Planning and Evaluating Nature-Based Solutions for Watershed Investment Programs with a SMART Perspective Using a Distributed Modeling Tool

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a complex but well expressed paper in excellent English that develops a daily time-step and distributed modelling conceptual framework that enables the design and evaluation of the impact of Nature-based solution investment portfolios on water quantity and quality and demonstrates its application in the Arma watershed in the Cuenca Verde Watershed Investment Program.

 

The following comments are offered:

Line 4 -Spelling "modeling" is used in the title and at lines 17, 25, 49.69, 70 and many other places, but "modelling" in lines 42, 45, 80, 84, Table 1 and lines 551 and 561 of the text. Check spelling requirements of Journal and be consistent.

Line 62 – Replace “dissect” with “dissected”.

Line 75, Table 1. What is meant by “Ph. Pathogens”? Define abbreviation.

Line 62, Table 2 –

·         It is noted that the goal of “Specific Criteria” is to “define specific interventions”. I would have supposed that the goal was to achieve “specific outcomes”, for which one would than identify the specific interventions required to achieve those outcomes.

·         Define “M&E”. It appears that a footnote has been omitted.

·         In “Achievable Goals”, replace “weather “with “whether”.

·         In “Relevant”, replace “Most WIPs are voluntary transaction which not necessarily follows…” with  “Most WIPs are voluntary transactions which do not necessarily follow …”.

Line 481 under Table 4 – delete reference to the possibility of having a footnote unless one is necessary.

Line 495 – The caption is inadequate. It should define in general; terms, what the various topographical colours mean. The preceding text does not really explain the figure. What is meant by the differences shown in the “Final LULC” and “Portfolio” figures? Note the incorrect spelling of Portfolio on the lower figure.

Line 500 – Suggest that “paramo” be explained as the term is unlikely to be widely understood. (“alpine grassland”?)

Line 545 – Suggest further clarify whether “2015-2020” refers to the period of study, and the period for which degradation was detected, or did the study determine a much longer period of degradation trend

Line 556 – define “WQ” (also used in Figure 4 and at line 608)

Line 577 – Table 5 – Delete reference to footnote unless there should be one.

Line 622 reads “It is worth mentioning that instead selecting interventions based on faster establishment time led to marginal changes in the results.”. It is suggested it be reworded to say “…that instead by selecting interventions…”. (If the reader thinks you mean “…of interventions…”, it will have the opposite meaning.)

Lines 670-702 do not include any explanation as to why there are no simulated salinity (Electrical conductivity) estimates included in Figures 8 and 9.

Lines 714-717 read “It is important to note that these prioritizations are based on biophysical analysis within the water component of the monitoring and evaluation plan; other prioritization methodologies may incorporate the other NbS-delivered WIP objectives, such as biodiversity protection, greenhouse gas sequestration, and socioeconomic improvement.”. This is a particularly important statement, and it also raises the issue of what incentives might be considered in making investments and by whom. The paper appears to assume that all nature-based solutions are fully funded by public funds irrespective of land ownership up to the sum of money available. The paper could also discuss the scope for other forms of incentives, such as joint landowner / public funding, (in which case the public funds would go further) or the greater use of legal regulations as disincentives for  undesirable land management practices being continued by landowners. Whilst this discussion is recognised to be outside the priority setting biophysical modelling of the project, the topic could be included within the Conclusions section.

Line 788 states “…optimal intervention point is in a range between 50% and 80%.” Percentage of what? Clarify.

 

A few minor appoints of clarification are suggested - see response to authors

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. In the title, you may write "Development and Evaluation of Nature-based ....." because you have developed this model and written this software. Meanwhile, the first letter of the words should be either lower case or upper case; except the SMART.

2. The text is very well-written.

3. Title of the journals in the References section are not uniform; some are abbreviated and some are full.

3. Is the software written in English or Spanish?

4. Are the software and supplements freely available or they should be paid for?

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is too long.

The methods description may   be shorten a litlle-

The introduction is adequate-

The presentation of results and discussion are  suitable . But comparison with other studies  will be relevant The paper needs a  complete revision of the english-

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The  same as  for authors

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have responded positively to comments made on earlier draft, corrected minor problems and improved discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments from the authors fulfill the questions posed.

The paper is  in condition to be accepted for  publication