A SUDS Planning Decision Support Tool to Maximize Ecosystem Services
, María N. Torres 2, Natalia A. Bernal 1, Mónica M. Giraldo-González 1 and Juan P. Rodríguez 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review, Manuscript ID: sustainability-1639622
“A SUDS planning decision support tool to maximize ecosystem services”
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
Please see my comments on the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
We would like to thank you for your insightful recommendations and suggestions which we hope that are resolved in the revised document. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors develop a flexible and adaptable methodology to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in different stages of urban projects using a multi-objective optimization technique to minimize run-off, maximize ecosystem services and minimize cost. The proposed methodology comprises four phases:
-the preliminary analysis of ecosystem services potentially generated by each Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems type,
-the priority and opportunity index quantification,
-the physical feasibility analysis,
and the multi-objective optimization tool implementation.
The methodology was presented in three different urban areas of Bogotá city. I agree with the statement of the authors that these results are helpful to support the early stages of urban planning tools.
The paper looks good, but some shortcomings must be eliminated before accepting this paper. Therefore, the list of comments is as the following:
1. In the abstract, there are 5 phases, but it seems that methodology has only 4 phases.
2. The literature review should be improved and extended. For example, it should be the better-shown background. The COMET, SPOTIS, and SIMUS methods should be presented as opposite methods to solve sustainable problems. Please look for some papers.
4. The references in the text are broken "Error"
5. The conclusions should be extended. Future research directions should be extended on the end conclusions
6. Please justify more detail your methodology
7. References list should be extended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
We would like to thank you for your insightful recommendations and suggestions which we hope that are resolved in the revised document. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the interesting paper. It covers the important area of decision support tool for SUDS planning. I have the following comments.
- Please explain what scenarios A, B, C, D. in table 4 mean. Without understanding the contents of the scenarios, readers cannot understand the results of the study.
- L 490 “scenario C was the best choice” Please explain why this is the best scenario. Scenarios A and B have more run-off reduction volumes.
- L 492 “655,313.90USD” This does not match with the figure in table 4 “786,810 USD”.
- L 496 Please explain why Scenario C is the best.
- L 496 “2809.84 m3/s” This does not match with the figure in table 4.
- L 497 “775,971.27 USD” and “468,978.59USD” These figures are different from ones in table 4.
- L503 “the B option was selected......15937.37m3/year” This figure is one of scenario C.
- L505 “371,682.41USD” This figure does not match with one in figure 4.
- Discussion: Without more detailed on the results, it is difficult to understand discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
We would like to thank you for your insightful recommendations and suggestions which we hope that are resolved in the revised document. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for revision.
