Refining Assignment of Runoff Control Targets with a Landscape Statistical Model: A Case Study in the Beijing Urban Sub-Center, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful check and helpful suggestions! We have carefully considered each comment and improved the paper accordingly. Please see the attachment.

• We made some refinements to make the article easier to read. We have asked a professional editor whose native language is English to correct grammatical errors and ambiguous statements. Relevant terminologies have been explained and defined to clarify the research framework.
• We have added a definition of “block” in the revised manuscript . We have also stated that the underlying landscape pattern indices were calculated on the “block” scale and reflect the attributes of the block. We have also referred to the table in the revised manuscript. The detailed definitions and methods of calculating the landscape pattern indices have been supplemented.
• We have supplemented the relevant hydrological parameters of the SWMM model. To ensure the reliability of the SWMM model simulation results, the accuracy of the simulation was evaluated based on the value of the NSE indicator and has also been described.
• We have added references and a reliability analysis for predicting runoff response processes with the landscape pattern index. The fact that study area characteristics were also key elements for this prediction to be feasible is discussed. The study area was an urban region with a flat topography. Minor regional slope differences (within 1‰) and spatially homogeneous soil types made the landscape pattern the most significant indicator for predicting runoff response processes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript subject “Refining assignment of runoff control target by landscape statistical model: a case study in Beijing urban sub-center, China” is interesting, and the manuscript developed well. The literature review is poor, with ten references, and needs improvement. More details about the case study, such as annual precipitation and climate type, could make the manuscript more applicable.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful check and helpful suggestions! We have carefully considered each comment and improved the paper accordingly. Relevant literature has been carefully analyzed and is now referenced in the revised manuscript. More details of the case study have been analyzed and included in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading the manuscript. This is a very interesting and important study given the important role and impact that urban hydrological cycle might have on water quality in a given geographical area and region. The manuscript was well written, illustrated and the findings purposefully discussed. Figures and Tables were well situated within the text to substantiate and support the research findings. 

In this regard, the last column (Durbin-Watson) in Table 5, the interpretation made according to:

Line 231: "The Durbin-Watson was close to 4, and the ..........". 

It seems to me that the D-W values are closer to 2 which essentially indicates a zero autocorrelation! 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful check and helpful suggestions!  We have corrected the mistake.

P.8, L.246-247 in the file of the Revised manuscript (with tracked changes): The fact that the Durbin-Watson statistic was close to 2 indicated that there was very little autocorrelation in the model.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version of the manuscript is much more readable than the original.  Please see specific revisions in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful check and helpful suggestions! We have carefully considered each comment and improved the paper accordingly.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

This study, "Refining assignment of runoff control target by landscape statistical model: a case study in Beijing urban sub-center, China", is concentrating on detecting the statistical relationship between landscape and runoff control targets in the delta pilot region in Beijing urban sub-center and extended the statistical model to a large scale to guide the delineation of runoff control tasks across the region

The paper presents a relatively comprehensive case study, but it needs a lot of improvements before publication.

The Authors'contribution to the present-day level of knowledge may be in better explanation of several parts of the study, e.g.:

The introduction needs a more detailed analysis of the previous results dealing with the topic of this study, not only adding the citations. Also, the research question of this study needs to be pointed out.

Data used to need a more detailed description of also hydrological meteorological inputs.

The methodology needs a more detailed description of the methods used, explanation of the factors involved in the regression, discussion about their importance, and solving multicollinearity.

Results should be separated from discussion and the novelty of this study should be discussed with previous studies.

Conclusion should be also rewritten.

Unfortunately, the paper's topic focuses too much on case study results. On the other hand, the paper can be considered worth publishing in a regional engineering journal.

The paper needs significant improvement in the present form, and I recommend publishing after its resubmitting. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript subject “Refining assignment of runoff control target by landscape statistical model: a case study in Beijing urban sub-center, China” is interesting. However, the manuscript needs improvement.

1. Figure 1. needs to be updated with more details such as the name of the river and longitude e latitude
2. Table 1: different Land covers of “Delta pilot region” can be added to the table.
3. The “runoff control targets” need to be presented in the study.
4. Tables 2 and 3 need to be mentioned and explained in the text.
5. More details about the developed SWMM model and used data seem necessary.
6. More details about the rainfall events need to be presented. The used data is for which year/years, and the simulations belong to which year?
7. Figure 6: is provided by SWMM model? If yes, more details about the boundary conditions, Water Balance, and model development, and if other software has been used, need to be presented in detail.
8. What are the numbers in Figure 6 (a)?
9. Where is the “feasible guidance for the planning implementation” mentioned in the abstract and conclusion presented?