Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper titled “Mapping public-planner conflicts in SUDS implementation using cultural dimensions – A case study” provides research in order to aid the understanding of intercultural divergences between planning offices and public priorities in two regions in Norway. The authors take into account the climate change and urban flooding and provide sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to address the challenges in the urban environment. During this work, the authors combine a lot of data (literature review, documents, interviews etc) to evaluate the hazards. The manuscript is very interesting. The text needs some improvements.

My recommendation is minor revisions.

 

General comments

-Figure 1. Add coordinate system. Add a map to show the region.

-Figure 2. Please improve the figure. It is not clear what the reader should notice.

-Please summarize the input data in a table.

-I would like to see the results in a table.

-Conclusion: Provide the take home message in 2-3 paragraphs.

-What are gaps of your research and how can be handled in the next steps?

 

-Provide the innovation of the study. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Creating strong and climate-resilient cities is one of the most important goals of contemporary urban design. Cooperation between administration bodies and residents is often difficult due to differences in expectations. Building a properly balanced space with blue and green infrastructure is difficult and requires many arrangements, which is why the research presented by the authors is a valuable contribution to building and testing a package of tools for implementing the principles of sustainable development in the urban fabric. This implementation should always be based on social participation with the greatest possible acceptance of the city's inhabitants. The research presented by the authors fits this trend very well.
The studies were properly designed and presented. The logical structure and structure of the article does not raise objections. Figures and graphs are appropriate to the results presented. It is a pity that more research areas were not used to verify the results.
In my opinion, the work is complete and valuable. I recommend it for publication.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

There are few observations to your manuscript. Please see them in the attached file.

Best regards,

L.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for considering my observations. I do not have new comments.

Best regards