Innovation in Water Management: Designing a Recyclable Water Resource System with Permeable Pavement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present manuscript has a very current theme and of great interest considering climate changes and the occurrence of extreme phenomena. Innovations in water management in cities, where infiltrations are low and runoff are high in the case of heavy rains, are appreciated and bring added value in the rational management of water.
The Introduction chapter, although important aspects are pointed out, is very limited in length, the importance of maintaining infiltration in cities should be emphasized more and more bibliographic references should be used.
In the Material and methods chapter, these are correctly described, both as text with formulas, but also as images and drawings, graphics. It is a well-grounded chapter that does not need additions.
In the Results and Discussions Chapter, although these are presented graphically, the comment text is very short, of only 2 paragraphs, which denotes a poor interpretation of the results. I would suggest that another graphic should be considered for Figure 12, it is a much too simplistic figure and too large for 6 values.
The same is the case with the Conclusions Chapter, these should be developed, comparisons should be made with other results from other researches, the innovation from this study should also be highlighted.
Overall, the idea of ​​this research is good, but the authors should still work on the presentation of this manuscript, develop the content, the interpretation of the results and the bibliographic references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn general, the relevance of the experiment is noticeable. However, the authors should improve the research details. Some basic concepts about permeable pavements and the data to conduct the analysis must be included.
Pg. 2, lines 80 to 85 - the references are missing.
Figure 1 - the reference is missing.
Pg.3 – the references are missing.
Pg 4, lines 122 to 136 - the references are missing.
In the text, the authors refer to the importance, function, and improvements of permeable pavements inserted in Low Impact Development (LID). The authors also emphasize the urban heat island effects reduction. However, nothing was supported by the literature review. This manuscript needs a profound revision by the authors relative to the background of permeable pavements. Neither was inserted about the pavement layers’ type, thickness, layer materials, surface layer (type, voids volume, interconnected voids required), resistance, and traffic, among others. A simple search of the previous studies in the Water Journal will give this study the necessary background. What the others did or did not do and the obtained results to support your method are necessary to improve the Introduction section. Your Introduction section is not ready and must be complemented.
Figure 2 - Could you give the layer’s characterization?
Table 1 needs to be better described. Please introduce a paragraph and explain to the readers what they see in Table 1. Also, include the reference.
Some concerns and doubts about your methodology have to be clarified.
First, it is necessary to provide the steps of the methodology. Then, explain each step. Other considerations/requirements are described.
The average precipitation of the local must be shown. What was the project rain? Were figures 3 and 4 designed from the SketchUp? If so, please improve the quality of the figures. What were the pavement layers? Please provide the layer type, thickness, and materials characterization. Did you consider the layers clogging along the time? How did you design the reservoir layer? Is there an overflow system for excess water volume?
Your study has a significant concern relative to keeping high moisture content in the soil foundation. Due to the traffic action, permanent deformation of the pavement will occur. How do you think to avoid it? How did you measure the soil resistance?
Figure 7: Can you give an actual photo of the experiment?
Based only on moisture content, soil type and capillarity, you have no necessary data to support your research. The discussion needs to be included. The results of previous studies must be compared and included in the text.
The results section lacks a more detailed examination of the study's methodology and findings. This will provide deeper insights and interpretations, enhancing the readers' understanding of your study. Prospects, challenges, future work and limitations must also be discussed.
The conclusion section is general and lacks information highlighting the study's relevance and findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is recommended that a native speaker revise the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
Innovation in Water Management: Designing a Recyclable Water Resource System with Permeable Pavement
Manuscript ID: water-3088214
It is applied research work, highly useful for engineering community, managers and decision makers in the region. Although it is not novel research, its usefulness allows its publication but the manuscript needs a lot of improvements. It does not meet the standards of publication in “Water”. Design of a water resource recycling system based on an existing permeable pavement technique has been presented in this study to mitigate water scarcity in Taiwan, China. Storm water runoff is routed at the base and subbase layers of a permeable pavement towards a planter box in the median divider island. Once the runoff has flowed into the bottom of the planter box, it is provided to the plants via soil capillary action. Using the small-scale 3D model, a series of capillary experiments have been conducted to evaluate the permeable pavement water recycling system. Soil column experiments have also been used in addition to the small-scale 3D model. The soil was compacted to different relative compaction for 3D model and the soil column experiments to evaluate the capillary rise height of the soil. The proposed permeable pavement water recycling system can be a feasible method to some extent for managing storm runoff and achieving water conservation goals. However, the study design needs to create a strong relationship to the permeable pavement water recycling system. The following comments may improve the quality of the manuscript.
1 The rainfall and runoff characteristics in the study area may kindly be studied in detail including quality and quantity of runoff. The most frequently occurring storm hydrographs may please be identified using a long rainfall and runoff data.
2 The experiments may kindly be designed in such a way that the rainfall and runoff identified in above step for the study area may kindly be implemented in the experiments.
3 The study experiments may kindly be divided into various sets of experiments representing various scenarios of rainfall-runoff expected in the area.
4 Kindly increase the data sets and data points to qualify criteria of statistics for minimum data required to reach a conclusion from the experimental data.
5 Kindly make the necessary arrangements to check the quality of runoff and quality of runoff water before it enters the plant box.
6 Kindly use different water quality indices to decide whether the runoff water after treatment proposed in present study is suitable for plant-use or not?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a study of great relevance in the management of the integral urban water cycle, both for the current situation and to face the climate change scenarios foreseen for future horizons.
The combined use of numerical models with physical scale (or prototype) models can improve the understanding of the processes involved and the parameters that govern them.
However, there are some issues that need to be clarified or further detailed.
One of the issues that are not sufficiently clear corresponds to the conceptual description of the processes that facilitate, through the proposed device, the management, recycling and reuse of urban stormwater runoff.
It is described that rainwater infiltrates and is conveyed to the central area of the roadway (median gutter) to be used by the vegetation arranged there, after which the water is returned to the atmosphere through the process of evapotranspiration.
Looking at the graphic information and descriptions, it is not clear that this type of facility (particularly the planter box of the median divider island) supports vegetation in a significant way in terms of irrigation requirements, which would justify the concept of "rainwater reuse".
Scale effects of 3D model should be addressed in depth in order to define limitations fo the methodology and the ability of this analysis for being expand to other cases.
I suggest to combine (by overlapping them) figures 8 with 10, and 9 with 11, to facilitate the comparison of the results for the two compaction levels studied.
For Figure 12, it would be useful to indicate the time related to these values (when they were measured: 1 h, 3 h, 3 days,...).
It is highly advisable to include a greater number of points in the graphs of figures 9 and 11 in order to evaluate more rigorously their behavior and evolution over time.
I think there is a typing mistake in line 16. It seems that it should be "evaporation" instead of "vaporation".
I recommend that this paper be considered for publication once the issues raised have been addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors' time and effort in revising the manuscript and considering earlier feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have incorporated some of my suggestions and have provided acceptable reasons for not incorporating the remaining suggestions.
