Runoff Reduction Effects at Installation of LID Facilities under Different Climate Change Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript reports a numerical evaluation of the impact of a modification of soil properties in urban environment on the local hydrology, in hypothetical climate scenario. This can be useful to guide urban planners. However, such studies are necessarily very uncertain by nature, and need to done and reported with great care, especially regarding the source of uncertainties and their influence on the final result. Now, I find the present not clear enough with respect to that latter point. In particular, the first weakness of the report is that it does not clearly list the variables used to mathematically model the problem. This makes it difficult to appreciate the whoel modelling chain (despite careful texts to explain the approach).
Author Response
We are very thankful to Reviewer #1 for your precious time. We agree with the reviewer. As you commented, more details about the parameters have been added. we have modified the manuscript. Please refer to Line 164-169, 190-192 (P. 6, 8).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
An paper by Seung Wook Lee et al. “Runoff Reduction Effects of a Low-Impact Development Facility Using Climate Change Scenarios” is relevant and timely. Low-impact development (LID) is a land planning and engineering design approach to manage stormwater runoff as part of green infrastructure. LID emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features to protect water quality. Green infrastructure investments are one approach that often yields multiple benefits and builds city resilience.
Minor
In the introduction, it is necessary to more specifically and reasonably characterize the essence and relevance of the urban problems you are solving, briefly state the purpose of the work and emphasize its novelty.
Figure 1 is too sketchy, need to show geographic coordinates of “Eco-Delta City” and topographical condition, Gimhae rainfall station location
You write:
4.6 Computation of Return Periods Based on Annual Maximum Daily Rainfall
Return periods were computed through the application of GEV distribution on annual maximum daily rainfall of the climate change scenario using the parameters computed in the section above, as shown in Table 7 and Table 8.
Correction needed: Table 8 and Table 9.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Comment 1: In the introduction, it is necessary to more specifically and reasonably characterize the essence and relevance of the urban problems you are solving, briefly state the purpose of the work and emphasize its novelty.
Response: We are very thankful to Reviewer #2 for your precious time. We agree with the reviewer. As you commented, we have revised the introduction of the manuscript (P.1, 2).
Comment 2: Figure 1 is too sketchy, need to show geographic coordinates of “Eco-Delta City” and topographical condition, Gimhae rainfall station location.
Response: Thanks for the comment. We added the rainfall station of the study area to Figure 2.
Comment 3: Return periods were computed through the application of GEV distribution on annual maximum daily rainfall of the climate change scenario using the parameters computed in the section above, as shown in Table 7 and Table 8.
Correction needed: Table 8 and Table 9.
Response: Thanks for the comment. We agree with the reviewer. We have changed accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
A table showing the parameters would have been more clear.
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments
An important examination of the potential for urban adaptation to increased flooding frequency from climate change. Use of down-scaled climate models in conjunction with frequency analysis and rainfall runoff model SWMM is sophisticated and provides very useful information for planners. The work is worthy of publication in Water but needs extensive revision.
As it currently stands there are numerous grammatical errors that make it very difficult to read. I suggest working with a native speaker to improve the clarity. The issue is that the way of phrasing sentences, and subject and object agreement, make it hard to understand in many cases.
There is very little consultation of the primary literature in this field. I would expect the introduction to detail other attempts to do similar analyses, and explain how this work builds on those efforts and complements or expands them. This setting the work in context of the literature should continue into the discussion section. As it stands now, there is no discussion section. The authors should consult writing manuals for what to put in a discussion section, but at the least, some discussion of the implications of the data, and whether it supports or refutes previous work in this area.
The LID treatment is not described, beyond saying “permeable pavement”. Further details are needed as to what this planned LID entails.
While the reduction in flow volumes and changes to return period for implementation of the LID treatment are described in great detail, there is an opportunity here to also present how the two RCP climate change scenarios will change runoff peaks and volumes over the time scales presented. It is important because it will help inform city planners about the magnitude of the changes that they need to prepare for, and the need for this type of LID development. I urge the authors to include a figure or table that compares flood values for RCP 4.5 and 8.5 for each of the different time periods with today’s values.
Specific Comments:
The need for language editing is extensive throughout, I have only pointed to some of the sentences that are difficult to comprehend.
Line 13. Delete such before climate change
Line 15 replace was with is
Line 15 replace by with from.
Line 15 Suggest ‘We assembled annual minimum rainfall data…”
Line 23 explain RCP 4.5 to audience not familiar with the abbrievations
Line 23. This sentence does not make sense. The way of phrasing return periods as 100 years before installation is very hard to understand. I think it might be a translation thing. Better to say something like: “The results indicated that flood events of a magnitude that occurred with a return period of 200 years, could be reduced to the smaller magnitude flood events occurring with a 20 year return period by implementation of LID. “
Line 32 delete and at end of sentence
Line 36-37 grammar is incorrect.
Line 38 what is a guerilla type rain?
Line 54. Put In order to at start of sentence.
Line 58 put ‘to’ after similar
Line 66 sentence needs a subject
Line 71 the after For
Line 92 not a grammatical sentence.
Line 98 explain how L moments were used to choose the best frequency distribution to use.
Line 108 what is a hand structure?
Line 112 describe what permeable pavement is in more detail and with references, and how it has been used in other places. I have read that it has a very short working life. This is referred to in the conclusions, but your assumptions regarding its function should be made here. It appears that you are assuming it will be maintained/ replaced so that it is always functioning with 100% of original permeability rates. The height of the water table below the pavement must also be considered. If it is high than the water may still pond on top of the pavement, or go into the drainage structures and flood them. Your assumptions about groundwater should be clear.
Line 165. What is EA? Define.
Line 179 Name the statistical tests
Line 192 more details on how this was done.
Line 194 changes from present to past tense
Figure 5 spelling mistake throhgh
Line 291 and line 293 add rainfall after maximum daily
Line 308 Show how the RCP scenarios will result in flooding increases from current modeled hydrology. Then show how LID will abate some of that increased flooding activity.
Line 338 delete first half of line, repeats title.
Line 338-383 all of this should be put in a table.
Line 386-389 Unclear, suggest using a figure or diagram to explain.
Line 402 and onward. As described under general comments the way of describing changes in return period needs to be changed. Reducing the runoff up to 200 years does not make sense. Runoff is not measured in years. You have to talk about either how the flow was reduced, or how the return period or the inverse, the probability of a given flow was changed. Suggest “ a flood event with a 200 year return period was reduced to the size of a 20 year return period by the LID”
Line 475 insert Discussion section here. See general comments.
Line 510 more of this unfortunate phrasing. How do I reduce runoff by 200 years?
Line 516 what is a temporary facility? Explain.
Line 525 replace time with age
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We will revise my present research paper in light of their useful suggestions and comments. We hope my revision has improved the paper to a level of their satisfaction. So, We plan to resubmit the revised manuscript. Thanks for your comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
General Remarks
Dear authors,
I think your topic is an important contribution to the worldwide discussion about the consequences of climate change for landscape and with this for human life! Your data should be shared with the community and will add up to other studies on the topic.
However, I am sorry to say that I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication in the present state. In my opinion the use of English language is not sufficient with respect to wording, syntax, and grammar. At times I really did not catch the meaning which made it virtually impossible to actually review your manuscript. Thus, I strongly recommend to have a native speaker or a person fluent in English to work on the manuscript and then resubmit the study! I tried to make some suggestions (please see Special Remarks), however, I could not mark all places that in my opinion need revision. I am really sorry to say that! By the way, you two times used the expression “goodness of fitness”, which makes it a quite sportive statistical analysis ;)
Special Remarks
For my Special Remarks please see the attached pdf document I added my comments to!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We will revise my present research paper in light of their useful suggestions and comments. We hope my revision has improved the paper to a level of their satisfaction. So, We plan to resubmit the revised manuscript. Thanks for your comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
I found the paper by Lee et al. Potentially useful for the purpose but I also feel that it requires a very large revision. I think that the paper needs to be better organized and argued. As it is, it is poorly written and organized, and poorly argued, and a reader will have difficulty appreciating it. There are also many issues that need to be clarified.
Here I list a number of issues:
The abstract is not clear at all and needs to be written much better. What do the authors would like to analyze? What does it mean "climate change scenarios (1988 to 2018)"? Which "probability distribution" is selected? What is "EPA-SWMM model"? What does it mean that "As a result of the analysis, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 showed the effect of reducing the runoff more than 23 100 years before installation."? Installation of what?
Page 1
1) "The frequency of typhoons and heavy rains has increased rapidly around the world due to global warming and abnormal climates, and the scale of flood damage has increased due to climate change and urbanization, resulting in numerous property and damage in urban areas": where is the evidence for these claims?
In fact, the frequency of typhoons generated in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea and making landfall in China from 1951 to 2011 has decreased. See Figure 2.6 in Luo Y., Qin D., Zhang R., Wang S., Zhang D. (2016) Climatic and Environmental Changes in China. In: Qin D., Ding Y., Mu M. (eds) Climate and Environmental Change in China: 1951–2012. Springer Environmental Science and Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48482-1_2
2) "Recently, in Korea, the average temperature in 2016 recorded the highest since 1973, and there are many signs of abnormal climate compared to the past, such as heatwaves as well as guerrilla-type heavy rains in July and August." where is the evidence for these claims? In SK 1998 may have been nearly as warm as 2016 and the last 5 years were actually colder than several years since 1990.
Park, B.-J., Kim, Y.-H., Min, S.-K., Kim, M.-K., Choi, Y., Boo, K.-O., & Shim, S. (2017). Long-term warming trends in Korea and contribution of urbanization: An updated assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122, 10,637– 10,654. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027167
3) "the 39 average global temperature will rise by 1°C in the 2020s" This might be the worst scenario obtained with the hottest model. A rise by 1 °C during the next few years may be very unlikely.
Page 2
4) "the greenhouse gas concentration was 71 determined as the amount of radiation exerted by human activities" this way of writing is very imprecise.
Page 4) "In this study, the RCP 4.5 scenario simulated for the peninsula for 200 years of 12.5 140 km resolution and integral control is based on the RCP 8.5 scenario, the annual maximum 141 daily rainfall for the next 100 years suitable for the EDC, the research study area, was 142 analyzed and used as shown in Table 1." This sentence is unclear. What are you doing?
Page 6
5) Table 2: define "EA"
Page 8: Figure 4 and text comments: How can you study 200 year frequency considering that you are using climatic simulations from 1988 to 2100?
Page 9: Table 4 and 5. The distributions that you propose do not seem to take into account that the records present trends and are not stationary as also suggested by your increasing Kurtosis. So, you need to better explain the situation to check whether the satistical analysis that you propose has a meaning for nonstationary sequences and you should also show in a separate figure the actual rain time series that then you analyze.
Page 11-16: Table 8-15, Figure 8-12: Again you should show the data that you analyze. In any case, how did you calculate the return period for periods of 100 years and larger?
Other issues regard the conclusion. For example how they get information relative to 200 years etc.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We will revise my present research paper in light of their useful suggestions and comments. We hope my revision has improved the paper to a level of their satisfaction. So, We plan to resubmit the revised manuscript. Thanks for your comment.
