Integration of Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment of a Peri-Urban Development Plan
, Benedetta Radicchio 2, Pietro Medagli 3, Stefano Arzeni 3, Alessio Turco 3 and Davide Geneletti 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Incorporating ecosystem services in to urban planning, especially with green infrastructure is not new. The terminology might have changed, but very similar papers were being written about green roof benefits 20 years ago. What I found most interesting about this paper is the qualitative ranking system, and this could have warranted some discussion. Perhaps it should have been the focus of the discussion. How was it derived and how is it used and its transferability to other places. The English requires extensive editing and future versions of this paper should be reviewed by a professional editor prior to submission. I also found many possible errors or contradictions in the paper. For example, the recommendation of green roofs (Lines 221-225) is not consistent with the recommendations in Table 4. Perhaps a major revision, focusing the ranking system would merit publication, where the incorporation of ES into planning could be the case study.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciated all comments in the revision process. We believe that the manuscript now is consistently improved. We greatly appreciated your effort to introduce the comments and corrections in the pdf format as it helped us with the review of the work.
Thank you for stiluating us to focus on specific issues that in the first versions were not treated in an accurate way.
Reviewer 1
Incorporating ecosystem services in to urban planning, especially with green infrastructure is not new. The terminology might have changed, but very similar papers were being written about green roof benefits 20 years ago. What I found most interesting about this paper is the qualitative ranking system, and this could have warranted some discussion. Perhaps it should have been the focus of the discussion. How was it derived and how is it used and its transferability to other places. The English requires extensive editing and future versions of this paper should be reviewed by a professional editor prior to submission. I also found many possible errors or contradictions in the paper. For example, the recommendation of green roofs (Lines 221-225) is not consistent with the recommendations in Table 4. Perhaps a major revision, focusing the ranking system would merit publication, where the incorporation of ES into planning could be the case
Authors:
We revised the manuscript using the terminologies suggested by you regarding the references at “peri-urban plans” and “sub-urban scale”.
We implemented the methodology sections to clarify the approach used and implemented the discussion in referment to the implications of the methodology applied. We think that these two actions together can be important to transfers these methodologies to other applications.
About the comment "Your method could easily lead to the elimination of the Olive Groves" we revised the methodology sections to clarify this point in the end part of step 1 and in step 2. The GI has not to overlap or replace important elements of the landscape but integrated or regenerate them.
We deleted the issues of CO2 analysis. Effectively your comment helped us to reflect on this aspect. here it is not a surrogate but a deepening of the analysis of the variation of ecosystem services. But maybe it can create confusion in the analysis, without providing added value to the study.
We simplified the recommendation about green roofs in lines 221-225 in order not to fall in the contradictions. In order not to centralize the results on green roofs, we decided to eliminate the reference to photovoltaic which was more of a prospective and future development of GI.
We asked an external expert to improve the editing of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
16.11.2020
The article concerns a very important problem, which is the implementation of the idea of sustainable development of suburban areas by using the concept of ecosystem services (ES) in the development of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The authors presented in this study a methodology to integrate the concept of ecosystem services in all phases of the SEA process for a sub-urban plan, including the design to mitigation measures in the human living environment.The solution is based on 4 steps: 1) Characterization and Identification of the main environmental issues and connections with ecosystem services 2) Identification of mitigation actions as green infrastructures 3) Identification of land-use scenarios linked with urban development green infrastructures 4) Ecosystem Services Impact Assessment These steps also provide a clear structure of the article, which is an advantage of this study. Weak spot of said study is that it has too general approach to the problem, especially regarding the introduction, methodology and research results. Introduction In this chapter, the context of the practical use of ecosystem services should be presented in more detail. The authors discussed too broadly examples of the application of the concept of ecosystem services, existing tools (methods) for the valuation of ecosystem services. They did not justify why the existing methods cannot be used to assess city peripheries. The authors used their own evaluation method, the criteria of which are not clear.
Materials and Method
In this chapter, the authors did not provide detailed information on the criteria for assessing ecosystem services (ES) contained in tables 3 and 5. Numerous graphic signs were used in these tables, including emoticons (small, large, one, several, sad and smiling), as well as the equal sign (=) and minus sign (-). The use of these markings is unclear.
Results
In the results of the work, the authors included 5 (or rather 6!) Tables that are not well explained and described.
In addition to the unclear assessment criteria in Tables 3 and 5 (281), the symbols used in Table 1 (C, P) may also be misunderstood by people from another scientific field. The priorities of ecosystem services presented in the study should be related to the importance of environmental problems. Knowing the limited budgets of municipalities, it is worth distinguishing between problems requiring immediate solution and minor problems that can be solved at a later stage.
The authors pay special attention to the problem of the dieback of olive groves caused by Xylella fastidiosa. The state of research in this area has been too general, as has international and national legal acts on detailed procedures to control and prevent the spread of Xylella fastidiosa.
There is no reference to legal regulations in this regard in the solution scenarios. In Table 5 (322- this should be Table 6), listing the plants proposed for communal gardens uses Xylella susceptible plants that are not recommended by national law for use where Xylella occurs. This list includes: Ficus carica, Mellissa officinalis, Morus (alba, nigra), Rosmarinus officinalis.
Discussion:
The discussion of the results lacks information about the innovative nature of the method and its specificity. What is the difference between the proposed method of using the ES concept in the SEA process for suburban zones and the existing methods of ecosystem assessment for cities?
Editorial notes:
The work leaves much to be desired in terms of editing and adapting the form to the mdpi standard.
There are repeating tables (5 in lines 281 and 322). Lots of spaces in tables (Tab. 1), wrong formatting of column widths (Tab. 4) make the tables unreadable.
In table 2, it is worth summarizing the column with the percentage share (100%).
In table 5 there are lilies in plant names (Mentha) unfinished expressions (-Salvia)
Figures require font standardization (fig. 3).
References require redrafting in line with the MDPI guidelines
There are no sources in the figures. Are the introduced diagrams (figures) of my own authorship.
Author Response
We appreciated all comments in the revision process and we thank the reviewer for the support he/she has given us to improve the work with different suggestions in each part of the manuscript. We believe that the manuscript now has consistently improved.
Reviewer 2
The article concerns a very important problem, which is the implementation of the idea of sustainable development of suburban areas by using the concept of ecosystem services (ES) in the development of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The authors presented in this study a methodology to integrate the concept of ecosystem services in all phases of the SEA process for a sub-urban plan, including the design to mitigation measures in the human living environment. The solution is based on 4 steps: 1) Characterization and Identification of the main environmental issues and connections with ecosystem services 2) Identification of mitigation actions as green infrastructures 3) Identification of land-use scenarios linked with urban development green infrastructures 4) Ecosystem Services Impact Assessment. These steps also provide a clear structure of the article, which is an advantage of this study. Weak spot of said study is that it has too general approach to the problem, especially regarding the introduction, methodology and research results. Introduction In this chapter, the context of the practical use of ecosystem services should be presented in more detail. The authors discussed too broadly examples of the application of the concept of ecosystem services, existing tools (methods) for the valuation of ecosystem services. They did not justify why the existing methods cannot be used to assess city peripheries. The authors used their own evaluation method, the criteria of which are not clear.
Authors
We updated the entire manuscript following the reviewer's instructions. We deepened the introduction to contextualize the problem of planning on a sub-urban scale.
We explained the methodology developed and the evaluation procedure of ecosystem services, also referring to the regional legislation used to develop some scenarios.
We explained the results better by connecting them with the tables. We have better clarified the results reported in the tables through more detailed captions.
We updated the discussions focusing on the methodology used on a sub-urban scale and the differences with that on an urban or regional scale.
Materials and Method
In this chapter, the authors did not provide detailed information on the criteria for assessing ecosystem services (ES) contained in tables 3 and 5. Numerous graphic signs were used in these tables, including emoticons (small, large, one, several, sad and smiling), as well as the equal sign (=) and minus sign (-). The use of these markings is unclear.
Authors
In general, we added more information in each step of the methodology. In step 4, we added a table to indicate the actions and strategies used to evaluate ecosystem services.
In the captions of the tables, we explained the meaning of the symbols used in the tables.
Results
In the results of the work, the authors included 5 (or rather 6!) Tables that are not well explained and described.
In addition to the unclear assessment criteria in Tables 3 and 5 (281), the symbols used in Table 1 (C, P) may also be misunderstood by people from another scientific field. The priorities of ecosystem services presented in the study should be related to the importance of environmental problems. Knowing the limited budgets of municipalities, it is worth distinguishing between problems requiring an immediate solutions and minor problems that can be solved at a later stage.
The authors pay special attention to the problem of the dieback of olive groves caused by Xylella fastidiosa. The state of research in this area has been too general, as has international and national legal acts on detailed procedures to control and prevent the spread of Xylella fastidiosa.
There is no reference to legal regulations in this regard in the solution scenarios. In Table 5 (322- this should be Table 6), listing the plants proposed for communal gardens uses Xylella susceptible plants that are not recommended by national law for use where Xylella occurs. This list includes: Ficus carica, Mellissa officinalis, Morus (alba, nigra), Rosmarinus officinalis.
Authors
We reformatted all the tables and added more information in the captions to understand better the meaning of the information reported.
We fixed the numbering of the tables.
We added more information regarding the results related to Xylella fastidiosa referring to the methodology used and to regional regulations. We have deepened the formulation of the scenarios also according to the information added regarding the reference legislation on Xylella fastidiosa.
We also justified the use of two species of plants to be introduced which are hosts of Xylella fastidiosa. In the regional indications, the Ficus carica not is included in the host for Xylella fastidiosa (subsp. pacua), whereas reported like host Lavandula officinalis L and Rosmarinus officinalis L. Mainly, on the basis of regional legislation and the state of advancement of Xylella fastidiosa, we can hypothesize the use of Mediterranean scrub host plants produced from seed in areas declared compromised such as our study area.
Discussion:
The discussion of the results lacks information about the innovative nature of the method and its specificity. What is the difference between the proposed method of using the ES concept in the SEA process for suburban zones and the existing methods of ecosystem assessment for cities?
Authors
We rewrote some parts of the discussions to better focus the benefits of the approach used to the working at sub-urban scale compared to the currently developed methodologies that we are inspired that operate mainly at the urban and regional scale.
Editorial notes:
The work leaves much to be desired in terms of editing and adapting the form to the mdpi standard.
There are repeating tables (5 in lines 281 and 322). Lots of spaces in tables (Tab. 1), wrong formatting of column widths (Tab. 4) make the tables unreadable.
In table 2, it is worth summarizing the column with the percentage share (100%).
In table 5 there are lilies in plant names (Mentha) unfinished expressions (-Salvia)
Figures require font standardization (fig. 3).
References require redrafting in line with the MDPI guidelines
There are no sources in the figures. Are the introduced diagrams (figures) of my own authorship.
Authors
We reviewed all the tables and relative numbering, updated the References to the journal format, corrected the nomenclature of the vegetation shown in table 7 (ex table 5), updated figure 2 (ex figure 3) and specified the sources in the figures.
We asked an external expert to improve the editing of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is much improved, especially the discussion of the example of the peri-urban area. The need for a good editor (I suggest that you hire someone) will vastly improve this article, and perhaps increase its significance. Essentially, what you are doing is formalizing a practice that has been ongoing for many years within the green infrastructure community. While this is important, it is not a new practice, although I recognize the benefit of putting it on a firmer footing. Your work does illustrate how that might be done within a formal planning process. That does have some value.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for reading the paper and providing useful suggestions to improve it. We have taken them into consideration in the revised version.
Point1 The paper is much improved, especially the discussion of the example of the peri-urban area. The need for a good editor (I suggest that you hire someone) will vastly improve this article, and perhaps increase its significance. Essentially, what you are doing is formalizing a practice that has been ongoing for many years within the green infrastructure community. While this is important, it is not a new practice, although I recognize the benefit of putting it on a firmer footing. Your work does illustrate how that might be done within a formal planning process. That does have some value.
Response 1: We have implemented the editing format of the manuscript using the service available on MDPI
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is poorly readable in this version, but many positive corrections have been made. The formal side should be improved.Author Response
We thank the reviewer for reading the paper and providing useful suggestions to improve it. We have taken them into consideration in the revised version.
Point 1: The manuscript is poorly readable in this version, but many positive corrections have been made. The formal side should be improved.
Response 1: We have implemented the editing format of the manuscript using the service available on MDPI
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
