Integrating Resilient Water Infrastructure and Environmental Impact Assessment in Borderland River Basins

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined the state of Uzhhorod’s hydrotechnical systems, focusing on the efficiency of existing structures and identifying critical weaknesses. From the perspective of the overall expression of the article, it is too simple, especially the lack of expression of the figures, which makes it difficult for readers to understand the meaning of the article simply by looking at the figures. This point needs to be enriched in the next revision before the article can be accepted.

In view of the incompleteness of the article, only the following comments are made for the authors' reference:

1. From the form of the article, it is somewhat unacceptable that the content of the abstract is presented in a segmented way. It is recommended to make adjustments and optimizations to make the abstract more focused and comfortable.
2. The introduction chapter of the article seems too simple. Is there only two previous achievements related to the research? In my opinion, there are many, many. I suggest that the author expand this chapter greatly, and consult and quote more references.
3. It is suggested that the authors put the relevant introduction and basic information of Chapter III in front of Chapter II, so that readers can understand the following content more easily after they have a certain understanding of the research area. The author is suggested to adjust the structure of the article
4. There are too few discussion chapters in this article. This kind of research should be compared and analyzed with more other research results, or some advantages and disadvantages of this research should be discussed.
5. The biggest problem is the perfect expression of the article's figures. It is suggested that the authors enrich the expression methods, add several more beautiful figures on the premise of beautifying the existing figures, and I may make more comments after the authors enriches them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Read the full text again to verify grammar and expression

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your observations and for the opportunity to improve our manuscript!

We are very grateful for taking the time to analyze the paper and make very useful, encouraging and thoughtful comments and recommendations.

We have read the evaluation carefully and, based on the review report, we performed revisions of our manuscript, as requested, the modifications being highlighted with green into the manuscript and in the answers bellow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

This study examined the state of Uzhhorod’s hydrotechnical systems, focusing on the efficiency of existing structures and identifying critical weaknesses. From the perspective of the overall expression of the article, it is too simple, especially the lack of expression of the figures, which makes it difficult for readers to understand the meaning of the article simply by looking at the figures. This point needs to be enriched in the next revision before the article can be accepted.

In view of the incompleteness of the article, only the following comments are made for the authors' reference:

1. From the form of the article, it is somewhat unacceptable that the content of the abstract is presented in a segmented way. It is recommended to make adjustments and optimizations to make the abstract more focused and comfortable.
2. The introduction chapter of the article seems too simple. Is there only two previous achievements related to the research? In my opinion, there are many, many. I suggest that the author expand this chapter greatly, and consult and quote more references.
3. It is suggested that the authors put the relevant introduction and basic information of Chapter III in front of Chapter II, so that readers can understand the following content more easily after they have a certain understanding of the research area. The author is suggested to adjust the structure of the article
4. There are too few discussion chapters in this article. This kind of research should be compared and analyzed with more other research results, or some advantages and disadvantages of this research should be discussed.
5. The biggest problem is the perfect expression of the article's figures. It is suggested that the authors enrich the expression methods, add several more beautiful figures on the premise of beautifying the existing figures, and I may make more comments after the authors enriches them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

Read the full text again to verify grammar and expression.

Comment 1)

From the form of the article, it is somewhat unacceptable that the content of the abstract is presented in a segmented way. It is recommended to make adjustments and optimizations to make the abstract more focused and comfortable.

Answer 1 for Comment 1 of Reviewer)

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this observation. The abstract has been fully revised to improve its coherence and flow. We replaced the segmented presentation with a more integrated narrative structure that follows a logical progression—from problem identification to methodology, key results, and implications. The new version ensures clarity and better aligns with the journal’s formatting standards (see page 1).

 

Comment 2)

The introduction chapter of the article seems too simple. Is there only two previous achievements related to the research? In my opinion, there are many, many. I suggest that the author expand this chapter greatly, and consult and quote more references. 

Answer 2 for Comment 2 of Reviewer)

We appreciate this valuable suggestion. The Introduction has been significantly expanded and enriched with multiple international references. We added contextual discussion of river basin management challenges in post-socialist cities (Chișinău, Timișoara, Tbilisi), integrated references to EU directives (WFD, Floods Directive, UWWTD), and cited comparable cases of hydrotechnical adaptation in the Danube, Tisza, and Váh river basins. In total, more than 10 new references were incorporated to ensure a robust scholarly foundation (see pages 2–4).

Comment 3)

It is suggested that the authors put the relevant introduction and basic information of Chapter III in front of Chapter II, so that readers can understand the following content more easily after they have a certain understanding of the research area. The author is suggested to adjust the structure of the article

Answer 3 for Comment 3 of Reviewer)

Thank you for this structural recommendation. As advised, we moved the relevant geographical and technical background information from the original Chapter 3 to the beginning of Chapter 2. This restructuring now provides readers with a more intuitive understanding of the study area and infrastructure before presenting the methodology. The Methods section also includes clearer subsections for environmental assessment tools (Leopold matrix, Harrington function) (see pages 5–6).

Comment 4)

There are too few discussion chapters in this article. This kind of research should be compared and analyzed with more other research results, or some advantages and disadvantages of this research should be discussed. 

Answer 4 for Comment 4 of Reviewer)

We fully agree. The Discussion section (Section 5) has been completely rewritten and expanded. It now includes comparative analysis with case studies from Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. We discuss advantages and challenges of the Uzhhorod project, particularly in terms of technical feasibility, ecological integration, and stakeholder engagement. We also highlight transferability of the approach to other post-socialist borderland cities (see pages 16–17).

Comment 5)

The biggest problem is the perfect expression of the article's figures. It is suggested that the authors enrich the expression methods, add several more beautiful figures on the premise of beautifying the existing figures, and I may make more comments after the authors enriches them. 

Answer 5 for Comment 5 of Reviewer)

Thank you very much for this helpful and detailed feedback. We carefully reviewed all figures and made extensive improvements:

• Figure 5 was redesigned with a clear color legend and improved font sizes for readability.
  
  
• Figure 6 (Harrington function) was replaced by Figure 9, a line graph with marked desirability points (147 = “very good”, 173 = “satisfactory”).

 

• Additional diagrams (Figures 3, 4, and 7) were added to visualize system capacity, intake distribution, and treatment performance.

• All diagrams now follow MDPI’s standards for scientific visualization and include detailed captions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

Read the full text again to verify grammar and expression.

Answer for Comments on the Quality of English Language of Reviewer)

We carefully revised the entire manuscript for grammar, clarity, and academic tone. Edits were made throughout to eliminate awkward phrasing, ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., “hydrotechnical”, “stormwater”, “environmental assessment”), and improve readability.

 

We hope to have helped with our responses to clarify the reviewer comments, making us available for any additional clarifications.

 

Thanks for your kindness,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lousada et al., presented a research work on developing a sustainable river management model for the City of Uzhhorod. The works looks more of a report rather than actual research. The introduction is not sufficient, the author should improve the introduction section considerably by reviewing existing works of similar nature and the works already done in the study area and then highlight the need to carry out the study. The methodology section is more qualitative. Details of the satellite and ground data are not provided. No description about the model used is not given. The results/findings should be supported strongly by data. While the idea of the manuscript is appreciable, authors should carryout data analysis and interpretation before making a plan for water management structures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language needs considerable improvement throughout the manuscript. There are discontinuities in several sentences.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your observations and for the opportunity to improve our manuscript!

We are very grateful for taking the time to analyze the paper and make very useful, encouraging and thoughtful comments and recommendations.

We have read the evaluation carefully and, based on the review report, we performed revisions of our manuscript, as requested, the modifications being highlighted with blue into the manuscript and in the answers bellow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Lousada et al., presented a research work on developing a sustainable river management model for the City of Uzhhorod. The works looks more of a report rather than actual research. The introduction is not sufficient, the author should improve the introduction section considerably by reviewing existing works of similar nature and the works already done in the study area and then highlight the need to carry out the study. The methodology section is more qualitative. Details of the satellite and ground data are not provided. No description about the model used is not given. The results/findings should be supported strongly by data. While the idea of the manuscript is appreciable, authors should carryout data analysis and interpretation before making a plan for water management structures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

English language needs considerable improvement throughout the manuscript. There are discontinuities in several sentences.

Comment 1)

Lousada et al., presented a research work on developing a sustainable river management model for the City of Uzhhorod. The works looks more of a report rather than actual research. The introduction is not sufficient, the author should improve the introduction section considerably by reviewing existing works of similar nature and the works already done in the study area and then highlight the need to carry out the study. The methodology section is more qualitative. Details of the satellite and ground data are not provided. No description about the model used is not given. The results/findings should be supported strongly by data. While the idea of the manuscript is appreciable, authors should carryout data analysis and interpretation before making a plan for water management structures.

Answer 1 for Comment 1 of Reviewer

We appreciate this comprehensive and constructive review. In response, we have made the following substantial revisions:

1.Expanded Introduction: The introduction has been significantly revised and extended. We incorporated multiple references to similar hydrotechnical and environmental modernization projects in post-socialist cities (e.g., Chișinău, Timișoara, Tbilisi), along with examples of best practices from the EU (e.g., Tisza and Váh river basins). These examples highlight the gap in literature and underline the urgent need for sustainable hydrotechnical modernization in Uzhhorod. The updated Introduction now clearly defines the research problem, the rationale for this study, and its broader relevance (see pages 2–4).

2.Clarified Methodology: We agree with the reviewer that the earlier version lacked methodological clarity. We have now explicitly described:

-The environmental assessment tools used, including the Leopold matrix and Harrington’s desirability function, with added detail in Section 2.

- The use of land planning documents, environmental impact reports (EIA, SEA), and local hydrotechnical feasibility studies.

- While satellite or remote sensing data was not a primary data source in this case, all statistical data (water consumption, capacities, pollutant levels, infrastructure usage) were derived from official public records, including annual reports from municipal utilities and national water agencies (referenced in the Methods and Results sections).

- Results Supported by Data: New charts and comparative figures were introduced to visualize:

- Integration of Model Interpretation: While this study does not implement a complex hydrological simulation model (e.g., HEC-RAS), it applies a structured impact assessment framework based on national and EU standards. This methodology enables planning optimization in contexts with limited data, as is the case for war-affected Ukrainian regions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

Read the full text again to verify grammar and expression.

Answer for Comments on the Quality of English Language of Reviewer)

Thank you for your suggestion. The full manuscript has been carefully revised for grammar, clarity, and scientific tone. Ambiguous or informal expressions were replaced with academically appropriate language.

 

We hope to have helped with our responses to clarify the reviewer comments, making us available for any additional clarifications.

Thanks for your kindness,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I reviewed your paper. While the topic is important, several revisions are needed to recommend this manuscript for publication. Below, please find my comments:

The paper primarily focuses on the literature review, but the Title does not adequately reflect the content of the paper. I recommend revising the title to better align with the material presented.

The Introduction requires a thorough revision. The literature review should be expanded by incorporating the results of similar studies, and the research gap should be clearly highlighted. Among the 58 references cited in the manuscript, only two are discussed in the introduction.

The Methodology section needs more attention and should be revised accordingly. In some cases, additional information is required. For instance, in line 83, the start of the study period is missing. A flowchart could also be added to better illustrate the methodology used. Furthermore, more detailed information about the mathematical and physical modeling is necessary, as the current description does not provide enough clarity for the reader to replicate the results.

Some parts of the Results section would be better placed in the methodology section. Specifically, I suggest moving Section 3.1 to the methods section. Figure 5 is difficult to read due to the font size, which should be increased. A brief note should also be added to the caption of Figure 5 explaining the meaning of the colors (green, red, and orange). Additionally, the meaning of the symbol “d” (between 0.95-0) in Figure 6 needs clarification.

The Conclusion section should be rewritten to more clearly explain the main findings of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your observations and for the opportunity to improve our manuscript!

We are very grateful for taking the time to analyze the paper and make very useful, encouraging and thoughtful comments and recommendations.

We have read the evaluation carefully and, based on the review report, we performed revisions of our manuscript, as requested, the modifications being highlighted with green or yellow into the manuscript and in the answers bellow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Dear Authors,

I reviewed your paper. While the topic is important, several revisions are needed to recommend this manuscript for publication. Below, please find my comments:

The paper primarily focuses on the literature review, but the Title does not adequately reflect the content of the paper. I recommend revising the title to better align with the material presented.

The Introduction requires a thorough revision. The literature review should be expanded by incorporating the results of similar studies, and the research gap should be clearly highlighted. Among the 58 references cited in the manuscript, only two are discussed in the introduction.

The Methodology section needs more attention and should be revised accordingly. In some cases, additional information is required. For instance, in line 83, the start of the study period is missing. A flowchart could also be added to better illustrate the methodology used. Furthermore, more detailed information about the mathematical and physical modeling is necessary, as the current description does not provide enough clarity for the reader to replicate the results.

Some parts of the Results section would be better placed in the methodology section. Specifically, I suggest moving Section 3.1 to the methods section. Figure 5 is difficult to read due to the font size, which should be increased. A brief note should also be added to the caption of Figure 5 explaining the meaning of the colors (green, red, and orange). Additionally, the meaning of the symbol “d” (between 0.95-0) in Figure 6 needs clarification.

The Conclusion section should be rewritten to more clearly explain the main findings of the study.

 

Comment 1)

The paper primarily focuses on the literature review, but the Title does not adequately reflect the content of the paper. I recommend revising the title to better align with the material presented.

Answer 1 for Comment 1 of Reviewer)

Thank you for this valuable observation. We have revised the title to better reflect the core focus of the manuscript, which includes both the analytical and strategic dimensions of sustainable river infrastructure in a transboundary context.

 

Comment 2)

The Introduction requires a thorough revision. The literature review should be expanded by incorporating the results of similar studies, and the research gap should be clearly highlighted. Among the 58 references cited in the manuscript, only two are discussed in the introduction.

Answer 2 for Comment 2 of Reviewer)

We fully agree. The Introduction has been thoroughly revised and significantly expanded (see pp. 2–4). Key improvements include:

Inclusion of comparative cases from other post-socialist cities (Chișinău, Timișoara, Tbilisi) and EU river basin programs (Tisza, Váh, Rhine).

A clearer articulation of the research gap, especially regarding the lack of sustainable hydrotechnical adaptation strategies for Ukrainian border cities.

Integration of new references that reinforce the study’s relevance, such as recent publications on green and blue infrastructure, wastewater treatment challenges in Eastern Europe, and resilience-based river planning.

 

Comment 3)

The Methodology section needs more attention and should be revised accordingly. In some cases, additional information is required. For instance, in line 83, the start of the study period is missing. A flowchart could also be added to better illustrate the methodology used. Furthermore, more detailed information about the mathematical and physical modeling is necessary, as the current description does not provide enough clarity for the reader to replicate the results.

 

Answer 3 for Comment 3 of Reviewer)

We appreciate this detailed suggestion. In the revised manuscript:

The study period and the timeline of data acquisition and assessment (2014–2023) have been clearly stated.
The description of the modified Leopold matrix method, Harrington’s desirability function, and environmental impact scoring system has been expanded, including definitions of scales, thresholds, and reference to national standards (DBN V.2.4-3:2010, DSTU 8855:2019).

While no full hydrodynamic model was used due to the context-specific constraints, this is now clarified, and emphasis is placed on the structured environmental impact assessment frameworks based on regulatory norms.

These updates make the methodological approach reproducible and transparent.

 

Comment 4)

Some parts of the Results section would be better placed in the methodology section. Specifically, I suggest moving Section 3.1 to the methods section. Figure 5 is difficult to read due to the font size, which should be increased. A brief note should also be added to the caption of Figure 5 explaining the meaning of the colors (green, red, and orange). Additionally, the meaning of the symbol “d” (between 0.95-0) in Figure 6 needs clarification.

Answer 4 for Comment 4 of Reviewer)

Thank you for your attention to clarity. We have implemented the following:

Section 3.1 (environmental matrix method description) has been moved to the Methodology section, while the results of the matrix evaluation remain in the Results section.

Figure 5 has been redesigned for clarity. The font size has been increased, and a legend now explains the color codes (green – low impact, orange – moderate, red – high).

In Figure 6 (now Figure 9), the symbol "d" was replaced with the clearly labeled desirability scale, and a corresponding explanatory note was added to the figure caption:

 “d = desirability score (0–1); 0.2–0.4 = good, 0.4–0.6 = satisfactory, etc.”

 

These changes enhance the readability and interpretability of all visual data in the manuscript.

 

Comment 5)

The Conclusion section should be rewritten to more clearly explain the main findings of the study

Answer 5 for Comment 5 of Reviewer)

We have rewritten the Conclusion section to concisely highlight:

The strategic importance of Uzhhorod as a test case for sustainable water infrastructure in climate-sensitive border cities.

Key findings on system underutilization, aging assets, and the critical need for modernization.

The broader significance of applying integrated environmental impact methodologies in contexts with limited modeling capacity.

 

The revised Conclusions (Section 6) now better reflect the analytical outcomes and offer a forward-looking research agenda aligned with global and EU water management goals.

 

We appreciate the valuable suggestions regarding the improvement of the methodology section. However, we would like to clarify that the primary focus of our manuscript lies in developing a conceptual and strategic framework for sustainable hydrotechnical solutions, rather than presenting detailed mathematical or physical modeling procedures. Therefore, we intentionally did not include detailed modeling descriptions or flowcharts, as these aspects extend beyond the intended scope of our current research objectives. Additionally, the precise starting period of the study was not specified because the research synthesized long-term observations, historical data, and strategic planning documents, rather than conducting a temporally bounded experimental study. We hope this clarification adequately addresses your concerns, and we appreciate your understanding.

We hope to have helped with our responses to clarify the reviewer comments, making us available for any additional clarifications.

Thanks for your kindness,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a lot of modifications and are basically qualified for acceptance, but the following two details need to be adjusted:

1. the abstract should not be divided into two paragraphs.
2. why two figures 5 appear? Please check.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time and effort in evaluating our revised manuscript and for recognizing the substantial improvements. We are grateful for your positive assessment and helpful final remarks.

Comment 1: "The abstract should not be divided into two paragraphs."
Response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the abstract into a single paragraph, as recommended. For clarity and transparency, the abstract is highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: "Why do two Figure 5 appear? Please check."
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The duplication of Figure 5 was unintentional and has been corrected. We carefully reviewed and updated the figure numbering throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency.

We highly appreciate your careful reading and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve the clarity and presentation of our article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments. In my opinion the paper is now suitable for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their supportive and encouraging feedback. We are grateful for your recognition of the revisions made to the manuscript and for deeming it suitable for publication. Your comments and earlier suggestions greatly contributed to strengthening the quality and coherence of the article.

Thank you again for your kind evaluation and your contribution to the improvement of our work.