Historical Water Management Strategies—Case Study of Traditional Villages in Southern China, Hunan Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Historical water management strategies - a new path to sustainability:
· Add some of the most important quantitative results to the Abstract.
· Add/Replace the name of the study area with the Keywords.
· “The water collection volume is adjusted according to the precipitation, the size of the river, and the topographic characteristics of the landscape.”. Discuss more.
· In the Tables, highlight values that are more important and discuss them for better understanding readers.
· How can expand the results to other regions with similar/different climates?
· At the end of the manuscript, explain the implications and future works considering the outputs of the current study.
· The quality of the language needs to be improved in grammatical style and word use.
Author Response
Authors reply to Reviewer no 1
We would like to thank the reviewers for their reviews, suggestions and remarks. It has greatly improved the content, form and text.
We reworked the text integrating the specific remarks of all three reviewers and we have followed the ratings of the criteria: reviewer 1, reviewer 2, reviewer 3.
Point 1:
Add some of the important quantitative results to the Abstract.
Response 1: We have added the important quantitative results of the water collection amount.
Point 2:
Add/Replace the name of the study area with Key
Response 2: We have replaced the key words accordingly: “HuNan; cultural heritage; landscape values”
Point 3:
The water collection volume is adjusted according to the precipitation, the size of the river,and the topographic characteristics of the landscape , discuss more .
Response 3: We have discussed more about it in the summary, table 4
Point 4:
In the tables, highlight values that are more important and discuss them for better understanding readers.
Response 4: We have modified and explained more about the data from the tables.
Point 5:
How can expand the results to other regions with similar / different climates?
Response 5: The main result is that the presented water management strategies can work for storage and reuse of the rain water in China. Similarly, it can extend the time for the surface flow and reduce the chance and/or effect of flood.
Even for same climate regions, due to climate change the functional part need to be adjusted for the changing, local environmental parameters and conditions.
Some future studies are still needed, in order to focus on some practical issues, like contemporary adaptabilities of traditional rain harvesting methodologies in a global perspective. The new challenges of the climate change and urban sustainability rise up the importance of such traditional methods in the collection and use of rainwater. In European context, there are similar structural urban and landscape systems, which can be improved using the oriental traditions to increase the rain harvest facility. This is expected to mitigate among other positive effects, the urban flooding from climate change as well.
Point 6:
At the end of the manuscript explain the implications and future works considering the output of the current study
Response 6: We already explained about the future work in point no 5.
Point 7:
The quality of the language needs to be improved in grammatical style and word use.
Response 7: English review done.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of “Historical water management strategies - a new path to sustainability” by Ning DongGe, Yan JinBiao, Martin van den Toorn and Albert Fekete.
The authors review some physical characteristics of two villages: dwelling roof area and patio size, catchment size and topography, access to a river, and annual precipitation. They interpret the characteristics in terms of water collection, and further interpret the water collection in terms of traditional village site selection cultural ideas. They conclude that the two villages have different characteristics, but nevertheless both correspond to traditional water collection strategies. The authors suggest that the strategies are adaptable and sustainable.
I have very little knowledge of traditional Chinese ideas of settlement site selection or water collection ideas. Notwithstanding, this paper seems to me to be muddled. Much that is presented is not explained, leaving the reader with little idea as to why some things were done or what they mean. The paper fails to give key facts about the water requirements and collection of the villages, and also fails to consider alternative explanations for some of the facts that are given. There are also errors and inconsistencies in the paper. I therefore recommend that the paper be rejected. I give details below.
Inadequate explanation.
1. The actual water collection system used in the villages is not explained. The reader is left to deduce the system from the description of roofs as being water catchment areas. The river area is also mentioned, but it is not explained whether the villagers collect water from the river nor, if they do, how they collect it. Are there pipes and pumps to take water from the river? Is it carried in buckets? How much is taken from the river?
2. The average roof area of ShangGanTang (Roof 2, line 142) is about three times that of ZhangGuYing (Roof 1, line 141). Since the two villages have very similar annual rainfall (1353 mm ZhangGuYing for and 1426 mm for ShangGanTang, the similarity being expected for two villages not far apart), that means an average roof can collect about three times as much water in ShangGanTang as in ZhangGuYing. Why the difference? Does an average roof reflect the overall family dwelling size, which would then be three times greater in ShangGanTang than in ZhangGuYing? If that is the case, then why do families in ShangGanTang collect so much more water than those in ZhangGuYing? Or perhaps the design of houses is completely different in the two villages, with a family unit in ZhangGuYing having three roofs for each roof in ShangGanTang? If that is true, then why the difference in architecture? Such a difference in architecture would call into serious question the authors’ explanations about traditional cultural ideas about design. In the summary, it is stated on lines 224-227 that the water collection volume is adjusted according to various factors including the size of the river. This implies that the authors conclude that the smaller roof size in ZhangGuYing is due to the easier access to river water – but Table 3 gives a smaller ratio of river area to total area for ZhangGuYing than for ShangGanTang, which contradicts this implication. Furthermore, there could be other explanations for the smaller roof areas of ZhangGuYing, such as poorer households; such alternative explanations are not considered.
3. It is stated in the abstract that the catchment system composed of the surrounding landscape is part of the water management system. It is also mentioned on line 133 that the direction of surface runoff of the catchment was obtained. However, the catchment system is not explained. What is the relevance of the direction of surface runoff? How is the landscape catchment used for water collection? How much water is collected from it? Table 3 has figures for total area of water catchment, but, as I describe in point 9 below, these areas are far too small to be the landscape catchment area surrounding the village, and appear to be the total roof catchment areas of the village. The paper is about the domestic water supply system in the villages, though this is not actually explained. The villages are in rural landscapes, and parts of the landscape around them are used for paddy rice. This is a major water user in the landscape, probably using far more water than the villages. How does water management for rice paddies interact with the collection of water for use in the villages? This is not explained.
4. Water consumption in the villages is not explained. How much water is used in the villages? What is the population and the per-capita water use? Is the water system adequate? How much of the demand do the roofs supply? How much of the roof water has to be stored for the drier months of the year? How much water is actually stored?
5. The paper is about historical water management strategies and, in the abstract, describes that the strategy “… has been used until nowadays, with adaptability, low cost and sustainability”. Nowhere are any costs given. The paper gives neither the amount of water used nor the demand, nor the amount used as a fraction of that available. Without looking at the balance of use and supply, nothing can be said about sustainability. The adaptability is not explained. What has the system adapted to? Is it droughts? Has the water supply changed over time? How has the system adapted? What changes have taken place over time? How have water demand and use changed over time?
Errors and inconsistencies.
6. in Table 2, the area of Roof 1 is given as 1251 m2, and that of Roof 2 is given as 4242 m2. Lines 141 and 142 define Roof 1 as being for ZhangGuYing and Roof 2 as being for ShangGanTang. So, ZhangGuYing has a roof area of 1251 m2, and ShangGanTang has a roof area of 4242 m2. However, on line 169, the roof area of ZhangGuYing (1251 m2) is used to calculate the water collection of ShangGanTang. And on line 171, the roof area of ShangGanTang (4242 m2) is used to calculate the water collection of ZhangGuYing.
7. in line 149, the ratio of roof to patio area is given as 6.3367 for ZhangGuYing and 3.4667 for ShangGanTang. However, in Figure 3, 6.3367 is the slope of the line for P/R2 which means ShangGanTang, and 3.4667 is the slope of the line for P/R1 which means ZhangGuYing.
8. in Figure 4, the contour map for ShangGanTang is shown with longitude plotted in the Y direction (ie, up the page), whereas that for ZhangGuYing has longitude plotted in the X direction (across the page). The heights on the red and green cross sections for ShangGanTang are labelled as latitudes and no scale is given for either the x or y axis. The labels for the red and green cross sections for ZhangGuYing are unreadable. The scales for the two satellite images differ by a factor of approximately 1000, and again no scale is given. The x axes of the two satellite images each have two scales, which in the case of ShangGanTang differ by a factor of about 1,000,000.
9. in Table 3, the area of the water catchments is given as 16334 m2 for ZhangGuYing, and 34174 m2 for ShangGanTang. It is not made clear, but I think this water catchment is the total roof area of each village. It is certainly not the area of the landscape catchment surrounding each village, since the contour maps of Figure 4 (which are not of the whole catchment areas) cover areas of about 360,000 m2 (based on the lengths of the sides in latitude and longitude). If the catchment areas in Table 3 are the total roof areas, then this area should have been used in the water collection equations of lines 169 and 171, not the sum of areas from 34 houses in each village as given in Table 2. Furthermore, while the water catchment (total roof?) area of ShangGanTang is about double that of ZhangGuYing, it is stated in lines 178 – 179 that the total water catchment of Z village is greater than that in S village..
Author Response
Authors reply to Reviewer 2
We would like to thank the reviewers for their reviews, suggestions and remarks. It has greatly improved the content, form and text.
We reworked the text integrating the specific remarks of all three reviewers and we have followed the ratings of the criteria: reviewer 1, reviewer 2, reviewer 3.
Point 1:
The actual water collection system used in the villages is not explained. The reader is left to deduce the system from the description of roofs as being water catchment areas. The river area is also mentioned, but it is not explained whether the villagers collect water from the river nor, if they do, how they collect it. Are there pipes and pumps to take water from the river? Is it carried in buckets? How much is taken from the river?
Response 1: We have added a new picture to explain the water collection and storage system by Figure 1(b). As the picture shows, the villagers are not collecting water from the river; the drinking water is taking from the well (carried in buckets); they reuse the water collected in the patio or pool for daily activities (washing mainly). The pipes connected to the patio are used to conduct the rain water excess to storage pools and finally to the river.
Point 2:
â‘ The average roof area of ShangGanTang (Roof 2, line 142) is about three times that of ZhangGuYing (Roof 1, line 141). Since the two villages have very similar annual rainfall (1353 mm ZhangGuYing for and 1426 mm for ShangGanTang, the similarity being expected for two villages not far apart), that means an average roof can collect about three times as much water in ShangGanTang as in Z village, why the differences?
â‘¡Does an average roof reflect the overall family dwelling size, which would then be three times bigger in Shanggantang than in ZhangGuYing?if that is the case,Than why do families in ShangGanTang collect so much more water than those inZhangGuYing?
Or perhaps the design of houses is completely different in the two villages, with a family unit in ZhangGuYing having three roofs for each roof in ShangGanTang? If that is true, then why the difference in architecture? Such a difference in architecture would call into serious question the authors' explanations about traditional cultural ideas about design.
â‘¢ In the summary, it is stated on lines 224-227 that the water collection volume is adjusted according to various factors including the size of the river. This implies that the authors conclude that the smaller roof size in ZhangGuYing is due to the easier access to river water — but Table 3 gives a smaller ratio of river area to total area for ZhangGuYing than for ShangGanTang, which contradicts this implication.
â‘£Furthermore, there could be other explanations for the smaller roof areas of ZhangGuYing, such as poorer households; such alternative explanations are not considered.
Response 2: Most of the formulated questions are coming from misunderstand, caused by the wrong markage for P1 R1, P2 R2 in the Table 2. In order to clarify the fault, we added the village names to the Table 2, and we changed the equation; hopefully we made it this way more clear and understandable.
â‘ The right expression: “The average roof area of ZhangGuYing (Roof 2, line 142) is about three times that of ShangGanTang (Roof 1, line 141). (1353 mm ZhangGuYing for and 1426 mm for ShangGanTang), that means an average roof can collect about three times as much water in ZhangGuYing as in ShangGanTang village.”
â‘¡We explained (line 191-199):
The architectural design of the two village is different: Z village design called “DaWu” which means the whole village members as a clan family living in one big house, the S village is in same clan clustering situation, but DaWu is a special form to emphasize the bounds between the family members, it reflected in the design by connected each dwellings roof together. Both villages belong to the logic of clan settlement, but the architectural expression is different.
PS: For the clan settlement the “family” means the whole village members. Usually the leaders are the oldest, most experienced and morally cultivated. The others were allocated of social status and living space by age.
â‘¢ we added table 4 and explained it for easier understand.
â‘£ the two villages are traditional agriculture-based settlements, no big difference in poverty issues.
Based on the references, the ShangGanTang village was build earlier than ZhanGuYing, that could be the other explanations, but this research mainly about the water management strategies. So we are not focus on the architecture history or technology in this one.
Point 3:
â‘ It is stated in the abstract that the catchment system composed of the surrounding landscape is part of the water management system. It is also mentioned on line 133 that the direction of surface runoff of the catchment was obtained. However, the catchment system is not explained. What is the relevance of the direction of surface runoff? How is the landscape catchment used for water collection? How much water is collected from it?
â‘¡Table 3 has figures for total area of water catchment, but, as I describe in point 9 below, these areas are far too small to be the landscape catchment area surrounding the village, and appear to be the total roof catchment areas of the village.
â‘¢The paper is about the domestic water supply system in the villages, though this is not actually explained. The villages are in rural landscapes, and parts of the landscape around them are used for paddy rice. This is a major water user in the landscape, probably using far more water than the villages. How does water management for rice paddies interact with the collection of water for use in the villages? This is not explained.
Response 3
â‘ We revised the abstract, we explained the surface runoff in the topography analysis part, (under figure 4, above the Summary). About the catchment water collection amount: we need to define the whole catchment area first, which is not available from the 3D model. Unfortunately no available official datas for that. From other hand, this research mainly focus on the water management strategies at object level, investigating the traditional water harvesting solutions of the rainwater falling on the roof and patio of the buildings.
â‘¡we modified Table 3 for better understand; we also explained here the selection area as the total area.
â‘¢we explained this question under Table 1
Point 4
Water consumption in the villages is not explained. How much water is used in the villages? What is the population and the per-capita water use? Is the water system adequate? How much of the demand do the roofs supply? How much of the roof water has to be stored for the drier months of the year? How much water is actually stored?
Response 4: We explained this question under Table 1
Point 5
The paper is about historical water management strategies and, in the abstract, describes that the strategy “... has been used until nowadays, with adaptability, low cost and sustainability”. Nowhere are any costs given.
The paper gives neither the amount of water used nor the demand, nor the amount used as a fraction of that available. Without looking at the balance of use and supply, nothing can be said about sustainability.
The adaptability is not explained. What has the system adapted to? Is it droughts? Has the water supply changed over time? How has the system adapted? What changes have taken place over time? How have water demand and use changed over time?
Response 5
This rain harvest system was based on the local cultural and architectural design, it was keep functioning well since the village established, (S village 827CE, Z village 1562CE). That means it is a successful and sustainable water management strategy.
The water management strategies are part of the landscape heritage, already built, only need good maintenance, that means low costs.
For nowadays it has much values/insights for us to deal with climate change; this system is efficient for water storage in one hand, in other hand it also will decrease the inner flood because its multiple storage function. This part we will explain much more another research.
We explained at table 4 the adaptation of the system to the precipitation, river size (capacity) and topography.
We already calculated the rain harvest capacity under ideal conditions, the other data were unavailable until now.
Point 6
in Table 2, the area of Roof 1 is given as 1251 m2, and that of Roof 2 is given as 4242 . Lines 141 and 142 define Roof 1 as being for ZhangGuYing and Roof 2 as being for ShangGanTang. So, ZhangGuYing has a roof area of 1251, and ShangGanTang has a roof area of 4242However, on line 169, the roof area of ZhangGuYing (1251 is used to calculate the water collection ofShangGanTang. And on line 171, the roof area of ShangGanTang (4242 is used to calculate the water collection of ZhangGuYing.
Response 6: we fixed the mistake
Point 7
In line 149, the ratio of roof to patio area is given as 6.3367 for ZhangGuYing and 3.4667 for ShangGanTang. However, in Figure 3, 6.3367 is the slope of the line for P/R2 which means ShangGanTang, and 3.4667 is the slope of the line for P/R1 which means ZhangGuYing.
Response 7: we fixed the mistake
Point 8
in Figure 4, the contour map for ShangGanTang is shown with longitude plotted in the Y direction (ie, up the page), whereas that for ZhangGuYing has longitude plotted in the X direction (across the page). The heights on the red and green cross sections for ShangGanTang are labelled as latitudes (altitude) and no scale is given for either the x or y axis. The labels for the red and green cross sections for ZhangGuYing are unreadable. The scales for the two satellite images differ by a factor of approximately 1000, and again no scale is given. The x axes of the two satellite images each have no scales, which in the case of ShangGanTang differ by a factor of about 1,000,000.
Response 8: we edited the Figure 4
Point 9
In Table 3, the area of the water catchments is given as 16334for ZhangGuYing, and 34174 for ShangGanTang. It is not made clear, but I think this water catchment is the total roof area of each village. It is certainly not the area of the landscape catchment surrounding each village, since the contour maps of Figure 4 (which are not of the whole catchment areas) cover areas of about 360,000 (based on the lengths of the sides in latitude and longitude). If the catchment areas in Table 3 are the total roof areas, then this area should have been used in the water collection equations of lines 169 and 171, not the sum of areas from 34 houses in each village as given in Table 2. Furthermore, while the water catchment (total roof?) area of ShangGanTang is about double that of ZhangGuYing, it is stated in lines 178 — 179 that the total water catchment of Z village is greater than that in S village.
Response 9: we explained more about that under the Table 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors!
1. The title of the article sounds like a global review. In reality, the article focuses on water management systems in villages in southern China. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the title and the content of the work.
2. It is not clear how the study that is mostly related to the analysis of relief morphometry, is related to water management. Most of the theses are declarative and are not supported by specific studies of the authors.
3. There is no Conclusions section in the article. It needs to be added.
Thus, I think that the article requires deep revision.
Author Response
Authors reply to Reviewer 3
We would like to thank the reviewers for their reviews, suggestions and remarks. It has greatly improved the content, form and text.
We reworked the text integrating the specific remarks of all three reviewers and we have followed the ratings of the criteria: reviewer 1, reviewer 2, reviewer 3.
Point 1 The title of the article sounds like a global review. Inreality, the article focuses on water management systems in villages in southern China. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the title and the content of the work.
Response 1: we edited the title.
Point 2 It is not clear how the study that is mostly related to the analysis of relief morphometry, is related to water management. Most of the theses are declarative and are not supported by specific studies of the authors.
Response 2: the figure 2 shows the research process from survey to analysis.
Point 3 There is no Conclusions section in the article. It needs to be added.
Response 3: we added conclusion section
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Acceptable.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review, accepting the answers and the article in its improved form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript fixes errors and inconsistencies that I noted in the first review. What we have now is a paper in which the authors suggest that a traditional water collection / village design system explains a large (three-fold) difference in the water collection area (total roof area). I know nothing about traditional Chinese water collection or village design ideas and I do not feel qualified to judge this assertion. However, aspects of the authors' claims make no sense to me. In table 4, we see that the precipitation in the two villages is nearly the same (they differ by only about 5 %); this is hardly likely to explain a three-fold difference in roof area. Table 4 also shows that the river size differs by approximately three times; but the authors write that no water is collected from the river, so this seems irrelevant. I am left with no understanding as to why one village chooses a roof area three times that of the other, and hence has three times the water collection capacity. Is it because of a different population? Does the village with the greater roof area have more inhabitants and hence a need to collect more water? Since I do not understand the authors' assertions, I can make no recommendations about this paper. The journal review submission system forces me to choose a recommendation, so I choose one which will force the authors to think about why I cannot understand their assertions - namely, I choose reject. However, I am not actually recommending rejection; to repeat, I am making no recommendation. But please think about why the roof areas differ by a factor of three. It isn't the precipitation, which is nearly the same in the two villages (only 5% different). It isn't the river, because you tell me that no water is collected from the river. So what is it?
Author Response
Point 1:
The actual water collection system used in the villages is not explained. The reader is left to deduce the system from the description of roofs as being water catchment areas. The river area is also mentioned, but it is not explained whether the villagers collect water from the river nor, if they do, how they collect it. Are there pipes and pumps to take water from the river? Is it carried in buckets? How much is taken from the river?
Response 1: We have added a new picture to explain the water collection and storage system by Figure 1(b). The villagers are not collecting or using water from the river. As the picture shows, the drinking water is taking from the well (carried in buckets); they reuse the water collected in the patio or pool for daily activities (washing mainly), another aspect is, that the stored water was used occasionally for accidental fire (due to the building materials are wooden based, which easily catch fire). The pipes connected to the patio are used to conduct the rain water excess to storage pools and finally to the river. This process extends the time for the water flow, having the potential to decrease the inner flood in the settlement (the accurate data regarding to this aspect needs further research). This research focuses on the most basic aspect of the rain water harvest: to calculate the amount of water it can be collected and stored in ideal situation and to explaine the design principles of this traditional rainwater harvesting system and its ancient relationship with the settlement structure (the traditional water management strategy). It can be an inspiration for dealing with nowadays climate change situation in aglobal context as well, in other places in the world (Europe for example).
Point 2:
â‘ The average roof area of ShangGanTang (Roof 2, line 142) is about three times that of ZhangGuYing (Roof 1, line 141). Since the two villages have very similar annual rainfall (1353 mm ZhangGuYing for and 1426 mm for ShangGanTang, the similarity being expected for two villages not far apart), that means an average roof can collect about three times as much water in ShangGanTang as in Z village, why the differences?
â‘¡Does an average roof reflect the overall family dwelling size, which would then be three times bigger in Shanggantang than in ZhangGuYing? If that is the case,Than why do families in ShangGanTang collect so much more water than those inZhangGuYing?
Or perhaps the design of houses is completely different in the two villages, with a family unit in ZhangGuYing having three roofs for each roof in ShangGanTang? If that is true, then why the difference in architecture? Such a difference in architecture would call into serious question the authors' explanations about traditional cultural ideas about design.
â‘¢ In the summary, it is stated on lines 224-227 that the water collection volume is adjusted according to various factors including the size of the river. This implies that the authors conclude that the smaller roof size in ZhangGuYing is due to the easier access to river water — but Table 3 gives a smaller ratio of river area to total area for ZhangGuYing than for ShangGanTang, which contradicts this implication.
â‘£Furthermore, there could be other explanations for the smaller roof areas of ZhangGuYing, such as poorer households; such alternative explanations are not considered.
Response 2: Most of the formulated questions are coming from misunderstand, caused by the wrong marked for P1 R1, P2 R2 in the Table 2.
In order to clarify the fault, we added the village names to the Table 2, and we changed the equation; hopefully we made it this way more clear and understandable.
â‘ The right expression: “The average roof area of ZhangGuYing (Roof 2, line 142) is about three times that of ShangGanTang (Roof 1, line 141). (1353 mm ZhangGuYing for and 1426 mm for ShangGanTang), that means an average roof can collect about three times as much water in ZhangGuYing as in ShangGanTang village.” In addition to architectural history reasons, the differences was caused by the different adoptions to the environmental conditions of the settlements (the precipitation, the topography, the river size etc).
â‘¡We explained (line 191-199):
The architectural design of the two village is different: Z village design called “DaWu” which means the whole village members as a clan family living in one big house; S village is in same clan clustering situation, but DaWu is a special form to emphasize the bounds between the family members, it reflected in the design by connected each dwellings roof together.
Both villages belong to the logic of clan settlement, but the architectural expression is different.
PS: For the clan settlement the “family” means the whole village members. Usually the leaders are the oldest, most experienced and morally cultivated. The others were allocated of social status and living space by age.
Here we attached Figure 1 to explain (PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED WORD FILE)
Figure 1. Spatial order of clan settlements
③ we add table 4 and explained it for easier understand. For Z village, the Precipitation is 1353mm, lower than S village, and the river size is 1125.23㎡ Also smaller than S village, the highest point is around 150 m, lower than S village; thus, the Z village adjusted the roof size, maximum the rainwater collection function.
â‘£ The two villages are traditional agriculture-based settlements, no big difference in poverty issues. Based on the references, the ShangGanTang village was build earlier than ZhanGuYing (S village 827CE, Z village 1562CE), that could be the other explanations from the aspect of architecture history or building technology, but this research mainly about the water management strategies. And considering that the architecture and planning of the two settlements can still present water management functionality after a long history. So, we are not focus on the architecture history or technology but the water management strategies and function in this research.
Point 3:
â‘ It is stated in the abstract that the catchment system composed of the surrounding landscape is part of the water management system. It is also mentioned on line 133 that the direction of surface runoff of the catchment was obtained. However, the catchment system is not explained. What is the relevance of the direction of surface runoff? How is the landscape catchment used for water collection? How much water is collected from it?
â‘¡Table 3 has figures for total area of water catchment, but, as I describe in point 9 below, these areas are far too small to be the landscape catchment area surrounding the village, and appear to be the total roof catchment areas of the village.
â‘¢The paper is about the domestic water supply system in the villages, though this is not actually explained. The villages are in rural landscapes, and parts of the landscape around them are used for paddy rice. This is a major water user in the landscape, probably using far more water than the villages. How does water management for rice paddies interact with the collection of water for use in the villages? This is not explained.
Response 3
â‘ We revised the abstract, we explained the surface runoff in the topography analysis part, (under figure 4, above the Summary). The location of the settlement is part of the: adaptive to Topography strategies. The surface runoff was considered during the settlement planning. ZhangGuYing Village is relatively flat, while ShangGanTang Village is a typical traditional Feng Shui layout, surrounded by hills on three sides and a river on one side. In this landscape setting, the planners of the traditional settlement fully considered the water management strategies.
For ShangGanTang Village, due to the proximity to the river, the river flow is high, and the surface runoff path of the mountain needs to pass through the settlement. Analyzing Figure 4, it is clearly understandable that the adjustment of the collection capacity of rainwater is low, which is conducive to preventing waterlogging. For ZhanGuYing Village, the altitude is lower (Table 3). The average annual precipitation is low, the surface runoff is slow, and the settlements are distributed along the two sides of the stream so that the water collection function can be maximized.
About the catchment amount: we need to define the whole catchment area first, which is not available from the 3D model. Unfortunatelly, no available official data for that. From other hand, this research mainly focuses on the water management strategies at object level, investigating the traditional water harvesting solutions of the rainwater falling on the roof and patio of the buildings.
â‘¡ We modified Table 3 for better understand; we also explained here the selection area as the total area. In Table 3, using the Acute3D tool selected the area including the 34 dwellings and part of the river that flows through the settlement as the total area, and comparing the river area with the selection area of the study area, we found that the river area ratio in Z village is 6ï¼…, much smaller than that in S Village 10ï¼…, and the precipitation in Village Z 1353mm is lower than that in S Village 1426mm, so the theoretical water collection in Z village can increase significantly larger than in S Village. Combined with local interviews, the number of floods in the village was also higher in S than in Z village. For S villages, the flood control function is more important, so the patio and roof are smaller than in Z villages; thus, the meteorological analysis supported the hypothesis.
â‘¢We explained this question under Table 1
The rainwater collection and storage system mainly have three parts：
- The rain harvesting roof
- The patio and underground pipe connection
- The water storage pool
As we can see from Figure 1b, the rainwater was collected by the roof from 4 directions, falling down to the patio, each patio being connected by the underground pipe system, and drained into the river or storage pool. Some part of the water after infiltration goes down (underground), and the water which was left at the patio can be used for daily purposes (for washing, for microclimate amelioration of the courtyards, etc.). Less for drinking, as far as the drinking water got from the well. Due to the traditionally used wooden construction materials of the villages, the water from the pond is also used in case of accidental fire.
The villages are located in rural landscapes, representing the organic part of the landscape, which has as its main use paddy rice production. The rice field has a totally independent water supply system called the rice canal, which is connected to the river. For the whole research area, this study will explain the function of the different parts of the water management system used in the village. The data analysis will only focus on the rain harvest part to calculate the amount of water collection and compare the two villages for the similarities and differences in water management strategies.
Point 4
Water consumption in the villages is not explained. How much water is used in the villages? What is the population and the per-capita water use? Is the water system adequate? How much of the demand do the roofs supply? How much of the roof water has to be stored for the drier months of the year? How much water is actually stored?
Response 4:
The water consumption data in the villages is not available yet. This research is not about the current water use situation in the villages. We only focus on the water management strategies and try to figure out what's the adaption for the different environment, the much valuable aspect is this strategy can provide the solutions for the climate change adaption.
We intend to do the next research about how it can fit in some European cities (for ex Budapest, Vienna)
We explained this question under Table 1 and under Meteorological analysis.
Rainwater amount collection
S village yearly average perception（roof） 1426mm/㎡ *1251㎡ =1783.93 L
August（max）： 255 mm/㎡ = 319 L
Z village yearly average perception（roof）1 353mm/㎡ *4242㎡ = 5739.4L
August（max）： 172.9 mm/㎡ = 733.44L
Point 5
The paper is about historical water management strategies and, in the abstract, describes that the strategy “... has been used until nowadays, with adaptability, low cost and sustainability”. Nowhere are any costs given.
The paper gives neither the amount of water used nor the demand, nor the amount used as a fraction of that available. Without looking at the balance of use and supply, nothing can be said about sustainability.
The adaptability is not explained. What has the system adapted to? Is it droughts? Has the water supply changed over time? How has the system adapted? What changes have taken place over time? How have water demand and use changed over time?
Response 5
This rain harvest system was based on the local cultural and architectural design, it was keep functioning well since the village established, (S village 827CE, Z village 1562CE). Considering, that the architecture and design of the two settlements still exist and still have water management functions after a long history.That means it is a successful and sustainable water management strategy.
The water management strategies are part of the landscape heritage, already built, only need good maintenance, and for the same structures, the same rain harvesting logic can be applied that means low costs.
For nowadays it has much values/insights for us to deal with climate change; this system is efficient for water storage in one hand, in other hand it also will decrease the inner flood because its multiple storage function. This part we will explain much more another research.
We explained at table 4 the adaptation of the system to the precipitation, river size (capacity) and topography.
Table 4. The comparative analysis of two village
|
|
Precipitation |
River size |
Topography (Height) |
Water collection capacity |
|
ZhangGuYing |
1353mm |
1125.23㎡ |
150m |
5739.4L |
|
ShangGanTang |
1426mm |
3745.28㎡ |
280m |
1789.93L |
We already calculated the rain harvest capacity under ideal conditions, the other data were unavailable until now.
Point 6
in Table 2, the area of Roof 1 is given as 1251 m2, and that of Roof 2 is given as 4242. Lines 141 and 142 define Roof 1 as being for ZhangGuYing and Roof 2 as being for ShangGanTang. So, ZhangGuYing has a roof area of 1251, and ShangGanTang has a roof area of 4242However, on line 169, the roof area of ZhangGuYing (1251 is used to calculate the water collection of ShangGanTang. And on line 171, the roof area of ShangGanTang (4242 is used to calculate the water collection of ZhangGuYing.
Response 6: we fixed the mistake
|
|
Patio1 (㎡) |
Roof1 (㎡) |
P/R1 (ShangGanTang)) |
Patio2 (㎡) |
Roof2 (㎡) |
P/R2 (ZhangGuYing) |
|
1 |
2.78 |
36.58 |
0.0759978 |
3.83 |
102.15 |
0.0374939 |
|
5.96 |
30.73 |
0.1939473 |
2.45 |
112.11 |
0.0218535 |
|
|
1.4 |
13.38 |
0.1046338 |
7.5 |
127.19 |
0.0589669 |
|
|
4 |
2.83 |
33.44 |
0.0846292 |
1.22 |
74.57 |
0.0163605 |
|
4.67 |
32.96 |
0.1416869 |
12.72 |
105.62 |
0.1204317 |
|
|
6 |
1.4 |
18.9 |
0.0740741 |
2.54 |
90.09 |
0.028194 |
|
4.11 |
25.97 |
0.1582595 |
5.79 |
107.59 |
0.0538154 |
|
|
2.77 |
41.97 |
0.0659995 |
5.51 |
124.05 |
0.0444176 |
|
|
3.61 |
23.92 |
0.1509197 |
4.69 |
149.82 |
0.0313042 |
|
|
10 |
4.54 |
42.82 |
0.1060252 |
3.24 |
116.58 |
0.0277921 |
|
4.56 |
38.98 |
0.1169831 |
6.64 |
140.97 |
0.0471022 |
|
|
12 |
6.6 |
64.61 |
0.1021514 |
5.75 |
158.77 |
0.0362159 |
|
13 |
1.65 |
26.11 |
0.0631942 |
6.45 |
182.72 |
0.0352999 |
|
3.32 |
32.22 |
0.1030416 |
6.22 |
140.33 |
0.0443241 |
|
|
7.65 |
67.93 |
0.1126159 |
49.62 |
277.82 |
0.1786049 |
|
|
16 |
2.16 |
34.76 |
0.0621404 |
3.83 |
104.36 |
0.0366999 |
|
2.02 |
28.81 |
0.0701145 |
2.79 |
126.12 |
0.0221218 |
|
|
18 |
1.96 |
34.41 |
0.0569602 |
7.75 |
137.15 |
0.0565075 |
|
2.5 |
27.92 |
0.0895415 |
9.62 |
172.15 |
0.0558815 |
|
|
3.18 |
36.98 |
0.0859924 |
8.49 |
148.07 |
0.0573377 |
|
|
1.11 |
27.07 |
0.0410048 |
3.99 |
96.76 |
0.041236 |
|
|
22 |
3.18 |
24.53 |
0.1296372 |
3.93 |
105.75 |
0.0371631 |
|
6.71 |
36.03 |
0.1862337 |
5.58 |
122.95 |
0.0453843 |
|
|
24 |
2.36 |
44.83 |
0.0526433 |
3.31 |
97.23 |
0.034043 |
|
25 |
5.97 |
50.87 |
0.117358 |
2.24 |
67.91 |
0.0329848 |
|
2.49 |
25.91 |
0.0961019 |
2.68 |
80.23 |
0.033404 |
|
|
9.12 |
42.62 |
0.213984 |
7 |
138.04 |
0.0507099 |
|
|
28 |
2.74 |
27.76 |
0.0987032 |
8.67 |
163.41 |
0.0530567 |
|
5.09 |
35.4 |
0.1437853 |
8.53 |
149.18 |
0.0571792 |
|
|
30 |
2.85 |
30.74 |
0.0927131 |
2.72 |
123.34 |
0.0220529 |
|
1.8 |
33.37 |
0.0539407 |
0.59 |
89.85 |
0.0065665 |
|
|
5.1 |
29.06 |
0.175499 |
5.88 |
106.79 |
0.0550613 |
|
|
5.09 |
26.37 |
0.1930224 |
5.85 |
105.39 |
0.0555081 |
|
|
34 SUM |
28.22 |
123.09 |
0.2292631 |
6.44 |
97.19 |
0.066262 |
|
151.5 |
1251.05 |
0.1210983 |
224.06 |
4242.25 |
0.0528163 |
|
|
Average |
4.4558824 |
36.795588 |
0.1130235 |
6.59 |
124.77206 |
0.0470982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point 7
In line 149, the ratio of roof to patio area is given as 6.3367 for ZhangGuYing and 3.4667 for ShangGanTang. However, in Figure 3, 6.3367 is the slope of the line for P/R2 which means ShangGanTang, and 3.4667 is the slope of the line for P/R1 which means ZhangGuYing.
Response 7: We fixed the mistake
|
Y1=6.3367X1+86.638(ZhangGuYingP/R2) Y2=3.4467X2+21.23(ShangGanTangP/R1) |
(1) |
Y1: ZhangGuYing village rainwater harvesting roof area
Y2: ShangGanTang villages rainwater harvesting roof area
X1: ZhangGuYing village patio area
X2: ShangGanTang village patio area
Point 8
in Figure 4, the contour map for ShangGanTang is shown with longitude plotted in the Y direction (ie, up the page), whereas that for ZhangGuYing has longitude plotted in the X direction (across the page). The heights on the red and green cross sections for ShangGanTang are labelled as latitudes (altitude) and no scale is given for either the x or y axis. The labels for the red and green cross sections for ZhangGuYing are unreadable. The scales for the two satellite images differ by a factor of approximately 1000, and again no scale is given. The x axes of the two satellite images each have no scales, which in the case of ShangGanTang differ by a factor of about 1,000,000.
Response 8: We edited the Figure 4
Point 9
In Table 3, the area of the water catchments is given as 16334for ZhangGuYing, and 34174 for ShangGanTang. It is not made clear, but I think this water catchment is the total roof area of each village. It is certainly not the area of the landscape catchment surrounding each village, since the contour maps of Figure 4 (which are not of the whole catchment areas) cover areas of about 360,000 (based on the lengths of the sides in latitude and longitude). If the catchment areas in Table 3 are the total roof areas, then this area should have been used in the water collection equations of lines 169 and 171, not the sum of areas from 34 houses in each village as given in Table 2. Furthermore, while the water catchment (total roof?) area of ShangGanTang is about double that of ZhangGuYing, it is stated in lines 178 — 179 that the total water catchment of Z village is greater than that in S village.
Response 9: We explained more about that under the Table 3
Table 3. The table of 3D model water catchment area measurement
|
|
Total area (selection) |
River area |
River area ratio |
Max Altitude |
|
ZhangGuYing |
16334.39㎡ |
1125.23㎡ |
6ï¼… |
150m |
|
ShangGanTang |
34174㎡ |
3745.28㎡ |
10ï¼… 1 |
280m |
Based on the average annual precipitation and the surface area of the settlements, the annual water quantity collected by the roofs of S Village is 1783.93 l, while in the Z village is 5739.4 l. In Table 3, using the Acute3D tool selected the area including the 34 dwellings and part of the river that flows through the settlement as the total area, and comparing the river area with the selection area of the study area, we found that the river area ratio in Z village is 6ï¼…, much smaller than that in S Village 10ï¼…, and the precipitation in Village Z 1353mm is lower than that in S Village 1426mm, so the theoretical water collection in Z village can increase significantly larger than in S Village. Combined with local interviews, the number of floods in the village was also higher in S than in Z village. For S villages, the flood control function is more important, so the patio and roof are smaller than in Z villages; thus, the meteorological analysis supported the hypothesis.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article can be accepted in the proposed version.
Author Response
Thank you very much accepting the answers and the article in its improved form.
