Spatial and Climatic Variabilities of Rainwater Tank Outcomes for an Inland City, Canberra
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please attached file
In addition, please improve on the references being used. There are only 14 references used and 5 of them are from the first author, with themes very similar to the ones of this paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
While the majority of the paper can be understood, there are some sections that need improvement, specially in the abstract and introduction.
Author Response
All the comments were addressed and the manuscript was revised accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study brings new data on a city of persistent interest to the authors.
The aim and objectives of the study must be explicitly written at the end of the Introduction section. Why only one additional site added to the similar study published by authors in 2014?
The description of the study area is at a technical minimum. It is necessary to know how relevant are the selected sites for the surrounding areas; which is the spatial variability of the local climate; which is the topography of Canberra and what types of buildings are there? - how do they influence air circulation and atmospheric precipitation? A better/additional map is needed here - one of the metropolitan area. Studies on the spatial variability of the local climate should be cited here.
The authors cite their previous works, but some paragraphs that are copied from previous works are too long and need to be reworked:
-"two additional years were selected in a way that out of these two years, one year is having annual rainfall amount immediately higher and the other year is having annual rainfall amount immediately lower than the rainfall amount of above selected years. Selected years and corresponding annual rainfall values are shown in Table 2" - from https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJHST.2014.067730?journalCode=ijhst
-"study was based on a particular geographical area in Australia. The results may vary with geographical locations, i.e. with different climatic conditions, i.e. with different rainfall intensities and patterns" - from https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/14/9/1411
The "Discussion" section is almost absent and too formal (utility implications of the findings can be largely treated). It is necessary to compare sites from other studies and results of some different methods/approaches. Again, an analysis of the local landscape can be very useful.
English language is OK, excepting a few sentences (scattered throughout the manuscript) that should be re-analyzed by the authors.
Author Response
All the comments were addressed and the manuscript was revised accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors upgraded the manuscript based on comments sent previously. Several references were added to the introduction and results are explained more clearly. No further comments
Reviewer 2 Report
OK
