Real-Time Integrated Operation for Urban Streams with Centralized and Decentralized Reservoirs to Improve System Resilience
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the presented work, the authors studied real-time integrated operation for urban streams reservoirs to improve system resilience. The manuscript has a potentially interesting premise which could add knowledge base of information on real-time integrated operation for urban stream reservoirs for improving system resilience. Overall, the work is of potential interest for publication; however the following points need to be addressed first.
1. Introduction Section: The introduction section is lengthy; I recommend authors to describe in brief the literature review on research performed previously on “real time control related studies” its finding and briefly include data gaps. Include the need for the current research and objectives of the proposed study.
Line 87-171: “I recommend summarizing the content included here in Introduction section and include objectives of the proposed study.
Alternate to above: Also Table 1 can be expanded and the literature review can be included here, with the findings and data gaps from previous studies and then the authors can talk about their study need and objectives of this study.
2. Section 2.1, 2.2,2.3 and section 3, 3., 3.2 should be in Materials and Method section
3. Section 3.1. Include a table with study area characteristics
4. Conclusion: Line 473. In conclusion 1: “This study suggests that the integrated operation of drainage facilities in urban streams can be used to reduce urban inundation and improve system resilience”. I recommend authors to include the major findings of the study here in conclusion section not just the general statement that already mention in methods, result section. I recommend reworking the conclusion sections and mention the critical findings not just mentioning what was done during the study (example line 480)
Conclusion 3, 4,5 can be summarized and combine and present in brief, concisely the major findings.
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction. The definition of ‘resilience’ and ‘sustainability’ is challenging. Particularly, the theme of the comparison/integration of the concepts of resilience and sustainability is still highly debated in the scientific literature. I would suggest the author to integrate the introduction with more recent references on this topic, since several contributions are available in the field of water resources. Furthermore, since several definition exist, I would also suggest the authors to clarify the specific definition of ‘resilience’ they refer to.
[Lines 97-105] This paragraph is rather difficult to understand. I believe that it would be better to include the equations, and to improve the description of the limitations of the proposed indices. This would be highly relevant also to better justify the proposed improvement, and the need for a revised resilience index.
I would suggest restructuring the Introduction since the authors go often back and forth. For example, the last paragraph should be anticipated (it includes a definition of resilience and again the limits of the existing indices). I would expect closing sentence providing the research questions of the paper, and an analysis of its added value.
Conclusions. There is some discussion missing. I would suggest to include additional information on the potential replicability of the methodology in other contexts.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors had addressed all the comments in the revised version. Its ready for publications now.
Minor correction needed is:
1) Table 1 Caption : add Real-Time Control (RTC) after Classification of ......
