its seasonal variation. If I were you, I would consider refocusing the title.
• Please note that seasonality in the data is related to the shape of the time series, not to its amplitude; if you really want to investigate if seasonality changes in different districts, maybe you should consider the ratio summer/winter instead of the difference summer-winter. Otherwise, results are biased towards categories with higher consumption.
• Since this is a local study I suggest giving more information about the water management policies in the area. Which are the water pricing policies? Are the prices tiered with respect to per capita consumption? Are there different networks and sources for irrigation water and drinking water? That would help the readers understand the current situation.
• You assume "that almost the entire summer-winter water differential is the result of seasonal differences in irrigation and swimming pools rather than interior household water consumption" and in the discussion you write "Results of the analyses presented here suggest that much of the variation in residential water consumption from the winter to the summer is the result of landscape irrigation coupled with the presence of swimming pools and associated evaporational loss". What's the difference between your assumption and your results?
• The number of people per household is supposed to be strongly related to household water consumption. However, in this study, this key aspect seems to be completely neglected. Why?
• Most of the text in section 4 seems to be redundant because shows information already presented in tables 1-4, the paper would be more readable without listing all those numbers. Please consider using that space to discuss the implications of the results and to describe the hierarchical multivariate analysis (maybe comparing analysis results and data).

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyzes the water consumption patterns in San Antonio, Texas.

First, I want to report a few typos and style details you may want to check:

• line 156: the point at the end of the sentence is missing fixed
• line 165: you could remove "that" since it is already present in the listed sentences;fixed
• line 198: "characteristics" is misspelt;fixed
• line 243: "variables" is misspelt; fixed
• line 259: is GPD supposed to be AGPD? Yes fixed
• line 278: missing parenthesis after 0.46 fixed
• lines 291-294: 19.6% and 5.9% don't add up to 25%, the first one appears to be 19.1% yes fixed
• line 324: "The estimated the amount..." fixed
• Line 359: a sentence seems to be hanging. "...did not appear to predict" fixed
• line 402: "square" is misspelt fixed
• some of the references to the tables are wrong as if a couple of tables were removed after writing them (table 6 and 7 don't exist) We were able to find tables 6&7 in the manuscript submitted. We are unclear why you were unable to see them.
• according to MDPI Citations Style Guide, in the reference list: "For every author, list the last name first, then the first letter of the first name and, if available, the first letter of the middle name."
  The "First Author et al." should be used for the citations within the text, not in the reference list. Please check it. We have addressed this.
• the International System of Units is the standard for scientific papers. Please replace local units with IS units. We have converted units to IS standards

Regarding the contents of the paper, I have a few questions and comments:

• The title of the paper refers to the seasonal variation in the water consumption, but all the analyses and the proposed solutions seem to be relative to the water consumption itself, which is the real problem, rather than its seasonal variation. If I were you, I would consider refocusing the title. We agree, done- removed seasonal from title
• Please note that seasonality in the data is related to the shape of the time series, not to its amplitude; if you really want to investigate if seasonality changes in different districts, maybe you should consider the ratio summer/winter instead of the difference summer-winter. Otherwise, results are biased towards categories with higher consumption. The intent of the analysis, as this reviewer has helped us to clarify, is to examine characteristics associated with variation in the volume of consumption. Comparing seasonal differences is a source of information about variation in the volume of consumption. The concept of a ratio, however, is something worth exploring for future research.
• Since this is a local study I suggest giving more information about the water management policies in the area. Which are the water pricing policies? Are the prices tiered with respect to per capita consumption? Are there different networks and sources for irrigation water and drinking water? That would help the readers understand the current situation. We have attempted to provide more context for readers regarding local policies in the introduction.
• You assume "that almost the entire summer-winter water differential is the result of seasonal differences in irrigation and swimming pools rather than interior household water consumption" and in the discussion you write "Results of the analyses presented here suggest that much of the variation in residential water consumption from the winter to the summer is the result of landscape irrigation coupled with the presence of swimming pools and associated evaporational loss". What's the difference between your assumption and your results? We have changed our assumption to “that most of summer-winter …” Our findings support that the bulk of the summer-winter differences can be attributed to irrigation and swimming pool use and we have noted this in the conclusion.

 

• The number of people per household is supposed to be strongly related to household water consumption. However, in this study, this key aspect seems to be completely neglected. Why? We did explore the association of average persons per household at the census tract level and found a weak association. However, this question has led us to realize that this is an important variable to control when looking at differences by season. Therefore we have added persons per household measured as the average persons per household in each census tract.
• Most of the text in section 4 seems to be redundant because shows information already presented in tables 1-4, the paper would be more readable without listing all those numbers. Please consider using that space to discuss the implications of the results and to describe the hierarchical multivariate analysis (maybe comparing analysis results and data). We have attempted to make the section more readable

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Predictors of Seasonal Variation in Residential Water Consumption in Central Texas” is interesting but  maybe it would be better to publish it in a journal on municipal management in large agglomerations-as a technical report.

The article should undergo a minor revision. I believe that my detailed comments to the authors will be useful.

 

If it is a scientific article then the abstract should be corrected, rewritten

There is no need for a separate chapter Background- leave only Introduction.

At the end of the chapter, please clearly state what was the scientific and practical purpose of the research and analysis presented in the article

Is it possible to improve the resolution of the figures 1-5? - maybe it would be better to include them as an attachment to the article.

Figures 6-9 are very relevant. The results shown in them should be better described.

My biggest comment is on the discussion section-this section should be revised.

There should also be a separate chapter Conclusions. I think there will be no problem with that 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2 Response

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Predictors of Seasonal Variation in Residential Water Consumption in Central Texas” is interesting but  maybe it would be better to publish it in a journal on municipal management in large agglomerations-as a technical report.

The article should undergo a minor revision. I believe that my detailed comments to the authors will be useful.

 

If it is a scientific article then the abstract should be corrected, rewritten - made edits to abstract

There is no need for a separate chapter Background- leave only Introduction. Combined into one chapter.

At the end of the chapter, please clearly state what was the scientific and practical purpose of the research and analysis presented in the article We have added this.

Is it possible to improve the resolution of the figures 1-5? - maybe it would be better to include them as an attachment to the article. We have removed the maps from the manuscript.

Figures 6-9 are very relevant. The results shown in them should be better described. We have elaborated the discussion of figures (now) 1-4.

My biggest comment is on the discussion section-this section should be revised. We have attempted to revise this section

There should also be a separate chapter Conclusions. I think there will be no problem with that We have added a conclusions chapter

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a seasonal variation analysis in residential water consumption in Central Texas. In its current format a "habitual" analysis provided supported by a big data collection. Given the fact that I can not see a scientific soundness in this paper I was ready to propose a direct rejection, however after second considerations and based on the big data analysis I would recommend some major revisions.

1. There is no need for the chapter 2 background, it is advised to include this chapter in the introduction
2. I think in the introduction section missing the a core part of summarizing the innovative elements of the research. The importance of the water consumption is highlighted, however, I 'm concerned that a past analysis based on sound data is sufficient to support future water demand needs.
3. I believe that in the section of the methodology more details are needed for the part GLIMMIX model and approach. Why have been used in this paper? What's the benefit? What's the outcomes? Please clarify.
4. Can the authors present more details on the spatial analysis of the parameters. Can we categorize with high reliability the poor and wealth regions etc?
5. The Figures maps are proposed to tie in better in the text. In its current format one map per page is provided and that has negative impacts in the paper readability.
6. I think the quality of the paper will be improved substantially if the authors expand their analysis by providing forecast models in the water consumption. It might be outside the scope of the research, however, I would strongly recommend it.
7. There is no conclusions in the paper please present your findings.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3 Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a seasonal variation analysis in residential water consumption in Central Texas. In its current format a "habitual" analysis provided supported by a big data collection. Given the fact that I can not see a scientific soundness in this paper I was ready to propose a direct rejection, however after second considerations and based on the big data analysis I would recommend some major revisions.

1. There is no need for the chapter 2 background, it is advised to include this chapter in the introduction We have addressed this
2. I think in the introduction section missing the a core part of summarizing the innovative elements of the research. The importance of the water consumption is highlighted, however, I 'm concerned that a past analysis based on sound data is sufficient to support future water demand needs. We have added a summary of the innovative elements of the research with an emphasis on identifying sources of residential water consumption that may be potential targets for conservation efforts that include strategies for managing future development.
3. I believe that in the section of the methodology more details are needed for the part GLIMMIX model and approach. Why have been used in this paper? What's the benefit? What's the outcomes? Please clarify. We have added additional text to the manuscript to clarify the use of GLIMMIX
4. Can the authors present more details on the spatial analysis of the parameters. Can we categorize with high reliability the poor and wealth regions etc? Poverty and wealth are on a continuum and the analysis presented does not use categorizations of wealth. The maps presented do present cut points for wealth (per capita income) though these cut points are based on natural cut points (jinks) for purposes of illustrating geographic variation.
5. The Figures maps are proposed to tie in better in the text. In its current format one map per page is provided and that has negative impacts in the paper readability. Another reviewer suggested moving the maps to an attachment. Upon further consideration, we have decided to remove the maps from the manuscript.
6. I think the quality of the paper will be improved substantially if the authors expand their analysis by providing forecast models in the water consumption. It might be outside the scope of the research, however, I would strongly recommend it. This is an excellent suggestion for future research. We have discussed and believe it is beyond the scope of the current manuscript but will plan to pursue using results from this project to explore how they might be used for forecasting residential water demand.
7. There is no conclusions in the paper please present your findings. We have added a conclusion section.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please check figures 2 and 5, looks like there are multiple figures with one number.

Tables 6 and 7 are still referenced without existing, the last table is "Table 5 Hierarchical multivariate analysis of single-family housing unit water consumption with housing unit and economic characteristics, Bexar County, Texas, 2009-2016". Please check the captions and the references, there are multiple tables 1 and 2.

Whilst the difference in water consumption due to the presence of the pool is evident from the data, I would not automatically imply that the contribution of parcel hectares is entirely due to irrigation. Did you check if there are correlations between parcel hectares, size of living space and number of people per housing unit? If smaller housing units or smaller parcels have (on average) fewer residents, there would be another non-neglectable source of water consumption difference.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Second Round Response

Please check figures 2 and 5, looks like there are multiple figures with one number.

Tables 6 and 7 are still referenced without existing, the last table is "Table 5 Hierarchical multivariate analysis of single-family housing unit water consumption with housing unit and economic characteristics, Bexar County, Texas, 2009-2016". Please check the captions and the references, there are multiple tables 1 and 2.

It appears something strange is happing to the captions on tables and figures in the document being reviewed. The revised manuscript, downloaded from the Water review page (that we assume was the manuscript reviewed) has the correct numbering of tables and figures as referenced in the narrative.

Whilst the difference in water consumption due to the presence of the pool is evident from the data, I would not automatically imply that the contribution of parcel hectares is entirely due to irrigation. Did you check if there are correlations between parcel hectares, size of living space and number of people per housing unit? If smaller housing units or smaller parcels have (on average) fewer residents, there would be another non-neglectable source of water consumption difference.

 

We did check correlations of hectares, living space, and average persons per household (see table) HH size has a weak association with parcel and living space size. However, there was a moderate bivariate association between living space and parcel size. In the multivariate model, we control living space, HH size, and parcel size. Both parcel size and living space have strong independent associations while average HH size is only marginally significant for summer consumption and the difference between summer and winter consumption. This comment has led us to more closely examine the association of living space and average persons per household with water consumption. The result is, in response to the noted concern, that we have noted the contributions of living space and household size to the summer-winter differential (thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention). We believe that this change adds to the results better supporting our conclusions.

 

	AvgHHSize	Parcel hectares
Parcel hectares	-0.05276
Tot SqM Living	-0.08593	0.36105

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of comments have been addressed and that is much appreciated. I still insist that authors could expand the research in forecast water supply modelling, however I understand that his part of future research. I would recommend it for publication as it is.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Response Round 2

Most of comments have been addressed and that is much appreciated. I still insist that authors could expand the research in forecast water supply modelling, however I understand that his part of future research. I would recommend it for publication as it is.

We have added text in the conclusion and the introduction to note the potential of the methods and results presented for use in forecasting residential water demand and for potentially targeting modifications in the types of housing development to possibly slow the increase in residential water demand.