Possible Scenarios for a Micro-Watershed Based on Level of Urbanization: Using Flood Design to Advance Ecohydrological Principles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Respected Editor

The above research paper is a new contribution in the basic equation of rainfall-runoff process calculation. The topic is related to the journal. the novelty is good and the method is robust. The manuscript is well-structured but the method needs to show the differences and decentness of the method by new modifications. I think authors should improve their manuscript by below comments and resend it for further considerations. In its present form I think it should be revised with major comments.

1- The introduction part needs to be designed again and rewritten. The number of previous studies and the comparison should be highlighted and the contribution should be clear

2- The English is better to be edited by a native

3-The most defect of this study is considering a homogenous intensity for rainfall. You should investigate a non-homogenous condition as it is more realistic in urban areas

4- what is the effect of this modification in the runoff coefficient on the unit artificial hydrograph of the catchment? You can go through a comparison and shoe the changes in the head

5- Results and discussion is better to justify the method based on the case study and application

Looking forward to review the revised version.

Kind Regards   

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The introduction part needs to be designed again and rewritten. The number of previous studies and the comparison should be highlighted and the contribution should be clear.

Response 1: The Introduction chapter has been revised and entire paragraphs rewritten. New paragraphs have been incorporated to mention previous studies. The significance of this manuscript as a study impacting urban growth in a semi-arid region and its potential practical application has been highlighted.

 

Point 2: The English is better to be edited by a native.

Response 2: The entire manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker.

 

Point 3: The most defect of this study is considering a homogenous intensity for rainfall. You should investigate a non-homogenous condition as it is more realistic in urban areas.

Response 3: An observation has been incorporated to the Method chapter to respond to this comment. A rainfall intensity type was used. It is not viable to obtain Intensity–Duration–Frequency estimation curves (IDF) for specific regions in the urbanized area since local pluviographic information is not existent. However, Chen’s formula was used incorporating available pluviometer data. Its contrast and relevance for different climatic zones has been tested by a referenced author.

 

Point 4: What is the effect of this modification in the runoff coefficient on the unit artificial hydrograph of the catchment? You can go through a comparison and shoe the changes in the head.

Response 4: This study didn´t obtain design flood estimations through the unit artificial hydrograph of the micro-watershed. The rational method incorporates on its own formula the modification of the estimated runoff coefficient.

 

Point 5: Results and discussion is better to justify the method based on the case study and application.

Response 5: Paragraphs in the Discussion chapter have been adjusted to reflect the impact of the method and its pertinence on the case study. The relevance of a study showing future urbanization patterns and its potential to inform critical stakeholders has also been emphasized.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editorial board

The paper entitled “The possible scenarios for a micro-watershed concerning its level of urbanization: Using flood design for advancing ecohydrological principles” is a technical note within the journal’s scope. It needs major revisions that are listed below in my points of view:

-        The introduction is better to be improved by adding newer published citations.

-        The practical aspects and also novelty aspect of the work must be clarified more in the introduction.

-        In the methodology, the authors must talk about the importance of the selected area for their research, more.

-        A single discussion section must be added before the conclusion section, to compare the details of the results with the other related studied cases.

-        The conclusion section must clearly state the disadvantages of this work.

-        The English language of the work must get improved.

Good luck

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The introduction is better to be improved by adding newer published citations.

Response 1: The introduction chapter has been revised, several paragraphs rewritten and new text added to incorporate recent published literature on the topic. References have been updated accordingly.

 

Point 2: The practical aspects and also novelty aspect of the work must be clarified more in the introduction.

Response 2: The introduction now states clearly the contributions and innovations made by the study. An emphasis is made on its practical potential and its capacity to provide insights for urban planners and developers regarding a sustainable transformation of the micro-watershed.

 

Point 3: In the methodology, the authors must talk about the importance of the selected area for their research, more.

Response 3: Revisions to the Introduction and Method chapters have been made to highlight the importance of the micro-watershed selected for this study. Among others, it has been highlighted its proximity to a zone of high real estate speculation and the clear implications its future development will have on flood design estimations and urban densities.

 

Point 4: A single discussion section must be added before the conclusion section, to compare the details of the results with the other related studied cases.

Response 4: The Discussion chapter has been revised and new text incorporated where the results on this manuscript are compared with related studies in recent literature

 

Point 5: The conclusion section must clearly state the disadvantages of this work.

Response 5: The Conclusion chapter has been revised and the biggest disadvantage of the method (data scarcity) contextualized within its results and contributions.

 

Point 6: The English language of the work must get improved.

Response 6: The entire manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present work provided possible scenarios for a micro-watershed concerning its level of urbanization. Authors uses design flood estimation and three possible scenarios for a micro-watershed in San Luis Potosi, but the way to use flood design for advancing ecohydrological principles lacked depth discussion. Thus, it should be revised before accepted.

1) Abstract should be rewritten. In the present version, the necessity, novelty and contribution of the work were not presented.

2) Many format problems, such as superscript, italic.

3) Add some necessary figures for conclusions, and depth discussion.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: Abstract should be rewritten. In the present version, the necessity, novelty and contribution of the work were not presented.

Response 1:  Abstract has been revised and rewritten. The current Abstract clearly states the problematic to which the study responds, highlights its innovation and contribution to existing literature.

 

Point 2: Many format problems, such as superscript, italic.

Response 2: Formatting has been thoroughly revised on the entire manuscript and omissions/mistakes corrected.

 

Point 3: Add some necessary figures for conclusions, and depth discussion.

Response 3: We believe the structure of the manuscript benefits from showing all relevant figures on the Method and Results chapters. Discussion and Conclusion chapters have been revised, certain paragraphs rewritten and new paragraphs included to strengthen the manuscript’s argument, emphasize its impact and contribution as a practical application study.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

My Comments applied and I have no other comments.

Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editorial board

I think this work is now improved satisfactory and it's acceptable for publication.

Good luck

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors resolved my doubt, and I think it could be accepted after revising.