Hydrologic Efficiency of Rain Gardens as Countermeasures to Overuse of Concrete in Historical Public Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hydrologic and financial aspects of rain gardens efficiency as a countermeasure for overuse of concrete in historical public spaces

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This study attempts to use rain gardens as a practical strategy for LID, compares the simulated numerical evaluation results of three historical squares with the disaster losses, and draws conclusions. This study has three purposes: the evaluation of the water cycle of historical squares; the efficiency of rain gardens; and the economic feasibility evaluation of the application of rain gardens.

 

This study has achieved the first two research goals to a reasonable degree, but the data and discussion of the third goal must be strengthened to make the study more valuable. I believe that the governance of developed countries must reach a consensus between society, politics and economy, which should be the core issue of this study. This study uses cases to illustrate feasible solutions, but the main defect is the lack of data analysis and discussion on the core issues.

 

My Comments and Suggestions are as follows:

 

Abstract

1. Assuming that the core issue of this study is the balance between the hydrological environment and public finance, the public's acceptance of green buildings is related to the local population's economic sustainability and willingness to pay. However, the data and analysis provided by this study do not fully present the connection between the issue, research methods and results.
2. The research text does not include an analysis and discussion of public acceptance and willingness to pay. Data on economic sustainability or financial support should also be presented.

 

1. Introduction

At Lines 125-127, the literature [17] is the main object of this study, involving three main challenges, including determining the best LID practices in the area of ​​interest, improving efficiency in the technical field, and optimizing LID parameters at specific locations. However, this study did not respond to or fill the knowledge gaps for the above three challenges. Another important issue is economic feasibility, including willingness to pay and social support, which responds to the third purpose of the study. However, the introduction does not clearly explain how this study overcomes the above two socio-political obstacles.

 

2. Materials and Method  

At Lines 158-160. The research area must provide relevant data to explain the damage to the research base caused by an annual rainfall of 560 mm and a peak rainfall of 77 mm.

If only the green space of the square is reduced but there is no disaster, then it is irrelevant to the issue of economic losses caused by floods to the city.

 

3. Results and Analysis

3.3 At Lines 436-438, even though Figure 22 presents numerical values, the text should still clearly state the quantitative analysis results of the economic benefits.

At Lines 466-469, the technology of rain gardens is already well established in various parts of the world. This study should propose new solutions suitable for Poland and describe the technological innovation in response to the main dialogue reference (e.g. [17]).

 

 

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In Lines 517-519, the author points out that rain gardens are an economically sustainable solution and that a full explanation should be provided (not just Figure 22), but rather a response must be given to the relationship between data evaluation results and economic benefits, as well as how to overcome the barriers of willingness to pay and social support.

 

5. conclusion

The conclusions should include additional responses on how to overcome sociopolitical barriers (issues of public acceptance and willingness to pay).

 

All the best!

 

Author Response

Response 0: Thank you very much for the remarks allowing to improve our manuscript. We did our best to correct the manuscript according to your comments.

Please find below our answers.

Comments 1:This study attempts to use rain gardens as a practical strategy for LID, compares the simulated numerical evaluation results of three historical squares with the disaster losses, and draws conclusions. This study has three purposes: the evaluation of the water cycle of historical squares; the efficiency of rain gardens; and the economic feasibility evaluation of the application of rain gardens.

This study has achieved the first two research goals to a reasonable degree, but the data and discussion of the third goal must be strengthened to make the study more valuable. I believe that the governance of developed countries must reach a consensus between society, politics and economy, which should be the core issue of this study. This study uses cases to illustrate feasible solutions, but the main defect is the lack of data analysis and discussion on the core issues.

Response 1: We agree with the Reviewer and we are aware that the third goal of this manuscript considering the economic feasibility of our study has the weakest value. According to the above conclusions and taking into consideration remarks of the other Reviewer (#3) we decided to focus in our study on the environmental sustainability of studied historical basins endangered by increase in paved area and possibility of water balance improvement by LIDs application. We are unable to provide measurable data connecting results of our economic analyses with public acceptance and willingness to pay of local governments and societies in three studied cities. Thus, the third goal of the reviewed paper was excluded from the revised manuscript.

Comments 2:

1. Assuming that the core issue of this study is the balance between the hydrological environment and public finance, the public's acceptance of green buildings is related to the local population's economic sustainability and willingness to pay. However, the data and analysis provided by this study do not fully present the connection between the issue, research methods and results.
2. The research text does not include an analysis and discussion of public acceptance and willingness to pay. Data on economic sustainability or financial support should also be presented.

Response 2: Abstract was rearranged due to changed scope and range of the manuscript.

Comments 3: At Lines 125-127, the literature [17] is the main object of this study, involving three main challenges, including determining the best LID practices in the area of ​​interest, improving efficiency in the technical field, and optimizing LID parameters at specific locations. However, this study did not respond to or fill the knowledge gaps for the above three challenges. Another important issue is economic feasibility, including willingness to pay and social support, which responds to the third purpose of the study. However, the introduction does not clearly explain how this study overcomes the above two socio-political obstacles.

Response 3: The mentioned paragraph was rearranged to better fit changed scope of the paper.

Comments 4: At Lines 158-160. The research area must provide relevant data to explain the damage to the research base caused by an annual rainfall of 560 mm and a peak rainfall of 77 mm.

If only the green space of the square is reduced but there is no disaster, then it is irrelevant to the issue of economic losses caused by floods to the city.

Response 4: There were observed numerous examples of pluvial flooding in Lublin Voivodeship caused by torrential rainfall events, also in the catchments studied in the reviewed manuscript. The recent were noted even during the time period selected to numerical modeling, i.e. in June - August 2024.

However, despite the numerous media reports we are unable to provide the verified data considering economical losses caused by these flooding events. Thus, as it was mentioned earlier, the financial sustainability issue was removed from this study.

Comments 5: 3.3 At Lines 436-438, even though Figure 22 presents numerical values, the text should still clearly state the quantitative analysis results of the economic benefits.

Response 5: As it was mentioned before, the issue of rain gardens’ economic efficiency was removed from this manuscript.

Comments 6: At Lines 466-469, the technology of rain gardens is already well established in various parts of the world. This study should propose new solutions suitable for Poland and describe the technological innovation in response to the main dialogue reference (e.g. [17]).

Response 6: Our goal in this study was not to develop the new, innovative technology of bioretention-based devices limiting runoff but to verify their hydrologic efficiency after installation in heavily sealed historical basins of cities in Poland. Rain gardens were selected in this paper as LID devices suitable for the local governments due to their reasonable requirements for installation, i.e. limited required space and cost (earth works, materials, man power, services etc.), easily available know-how, simple servicing and significant aesthetic value.  Development of bioretention devices suitable for local conditions, with the hydraulic efficiency related to variable composition of specimens for infiltration bed is a subject of our ongoing laboratory research.

 Discussion and Conclusions

Comments 7: In Lines 517-519, the author points out that rain gardens are an economically sustainable solution and that a full explanation should be provided (not just Figure 22), but rather a response must be given to the relationship between data evaluation results and economic benefits, as well as how to overcome the barriers of willingness to pay and social support.

Response 7: As it was mentioned before, due to suggestions of two Reviewers, the issue of rain gardens’ economic efficiency was removed from this manuscript.

Comments 8: The conclusions should include additional responses on how to overcome sociopolitical barriers (issues of public acceptance and willingness to pay).

Response 8: As it was mentioned before, due to suggestions of two Reviewers, the issue of rain gardens’ economic efficiency was removed from this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

   This article introduces a numerical assessment of changes in water balance caused by revitalizing three main historical squares in cities in Lublin Voivodship, Poland. It also proposes installing rain gardens, allowing partial water balance restoration. This article's moderation is fine. The background and discussion are relatively good. The authors should improve the aim and novelty, export significant mechanisms for hydrologic and economic aspects, and revise accordingly. 

Authors Comments:

1. The title of this article, ‘Hydrologic and economic aspects of rain garden's efficiency as a countermeasure for overuse of concrete in historical public spaces’ could be of increased significance! In addition, the abstract should be written in the present tense. The author should add a graphical abstract for better readability.
2. Authors should improve the overall construction of the manuscript. The author should add a clear flowchart and a scheme to enhance significance and readability. In addition, please remove a few figures and tables from the main text and add supporting information.
3. Please consider more recent research articles cited in your article. (e.g. ref. 15, 85, (2007); 31 (2005); 71 (2004); 73 (1999); and 86 (2003) should be revised with more recent articles).
4. Please add the abbreviation section of your article to enhance its readability.
5. This article contains typos and grammar mistakes. The author must carefully revise it with a professional English writer.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This article contains typos and grammar mistakes. The author must carefully revise it with a professional English writer.

Author Response

Response 0 Thank you very much for the remarks allowing to improve our manuscript. We did our best to correct the manuscript according to your comments.

Please find below our answers.

 

General Comments:

   This article introduces a numerical assessment of changes in water balance caused by revitalizing three main historical squares in cities in Lublin Voivodship, Poland. It also proposes installing rain gardens, allowing partial water balance restoration. This article's moderation is fine. The background and discussion are relatively good. The authors should improve the aim and novelty, export significant mechanisms for hydrologic and economic aspects, and revise accordingly. 

Authors Comments:

Comments 1: The title of this article, ‘Hydrologic and economic aspects of rain garden's efficiency as a countermeasure for overuse of concrete in historical public spaces’ could be of increased significance! In addition, the abstract should be written in the present tense. The author should add a graphical abstract for better readability.

Response 1: The tile of manuscript was changed in relation to changes in its scope and content , as required by the other Reviewers. The abstract was rewritten. The graphical abstract was added as required.

Comments 2: Authors should improve the overall construction of the manuscript. The author should add a clear flowchart and a scheme to enhance significance and readability. In addition, please remove a few figures and tables from the main text and add supporting information.

Response 2: The construction of the manuscript was improved. The scheme of research was developed. Selected figures were removed and tables containing input data were moved to the supplementary materials.

Comments 3: Please consider more recent research articles cited in your article. (e.g. ref. 15, 85, (2007); 31 (2005); 71 (2004); 73 (1999); and 86 (2003) should be revised with more recent articles).

Response 3: The cited articles were updated.

Comments 4: Please add the abbreviation section of your article to enhance its readability.

Response 4: The abbreviation section was added

Comments 5: This article contains typos and grammar mistakes. The author must carefully revise it with a professional English writer.

Response 5: The text of manuscript was revised, the English language was corrected.

Comments 6: This article contains typos and grammar mistakes. The author must carefully revise it with a professional English writer.

Response 6: The text of manuscript was revised, the English language was corrected. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article

Hydrologic and financial aspects of rain gardens efficiency as countermeasure for overuse of concrete in historical public spaces:

 

General Comments:

• In Figure 5: there are no NORTH direction arrows, scale bars.
• In Figure 5: the three selected areas in the left part are not clearly clarified in the right part of the figure.
• Lines 157-160: this paragraph is not enough to discuss the climatic conditions in Lublin Voivodeship. It must support with figures for temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, wind speed, etc all over the last years. And one reference not enough.
• In table 1: it is favourite to transfer the table to pie diagrams foe each area (before and after revitalization).
• Concerning applied SWMM (Storm Water Management Model) 5.2 computational software. What is the accuracy and limitations?
• Why the period of 92 days, 1st June – 31st August 2024 selected?
• The legend in figures 12a, 13a , and 14a are not clear.
• In Table 2. Input data for stormwater runoff modelling, why the comparison years for the three areas are not unified?
• Insert the definition of Horton infiltration curve in the manuscript.
• What is the scientific base for the succession of construction scheme of the assumed rain gardens (Figure 15).
• equation 1 not referenced.
• In figure 17, what do you mean by variants 1, 2, and 3.
• Why are the three variants not averaged?
• In table 2, what is the reasons for compared years
• Leczna area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2018 and 2024 years.
• Parczew area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2015 and 2024 years
• Szczebrzeszyn area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2008 and 2024 years
• In figure 11, Why modeled period is 1^st June – 31^st August 2024?
• (a) Rainfall 1: 10th June 07:45-08:25,
• (b) Rainfall 2: 10th June 15:10-19:15,
• (c) Rainfall 3: 14th July 04:50-10:55,
• (d) Rainfall 4: 19th August 17:15-18:10.
• Concerning Table 5, the manuscript is concerning with factors of environmental and climate change, and the environmental sustainability is an enough consideration without economic factors.
• In section 3.1. Runoff Generation, it is important to compare the calculated results of final runoff coefficients and total accumulated runoff volumes determined during the numerical modelling, with the observed data (for any measured or observed rainfall event), to support the manuscript.
• Also, in section 3.2. Model sensitivity analysis, it is important to compare the model sensitivity coefficient values calculated for runoff volume and peak flows in all studied watersheds), with the measured data, to support the manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Article

Hydrologic and financial aspects of rain gardens efficiency as countermeasure for overuse of concrete in historical public spaces:

 

General Comments:

• In Figure 5: there are no NORTH direction arrows, scale bars.
• In Figure 5: the three selected areas in the left part are not clearly clarified in the right part of the figure.
• Lines 157-160: this paragraph is not enough to discuss the climatic conditions in Lublin Voivodeship. It must support with figures for temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, wind speed, etc all over the last years. And one reference not enough.
• In table 1: it is favourite to transfer the table to pie diagrams foe each area (before and after revitalization).
• Concerning applied SWMM (Storm Water Management Model) 5.2 computational software. What is the accuracy and limitations?
• Why the period of 92 days, 1st June – 31st August 2024 selected?
• The legend in figures 12a, 13a , and 14a are not clear.
• In Table 2. Input data for stormwater runoff modelling, why the comparison years for the three areas are not unified?
• Insert the definition of Horton infiltration curve in the manuscript.
• What is the scientific base for the succession of construction scheme of the assumed rain gardens (Figure 15).
• equation 1 not referenced.
• In figure 17, what do you mean by variants 1, 2, and 3.
• Why are the three variants not averaged?
• In table 2, what is the reasons for compared years
• Leczna area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2018 and 2024 years.
• Parczew area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2015 and 2024 years
• Szczebrzeszyn area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2008 and 2024 years
• In figure 11, Why modeled period is 1^st June – 31^st August 2024?
• (a) Rainfall 1: 10th June 07:45-08:25,
• (b) Rainfall 2: 10th June 15:10-19:15,
• (c) Rainfall 3: 14th July 04:50-10:55,
• (d) Rainfall 4: 19th August 17:15-18:10.
• Concerning Table 5, the manuscript is concerning with factors of environmental and climate change, and the environmental sustainability is an enough consideration without economic factors.
• In section 3.1. Runoff Generation, it is important to compare the calculated results of final runoff coefficients and total accumulated runoff volumes determined during the numerical modelling, with the observed data (for any measured or observed rainfall event), to support the manuscript.
• Also, in section 3.2. Model sensitivity analysis, it is important to compare the model sensitivity coefficient values calculated for runoff volume and peak flows in all studied watersheds), with the measured data, to support the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Response 0: Thank you very much for the remarks allowing to improve our manuscript. We did our best to correct the manuscript according to your comments.

Please find below our answers.

 

General Comments:

 

Comments 1: In Figure 5: there are no NORTH direction arrows, scale bars.

In Figure 5: the three selected areas in the left part are not clearly clarified in the right part of the figure.

Response 1: Figure 5 was corrected.

Comments 2: Lines 157-160: this paragraph is not enough to discuss the climatic conditions in Lublin Voivodeship. It must support with figures for temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, wind speed, etc all over the last years. And one reference not enough.

Response 2: To support presentation of climatic conditions in Lublin Voivodeship the reference to open data base containing results daily monitoring of temperature, wind speed, insolation, precipitation, snow cover etc. was provided. Additional figure presenting mean daily temperatures and monthly precipitation for the period 1991-2020 determined for Lublin according to World Metrological Organization standards was provided (source: https://klimat.imgw.pl/pl/climate-normals/TSR_AVE)

Comments 3: In table 1: it is favourite to transfer the table to pie diagrams foe each area (before and after revitalization).

Response 3: As requested, Table 1 was transferred to pie diagrams.

Comments 4: Concerning applied SWMM (Storm Water Management Model) 5.2 computational software. What is the accuracy and limitations?

Response 4: The SWMM simulation software was commonly assessed as capable in simulation of runoff generation, LIDs efficiency and stormwater systems operation for short and long term hydrological simulations. Thus we would like to avoid presenting the developed description of this software capabilities in here. However, the new references were added.

Comments 5: Why the period of 92 days, 1st June – 31st August 2024 selected?

Response 5: This period, June-August, was selected to numerical calculations due the high reported number of days with rainfall greater than 10 mm according to climatic norms determined for Lublin in 1991-2020 according to WMO (World Metrological Organization) standards and numerous media reports considering serious threats posed by torrential rain falls in the region. There were even observed cases of flooding during 1st June – 31st August 2024 period in areas considered in this paper i.e. Szczebrzeszyn nad Parczew.

Comments 6: The legend in figures 12a, 13a , and 14a are not clear.

Response 6: The legends in Figures 12, 13 and 14 were corrected.

Comments 7: In Table 2. Input data for stormwater runoff modelling, why the comparison years for the three areas are not unified?

Response 7: The presented years describe reflected modeled conditions of rainwater management in the studied basins. Years 2018, 2015 and 2008 present the historical surface sealing, just before revitalization. To avoid confusion the above descriptions were changed to “before revitalization” and “after revitalization”.

 

Comments 8: Insert the definition of Horton infiltration curve in the manuscript.

Response 8: The definition of Horton infiltration curve was added in the manuscript.

Comments 9: What is the scientific base for the succession of construction scheme of the assumed rain gardens (Figure 15).

Response 9: The scientific base for adopted rain gardens was supplemented.

Comments 10: equation 1 not referenced.

Response 10: Equation 1 is a standard, typical weighted average formula, popular in the subject, commonly used to calculate the resultant runoff coefficient.  

Comments 11: In figure 17, what do you mean by variants 1, 2, and 3.

Response 11: Variants I, II and III mean three tested variants of rainwater management studied for each location, described in 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Numerical modeling subsection, lines 212-215

Comments12: Why are the three variants not averaged?

Response 12: These three variants were not averaged because they represent three different manners of rainwater management, before revitalization, after revitalization and after revitalization with the rain gardens applied.

Comments 13: In table 2, what is the reasons for compared years

Leczna area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2018 and 2024 years.

Parczew area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2015 and 2024 years

Szczebrzeszyn area, stormwater runoff is compared between 2008 and 2024 years

Response 13: The presented years describe reflected modeled conditions of rainwater management in the studied basins. Years 2018, 2015 and 2008 present the historical surface sealing, just before revitalization. To avoid confusion the above descriptions were changed to “before revitalization” and “after revitalization”.

Comments 14: In figure 11, Why modeled period is 1st June – 31st August 2024?

(a) Rainfall 1: 10th June 07:45-08:25,

(b) Rainfall 2: 10th June 15:10-19:15,

(c) Rainfall 3: 14th July 04:50-10:55,

(d) Rainfall 4: 19th August 17:15-18:10.

Response 14: Explanation was presented earlier in answer for comment No 5. Here, in Figure 11 , the hyetographs of the selected rainfall events from the modeled period were shown.

Comments 15: Concerning Table 5, the manuscript is concerning with factors of environmental and climate change, and the environmental sustainability is an enough consideration without economic factors.

Response 15: According to the above statement and question raised by the other Reviewer (#1) we decided to limit the scope of this manuscript  to environmental sustainability of changes in historical urban basins surface sealing and possibility of improvement by LIDs application. The economic factors analysis were removed from the study.

 

Comments 16: In section 3.1. Runoff Generation, it is important to compare the calculated results of final runoff coefficients and total accumulated runoff volumes determined during the numerical modelling, with the observed data (for any measured or observed rainfall event), to support the manuscript.

Also, in section 3.2. Model sensitivity analysis, it is important to compare the model sensitivity coefficient values calculated for runoff volume and peak flows in all studied watersheds), with the measured data, to support the manuscript.

Response 16: Due to the objective causes the obtained results were not compared to the observed data. Our research presents modeling of runoff generation for historic, currently non-existing (before revitalization), and possible, hypothetic variants of rainwater management (after the proposed installation of rain gardens). Moreover, in case of all the developed models, for basins located in different cities in the vicinity of Lublin, the weather conditions measured in Lublin were used. Additionally, were are unable to provide measurements results for runoff generation in these basins. But, according to numerous literature sources, in such cases, when uncalibrated SWMM models are used to preliminary, hypothetical studies, the obtained results may provide some useful information. The necessary explanation was added to the text of manuscript, with supporting references.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Unfortunately, the manuscript deleted the most innovative research issue in the previous title. This was originally the most anticipated part of the paper.

Furthermore, despite providing real data used to simulate the efficiency of rain gardens, the current manuscript does not fill in the gaps in scientific breakthroughs regarding the issue of rain gardens in LID. It appears to be a review article and, in any case, has little scientific character. Authors should not just change the title and ignore the essence of an academic article. Please modify the structure of the paper and provide the necessary data to make it more scientific and innovative.

All the best!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: 

Dear Authors,

Unfortunately, the manuscript deleted the most innovative research issue in the previous title. This was originally the most anticipated part of the paper.

Furthermore, despite providing real data used to simulate the efficiency of rain gardens, the current manuscript does not fill in the gaps in scientific breakthroughs regarding the issue of rain gardens in LID. It appears to be a review article and, in any case, has little scientific character. Authors should not just change the title and ignore the essence of an academic article. Please modify the structure of the paper and provide the necessary data to make it more scientific and innovative.

All the best!

Response 1:  

We are very sorry to see the disapproval for the revised version of our manuscript expressed by the Reviewer No. 1.

But we must underline that we mostly disagree with the opinions of Reviewer No. 1 presented in the 2^nd round of the review.

The issue of economic feasibility of the proposed rain gardens, as a measure allowing improvement of rainwater balance in three studied catchments, was removed from the paper due to two reasons. First, it was clearly suggested by the Reviewer No. 3: “the manuscript is concerning with factors of environmental and climate change, and the environmental sustainability is an enough consideration without economic factors”. The second cause was related to suggestions and requirements presented by the Reviewer No. 1. In this case we were unable to provide measurable data connecting results of our economic analyses with the rate of public acceptance and willingness to pay of local governments and societies in three studied cities. According to our experience in economic feasibility studies such data in the described region is very hard to obtain, sometimes, even impossible in the reasonable time. The representatives of local authorities are just not obliged to answer the inquiries.

We disagree that our manuscript is a “review paper”. It is definitely an original paper containing scientific research concerning numerical assessment of revitalization projects influence on urban rainwater balance and possibility of its improvement by rain gardens installation for three case studies located in various cities. Numerical modeling of environmental processes, including hydrologic modeling, is a recognized scientific research method. Thus, in our opinion the “essence of an academic article” was not ignored.

Moreover, in the first round of the review, Reviewer No. 1 assessing presented numerical modeling of three case studies wrote: “This study has achieved the first two research goals to a reasonable degree”. Now, we can see that our work “has little scientific character”, which we don’t understand.

The structure of our manuscript fits IMRAD requirements. Some parts of methodology description (input data for hydrologic modeling) were moved to the Supplementary Materials, as requested by Reviewer No. 2. The new methodology flow chart was also added.

But we agree that the knowledge gaps and resulting novelty of our manuscript should be clarified. Thus, the introductory section of our manuscript was developed to better express the gaps in knowledge related to water balance in revitalized historical catchments and the possible improvements due to rain gardens installation. The references list was also extended.