Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of Pervious Pavement Based on China’s Sponge City Concept

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Water 169495 Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of Previous Pavement Based on China’s Springe City Concept.

Overall the article is exactly what the title says – incorporating a wide array of evaluation criteria and indicators for evaluating permeable pavement on one applied case study in Fujian Province. It is well written, but this reviewer has the following detailed comments.

Introduction

Ines 64-70- Be careful – in stating the soil does the cleaning of pollutants- it is really the biotic anerobic and anaerobic organisms in the soil that do most of the work.

Establishing a comprehensive Benefit Evaluation System…

It would greatly help the understanding of the process if there was an overall process diagram showing all the steps for this whole section

Line 164- please explain “grey theory” since this is the underpinning of much of the methodology

Lines 164-225- Again one could use a diagram to illustrate the multi-step process for establishing weights for evaluation indicators.

Results and Analysis of Case studies

Why was only one case study done? And why this particular case study?

Lines 306-334 Again an overview process would be useful for assigning weights to evaluation indicators for this case study.

Discussion

Lines 559-563- Combining permeable pavement with other storm water measures cannot be overemphasized as this is critical to the “sponge city” concept.

Limits and future studies- this section should be expanded

Lines 592-601- Multiple indicator evaluations could be done at different times of the year under different climatic conditions plus other permeable pavement sites.

Lines 602-605- Authors should state how this permeable pavement evaluation method is an advance over other permeable pavement evaluation methods mentioned in the introduction.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer #1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall the article is exactly what the title says – incorporating a wide array of evaluation criteria and indicators for evaluating permeable pavement on one applied case study in Fujian Province. It is well written, but this reviewer has the following detailed comments.

Introduction:

• Lines 64-70- Be careful – in stating the soil does the cleaning of pollutants- it is really the biotic anerobic and anaerobic organisms in the soil that do most of the work.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified the sentences to state: “In the process of infiltration and drainage, the water can be cleaned by the natural purification action of the soil environment [14]. The pollutants in the water go through adsorption, decomposition, migration, transformation, etc., in the soil environment mainly by the aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms. Thus, the pollutants’ concentration, toxicity, or activity may decrease [15].”

Establishing a comprehensive Benefit Evaluation System…

• It would greatly help the understanding of the process if there was an overall process diagram showing all the steps for this whole section.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added a new Figure 1 to summarize the steps involved in developing the comprehensive benefit evaluation of permeable pavement.

• Line 164- please explain “grey theory” since this is the underpinning of much of the methodology.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added a concise description of the grey theory in Section 2.1.3: “The grey system theory was developed to solve the problem of data inadequacy and uncertainty. A grey relational model is a research tool for grey relational analysis, which can quantitatively analyze the dynamic development process of a system. It can investigate the closeness of the relationship between various factors in a system, and then identify the primary and secondary factors driving the development of a system.”

• Lines 164-225- Again one could use a diagram to illustrate the multi-step process for establishing weights for evaluation indicators.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have added a new Figure 2 to show the multiple steps involved in conducting the intuitionistic fuzzy analysis.

Results and Analysis of Case Studies

• Why was only one case study done? And why this particular case study?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We chose this case for the following reasons: (a) Geographical location and terrain conditions: Quanzhou has abundant rainfall, often causing urban water retention and detention due to heavy rains. Permeable pavement can alleviate this urban management problem. (b) Policy reasons: In response to the national sponge-city policy, the Quanzhou government has initiated the planning and construction to improve drainage, infiltration, and rainwater recycling. The Quanzhou Riverside Park selected as a case study denotes a typical sponge-city project under the new low-impact urban development strategy.  

(6) Lines 306-334 Again an overview process would be useful for assigning weights to evaluation indicators for this case study.

Response: Thanks for sharing your trenchant insights. In Section 3.1, we have added a new paragraph to provide an overview of the research process regarding assigning weights to the evaluation indicators: “This study selected evaluation indicators from the triple dimensions of environmental, economic and social benefits to construct the benefit evaluation system. The intuitionistic fuzzy and grey theories were combined to construct a comprehensive benefit evaluation model. The weights of the indicators calculated by the judgment matrix were blended with the grey weight vector theory to analyze and calculate the benefits of permeable pavement comprehensively.”

Discussion

(7) Lines 559-563- Combining permeable pavement with other storm water measures cannot be overemphasized as this is critical to the “sponge city” concept.

Response: Thanks for sharing your valuable opinion. In Section 4(2), the second paragraph, we have added two sentences and cited a new reference to explain the critical issue of applying permeable pavement jointly with other measures to achieve the sponge-city objectives: “Pervious pavement systems play a vital role in reducing pollutants from stormwater run-off. It enhances the storage and reuse of rainwater and preserves or reinstates the site’s hydrological functions [56]. The method should be applied jointly with other stormwater management measures, helping cities tackle the thorny issue of urban flooding and achieve the multiple sponge-city goals.”

(8) Limits and future studies- this section should be expanded.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have expanded two paragraphs concerning the limitation of the study and proposed future studies. Please refer to the end of the conclusion section.

(9) Lines 592-601- Multiple indicator evaluations could be done at different times of the year under different climatic conditions plus other permeable pavement sites.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. In the expanded paragraph on the study's limitations, we have added that future research can consider verification of permeable pavement at different times of the year, under different climatic conditions, and in other regions.

(10) Lines 602-605- Authors should state how this permeable pavement evaluation method is an advance over other permeable pavement evaluation methods mentioned in the introduction.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have strengthened the expression of the advantages of our integrated and multidimensional benefit assessment model in comparison with previous studies. Please refer to paragraph (4) in the conclusion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editors of Water,

Many thanks for sharing the manuscript with me. My observations are summarized below:

• I like the idea of the manuscript very much.
• Abstract is very well written, maybe the part on practical implications could be stronger.
• Is it please possible to divide this part into several independent subsections to enable better orientation for readers? Ideally to start with the most general remarks, if possible? Probably stronger referencing is needed to support the statements in this part.
• I would propose to locate the objective of the study sooner, so that any confusion is avoided.
• Please develop indepdendent section on Methods and Data. This is not clear in this case. I understand that section 2 is basically (but not exclusively) on Methods and Data, but this should be clearer. Could you please add a graphical scheme illustrating the methodology?
• Please check all formulas for their clarity.
• Section 3.1 (Project overview) should be, in my opinion, rather located as a part of methodology section (not among original findings).
• Results are reasonable and interesting enough to deserve publication. Maybe some graphical illustration of the findings would be beneficial to increase attractiveness of the results part.
• I especially appreciate that the limitations of the study are included (probably doesn´t have to be as a separate part).
• It is please possible to structure Discussion for social, economic and environmental benefits?
• Please expand more on practical implications in the Conclusion.

I hope the authors will find my comments useful. Let me wish the authors all the best for the work on the revision. As the manuscript is very well developed, I recommenad a minor revision.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editors of Water,

Many thanks for sharing the manuscript with me. My observations are summarized below:

I like the idea of the manuscript very much.

(1) Abstract is very well written, maybe the part on practical implications could be stronger.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have added some practical applications to the Abstract section.

(2). Is it please possible to divide this part into several independent subsections to enable better orientation for readers? Ideally to start with the most general remarks, if possible? Probably stronger referencing is needed to support the statements in this part.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestion. We have rearranged the introduction section so that three strands of ideas have been grouped together in consecutive paragraphs. They included the background of the study, the research progress of the study at home and abroad, and the proposed research orientation and purpose of our study. Some not so directly relevant sentences have been deleted.

(3). I would propose to locate the objective of the study sooner, so that any confusion is avoided.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the paragraph on the study objectives to clarify them.

(4). Please develop independent section on Methods and Data. This is not clear in this case. I understand that section 2 is basically (but not exclusively) on Methods and Data, but this should be clearer. Could you please add a graphical scheme illustrating the methodology?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the heading of the second section to “Methods and Data” to reflect its contents. We have also added Figures 1 and 2 to explain the multiple steps adopted in the analysis.  

(5). Please check all formulas for their clarity.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have checked all the formulae to ascertain their correctness and clarity.

(6). Section 3.1 (Project overview) should be, in my opinion, rather located as a part of methodology section (not among original findings).

Response: Thank you for sharing your trenchant insights. We have moved the Project Overview become subsection 2.3 of the renamed Methods and Data section.

(7). Results are reasonable and interesting enough to deserve publication. Maybe some graphical illustration of the findings would be beneficial to increase attractiveness of the results part.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added a new Figure 5 to provide a condensed summary of the main conclusion of our study.  

(8). I especially appreciate that the limitations of the study are included (probably doesn´t have to be as a separate part).

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have moved the Limitations and Future Studies to the end of the Conclusion section. We have also revised and expanded the two paragraphs.

(9). It is please possible to structure Discussion for social, economic and environmental benefits?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have included paragraphs to assess the findings of the social, economic, and environmental benefits in the conclusion section.

(10). Please expand more on practical implications in the Conclusion.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included the practical implications of the study in the conclusion section.

I hope the authors will find my comments useful. Let me wish the authors all the best for the work on the revision. As the manuscript is very well developed, I recommend a minor revision.

Response: We are extremely grateful for your helpful comments to improve our manuscript.