Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a fairly standard BMP efficiency study related to TSS, TN and TP.  While this is not a novel approach, it is non the less important to document.  A reference is needed for the rating curves and fig 2 needs number of samples on the graphs with R2 and p values.  This brings me to the reason why I think the methods need improvement.  Some statistical test such as the student T test is needed for each of these runs to demonstrate if the results are significant.  Finally on line 443 of the discussion, please include which references you are referring too.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Water-1554102” entitled “Evaluation of Active, Beautiful, Clean Water Design Features in Tropical Urban Cities: A Case Study in Singapore” by Neo et al. serves to supplement the knowledge with regards to the field performance of the Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters design features (ABCWDFs) (in terms of water quantity and quality improvements) in the tropical setting. In addition, this field monitoring study also aims to determine whether water quality targets can be achieved at the catchment scale with the implementation of ABCWDFs.

For publication in the “Water” journal, the topic and content are appropriate. The subject of the review is interesting and topical, with high scientific and practical importance. The introduction is in accordance with the subject and correctly presented. Numerous scientific articles of recent date and in concordance to the topic of the study were consulted. The methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives. The obtained results have been fully analyzed. The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field. However, the review of the article revealed some minor issues, which were noted in the article and listed below.

Minor comments:

• The abstract is too long (392 words when the limit is about 200 words) and descriptive. In addition, it is not written in a way to encourage the reader to read the whole paper.
• Discussion: The discussion section must be enhanced. The authors should further refer to previous studies with regard to the performance of the Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters design features (ABCWDFs).
• Conclusions: This section is missing.
• Lines 522-701: Authors should correct the form of references, as in the journal’s “Instructions for authors”

Thank you for your consideration.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article describes bioretention systems in Singapore as a possible measure to clean up rainfall in large cities in tropical areas. The model area is one 4-ha urban residential precinct.

The research methodology is elaborated in detail and brings relevant results. It works with several analyzed ABC Waterdesign features, inlets and outlets. The research analyzed more rain events and compared them with a model example.

The results show the favorable effect of ABC Waterdesign features on the amount of pollutants in the catchment outflow.

The article is well structured. Its better readability is hindered by the frequent use of acronyms. However, this is due to the nature of the research and cannot be changed much.

Overall, this is an interesting and useful research. However, I recommend improving the article:

Is it possible to state the scope of use of ABCWDFs in Singapore, or to present other potential model areas?

Research would be more valuable when using multiple urban residential area models. Why did the researchers process only one? Are single-area results relevant for tropical cities? Is this zone characteristic and representative of more cities in the tropical zone? Is it representative of any character of urban space or just one?

The article has an overall high level and after incorporating the comments, I recommend it for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx