Social Barriers and the Hiatus from Successful Green Stormwater Infrastructure Implementation across the US

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A BRIEF SUMMARY

The paper titled “Social Barriers and the Hiatus from Successful Green Storm water Infrastructure Implementation across the US” presents a good topic for readers of this Journal. The topic represents a line of research as interesting as studied. The paper is well structured.

The review has been well developed and discussed in the paper. Hovewer, I have to suggest minor improvements after reading the paper. Below is the list of some suggestions.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Lines 25-26. I suggest to add many references. Following, I have indicated some suggestions for this specific section, but more could be added to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.

• Recanatesi, F., Petroselli, A. Land Cover Change and Flood Risk in a Peri-Urban Environment of the Metropolitan Area of Rome (Italy). Water Resour Manage 34, 4399–4413 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02567-8
• Wang GX, Liu JQ, Kubota JP, Chen L (2007) Effects of land use changes on hydrological processes in the middle basin of the Heihe River, Northeast China. Hydrol Process 21:1370–1382. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6308
• Brath A, Montanari A, Moretti G (2006) Assessing the effect on flood frequency of land use change via hydrological simulation (with uncertainty). J Hydrol 324:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.10.001
• Blöschl, G.; Ardoin-Bardin, S.; Bonell, M.; Dorninger, M.; Goodrich, D.; Gutknecht, D.; Matamoros, D.; Merz, B.; Shand, P.; Szolgay, J. At what scales do climate variability and land cover change impact on flooding and low flows?  Process.2007, 21, 1241–1247.

I also suggest to add many references regarding economic risk evaluation and drainage system management. For example:

• Pellicani, R.; Parisi, A.; Iemmolo, G.; Apollonio, C. Economic Risk Evaluation in Urban Flooding and Instability-Prone Areas: The Case Study of San Giovanni Rotondo (Southern Italy). Geosciences2018, 8, 112.
• Carrera, L.; Standardi, G.; Bosello, F.; Mysiak, J. Assessing direct and indirect economic impacts of a flood event through the integration of spatial and computable general equilibrium modelling.  Modell. Softw. 2015, 63, 109–122.
• Huizinga, J.; de Moel, H.; Szewczyk, W. Global flood depth-damage functions—Methodology and the database with guidelines. Joint Res. Center 2017. 
• Babovic, F.; Mijic, A. Economic Evaluation of Adaptation Pathways for an Urban Drainage System Experiencing Deep Uncertainty. Water2019, 11, 531.
• Babovic, F.; Mijic, A.; Madani, K. Decision making under deep uncertainty for adapting urban drainage systems to change. Urban Water J. 2018.
• Babovic, F.; Mijic, A. The Development of Adaptation Pathways for the Long Term Planning of Urban Drainage Systems.  Flood Man. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12538

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The manuscript is concerned with social barriers and the hiatus from successful green stormwater infrastructure implementation across the US, which is interesting. It is relevant and within the scope of the journal.
2. However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Adequate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
3. For readers to quickly catch the contribution in this work, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
4. It is shown in the reference list that the authors have a pertinent publication in this field. This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with their previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications.
5. 1 - the agent-based modeling approach is adopted for evaluation. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this approach over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
6. 3 - a conceptual framework as shown in Figure 1 is adopted in this study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this framework over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
7. 3 - a combination of platforms, including literature search engine Web of Science and relevant referenced articles in the papers are adopted for data collection. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this approach over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
8. 4 - the concepts of cognitive biases proposed by Haselton, et al. [72] are adopted in this study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this approach over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
9. 11 - three major cognitive biases in three aspects are adopted in the context of stormwater management. What are the other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting these attributes over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
10. The current approach is rather qualitative. A more quantitative approach can strengthen the paper.
11. This is a review paper regarding social barriers and the hiatus from successful green stormwater infrastructure implementation. What are the novelties that can be brought out by reviewing this specific topic?
12. What are the major differences between this review and other earlier review papers on this topic?
13. More critical analysis should be made to different modelling methods, with both advantages and disadvantages of each method explicitly exhibited.
14. A more balanced distribution on the description amongst different models should be made.
15. More details should be furnished on different hybrid models. More critical comparison should be made on this issue.
16. The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
17. Some assumptions are stated in various sections. More justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.
18. A review paper should be more thorough in literature review. The manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on recent literatures about contemporary real-life case studies on sustainability such as the followings: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137264; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13112708; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061663;
19. In the conclusion section, the limitations of this study and suggested improvements of this work should be highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised paper has addressed all my previous comments, and I suggest to ACCEPT the paper as it is now.