Retrofitting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS): A Cost-Benefit Analysis Appraisal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has an unprecedented approach to the topic, considering that it deserves to be published. However, it lacks corrections or improvements, seeming to have been elaborated in a less rigorous way. For example, in line18, there is one more dot. Still in summary, the acronym ROI is the first time it appears and is not previously explained in full. At the end of the abstract, it is understood that urban planners should also be mentioned.
References to several publications indicated in the same place are generally indicated using commas [X,Y,Z] and not separately [X]), [Y], [Z], as is the case, for example, in lines 52, 63, 72 and 89.
In the first paragraph on page 2, several authors consider the rainwater harvesting systems in buildings (RWHS) to be included in the SUDS. The combination of solutions is also possible and should be mentioned. There are already several studies, for example, on rainwater harvesting systems in buildings with green roofs.
Sub-item 2.1 does not seem justified, as there are no more sub-items in this chapter. In Figure 1, the abscissa units are not indicated. The formatting of the values in Table 1 must be the same (one of them does not have three decimal places). The Table header also doesn't seem to be well formatted in the last column. Line 369 lacks a space between "10" and "years".
Author Response
Many thanks for the robust responses which you have provided towards making this paper impactful. The comments have been very helpful and insightful. Below are the steps we have taken to address the overall expectations.
Comment 1: The article has an unprecedented approach to the topic, considering that it deserves to be published. However, it lacks corrections or improvements, seeming to have been elaborated in a less rigorous way. For example, in line18, there is one more dot. Still in summary, the acronym ROI is the first time it appears and is not previously explained in full. At the end of the abstract, it is understood that urban planners should also be mentioned.
Response 1: I have included a further description of the ROI in the abstract for clarity. I have also mentioned “urban planners” at the end of the abstract including all the corrections throughout the documents.
Comment 2: References to several publications indicated in the same place are generally indicated using commas [X,Y,Z] and not separately [X]), [Y], [Z], as is the case, for example, in lines 52, 63, 72 and 89.
Response 2: The references within the text have been properly represented.
Comment 3: In the first paragraph on page 2, several authors consider the rainwater harvesting systems in buildings (RWHS) to be included in the SUDS. The combination of solutions is also possible and should be mentioned. There are already several studies, for example, on rainwater harvesting systems in buildings with green roofs.
Further details about RWHS have been included in the first paragraph on page 2 as advised.
Comment 4: Sub-item 2.1 does not seem justified, as there are no more sub-items in this chapter. In Figure 1, the abscissa units are not indicated. The formatting of the values in Table 1 must be the same (one of them does not have three decimal places). The Table header also doesn't seem to be well formatted in the last column. Line 369 lacks a space between "10" and "years".
The sub-item 2.1 has been removed and figure 4 has been properly presented with the abscissa units. Table 1 which is now table 2 has been properly formatted. A space has been created between 10 and years on line 369
Reviewer 2 Report
Just a minor suggestion: at page 8, Figure 4, please indicate what is on the abscissa (pounds ?)
Author Response
Many thanks for the robust responses which you have provided towards making this paper impactful. The comments have been very helpful and insightful. Below are the steps we have taken to address the overall expectations.
Comment: Just a minor suggestion: at page 8, Figure 4, please indicate what is on the abscissa (pounds?)
Response: The abscissa units have been included in figure 4 as advised.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for allowing me to review this article.
The manuscript entitled "Retrofitting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS): A Cost-Benefit Analysis Appraisal" is an original contribution, and the topic is interesting for readers of the Water journal.
The presentation is good and article can be accept in present form.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your time and kind comments. This is very helpful.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I was invited to review the Manuscript Number water-1830032: “Retrofitting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS): A Cost-Benefit Analysis Appraisal”
I generally found the purpose of the paper interesting and useful because it aims to qualitative investigate the CBA of USDS retrofit by using a willing to pay approach.
Even acknowledging the relevance of the paper’s aim, I also found that the manuscript is still missing three general critical aspects to be a standalone paper. Below I explain the details and suggest some modifications that will allow to better understand the analysis conducted. I also believe that these suggestions require a major revision of the paper, and if you are willing to consider these revisions, I will be very happy to revise it.
Three main points that need to be improved:
· I could not find in the manuscript data/information coming from the focus groups, interviews, documentary enquiry and observation collected. Relying only on Fig.4 is not enough for a scientific paper. Furthermore, the numbers reported in Fig.4 have not the unit. More information on the sample of interview, documents and observation consulted will support the analysis;
· The innovative aspect of the manuscript is the adoption of a qualitative approach to investigate the CBA of USDS retrofit by the application of WTP approach. Since this is the core of the work, the manuscript is totally unbalance between general description (i.e., introduction and description of the case study respect the) and the analysis conducted (i.e., section 6.1). The scheme proposed in section 6.1 is not clear, more information on each single step to reach ROI need to be explained. In particular, the core of the manuscript is the use of WTP to give value of intangible benefits, which I assume is the “net benefits (10yrs)” of table 1, but not explanation on how these values has been estimated is given. I understood that it is derived from the information on Figure 4, but I am not sure. The research methods (section 3, L148 – L166), need to be expanded with all the necessary information to understand section 6.1
· The description of the 3 case studies (3.1,3.2, 3.3) and section 7 are too long for a scientific paper, they are both relevant for the purpose of the manuscripts but they need to be synthesized in order give more relevance to the core of the work (point 2 above).
Author Response
Many thanks for the robust responses which you have provided towards making this paper impactful. The comments have been very helpful and insightful. Below are the steps we have taken to address the overall expectations.
Comment 1: I could not find in the manuscript data/information coming from the focus groups, interviews, documentary enquiry and observation collected. Relying only on Fig.4 is not enough for a scientific paper. Furthermore, the numbers reported in Fig.4 have not the unit. More information on the sample of interview, documents and observation consulted will support the analysis;
Response 1: We have included some data in form of discussions under different subheadings in the findings and result section. These were some of the conversations that led to the final presentation of the WTP values.
Comment 2: The innovative aspect of the manuscript is the adoption of a qualitative approach to investigate the CBA of USDS retrofit by the application of WTP approach. Since this is the core of the work, the manuscript is totally unbalance between general description (i.e., introduction and description of the case study respect the) and the analysis conducted (i.e., section 6.1). The scheme proposed in section 6.1 is not clear, more information on each single step to reach ROI need to be explained. In particular, the core of the manuscript is the use of WTP to give value of intangible benefits, which I assume is the “net benefits (10yrs)” of table 1, but not explanation on how these values has been estimated is given. I understood that it is derived from the information on Figure 4, but I am not sure. The research methods (section 3, L148 – L166), need to be expanded with all the necessary information to understand section 6.1
Response 2: Some further quotations from the interviews have been added to provide further context and background to the cases. A description of how the ROI was achieved has been presented under a new subsection “CBA of the SUDS Retrofit Scheme”.
Comment 3: The description of the 3 case studies (3.1,3.2, 3.3) and section 7 are too long for a scientific paper, they are both relevant for the purpose of the manuscripts but they need to be synthesized in order give more relevance to the core of the work (point 2 above).
Response 3: The descriptions of the cases have been moved to the appendix and a Table (table 1) has been added to provide a summary of the cases.
Once again, I am very grateful for your comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I was invited to review the second version of the Manuscript Number water-1830032: “Retrofitting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS): A Cost-Benefit Analysis Appraisal”.
The new version of the manuscript well incorporate my previous concerns, there is still one pending issue that I believe is central for the proposed methodology and its replicability. In particular, L339-L341 (“Using the average of the upper and lower benefit intervals, the total value of the benefit in the present year and the total benefit in 10 years was derived”) try to clarify now how the benefits reported in table 2 are computed. I personally find this new description not sufficient, in particular I do not understand how to estimate the value of upper and lower benefit. Please clarify this aspect. Other little detail is about Figure 4, the unit is missing.
Even if this request is little compare the many aspects present in this work, I believe that these require a minor revision of the paper before publishing, and if you will consider these revisions, I will be very happy to revise it.
Author Response
Thank you for the time you have committed to reviewing this paper. The comments have been very helpful and insightful. Below are the steps we have taken to address the comments:
Comment: The new version of the manuscript well incorporate my previous concerns, there is still one pending issue that I believe is central for the proposed methodology and its replicability. In particular, L339-L341 (“Using the average of the upper and lower benefit intervals, the total value of the benefit in the present year and the total benefit in 10 years was derived”) try to clarify now how the benefits reported in table 2 are computed. I personally find this new description not sufficient, in particular I do not understand how to estimate the value of upper and lower benefit. Please clarify this aspect. Other little detail is about Figure 4, the unit is missing.
Response: I have included a further description of the process of achieving the net value in 10 years. I have also amended figure 4 to include the missing unit.
Once again, I am very grateful for your comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
