Framework for Planning and Evaluation of Nature-Based Solutions for Water in Peri-Urban Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper suggests a framework for evaluation of NBS projects in urban fringes by investigating one case-study. The paper is well written presenting various concepts and ideas to formulate the framework. Although, it is difficult to draw conclusions from a single case, the research is relevant and can unveil particular circumstances of NBS in urban fringes areas of Brazil (which can radically differ from other parts of the world, although the authors claim replicability). This can limit the application of the framework in different contexts.

Because the research is complex and has an extended background, the authors might want to give more focus in one aspect of the outcomes and present the framework as a link to each section of the paper. The authors also inform that the framework is a tool to evaluate past NBS projects and organize new projects, however, in this paper just a single case is described limiting the understanding of the feasibility of the tool.

Authors identification: when the authors are from the same institution the identifying number must be the same. Several authors should be marked with the same number.

Abstract: The authors suggest a broad research gap ("The majority of frameworks proposed in the literature fail to address the full potential of NBS, neglecting long-term results, unintended consequences, co-benefits, and their contribution to achieving global environmental agreements, such as the Agenda 2030, especially for water management in a peri-urban context.") that might not be possible to respond with the proposed methods: “present an innovative framework that can be applied”. In fact, the paper discussion can emphasize how these aspects are covered by the application of the framework. In this sense, the criticism to other research outcomes might be part of the overview of the problem, but not the research gap for this paper.

Introduction: “Nature-based solutions (NBS) may provide a holistic approach...” It is better to inform what NBS can provide or consists of; the definition of NBS needs a comprehensive explanation.

“All NBS definitions highlight…”, the authors need to provide a definition based on literature review, it is rather difficult to review all NBS definitions in such a short paper. Later, the authors inform that there are a multitude of definitions. Perhaps, a revision of key NBS literature will help to give a focus in the introduction.

“there are few frameworks that have been published to assess NBS that have been implemented”, this part of text and following sentences consists of a factual research gap, which is coherent to the proposed research. A suggestion is to summarize or present the problem as a single sentence: frameworks do not assess implemented NBS, do not support decision-making, do not consider urban fringe areas; later informing how this proposes framework responds to these issues. The “participatory approach” problem is unclear. But, later the authors inform different gaps again: “identification of co-benefits, unintended consequences, and long-term sustainability in a peri-urban context”.

Materials: The authors are to be commended for the task of developing transdisciplinary research. This is not only necessary for environmental solutions, but it is aligned with the propositions of the SDGs. Perhaps, the literature review on NBS is needed for background research development or need a separated paper to have full details. In this paper, the authors could map the key NBS documents that helped to build the research. By doing so, the interactions with stakeholders (section 2.2) increase in importance for the methods and elaboration of the framework. There are illustrative materials in the supplementary documentation that support the paper ideas. The authors should consider integrating some of these images and tables to the document itself. Understanding how the indicators were developed will help readers to reflect on the proposed framework.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 are pixelated and need better resolution.

The description of how to use the framework is speculative. Present clear evidence on how to apply the framework, its usability, benefits and outcomes. The framework assessment must be replicable.

An application of the framework to the selected case study is not presented.

The limitations of this study are not detailed in the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached a point-by-pont response to the comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript the authors present the results of systematic literature review and nature-based solution framework, with peri-urban environments used to frame the research conducted. As noted by the authors this is still a developing area of sustainability research and the development of a robust framework would contribute to the scholarly conversation. However, the manuscript is limited by the lack of a return to the peri-urban context that frames the introduction. Drawing clear connections between the framework and how it addresses limitations in the peri-urban context would greatly improve this manuscript.

 

Major Points

While the authors are using peri-urban spaces as a framing device for the systematic literature view and framework, there doesn’t appear to be much discussion in terms of how the framework addresses issues that are unique to the peri-urban context. Indeed, the discussion section seems to abandon reference to peri-urban environments. Accordingly, the manuscript should be revised to address how the framework can be applied within the peri-urban context and appropriate linkages back to the introductory section added.

 

Since the authors conducted a systematic review as part of this manuscript, it would be nice if they could include the list of publications that were included in the review. Presumably some of these were cited in the manuscript, but a secondary table in the supplemental materials would be nice. Likewise, since the articles that underwent full-text review doesn’t seem that long (n = 46), perhaps those could be listed in supplemental materials as well?

 

It appears that the authors constrained themselves to a limited number of databases that index major peer reviewed sources – a reasonable approach – however, since a lot of sustainability and policy work is published as “gray literature” there is a gap in the literature review that should be addressed or commented upon. For example, Cohen-Shacham et al. (2016) published a report that discussed nature-based solutions and proposed an early operational framework for nature-based solutions. Off-hand, I seem to recall reading similar reports dated from around 2010 and onwards, and I suspect that most of the early work was done outside of the realm of peer reviewed literature.

 

Minor Points

Page 3, “However, peri-urban spaces…” – the authors need to clarify their point about the populations and resources a bit more, particularly in relation to the previous major point about more clarification being needed around the definition for peri-urban.

 

Page 3, “This study presents a transdisciplinary effort…” – since the term transdisciplinary can be a bit nebulous, perhaps the disciplinary bridges can be articulated somewhere?

 

Page 7, Lines 94 – 95 – minor quibble, but the references to context assessment before nature-based solution implementation are a bit awkward since it could be argued that application of this framework is a commitment to utilization of a nature-based solution. This might just be a grammatical tick on my part though since it appears that the authors are broadly referring to the framework consisting of 1) initial assessment and contextualization, 2) implementation and adaption, and finally 3) assessment of outcomes.

 

Citations need to be double checked to ensure that they are correct and complete, I caught a couple items that are listed below. For the various reports without a DOI, a URL to the material would be apricated if allowed under the journal’s manual of style.

• Citation 11 (Lines 367 – 369) is missing the journal name
• Citation 23 (Lines 391 – 392) is incomplete and missing information (ex., journal name)
• Citation 28 (Lines 404 – 405) appears to be incomplete
• Citation 30 (Line 409) unclear exactly what the citation is referring to.

 

Sources / References

Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 97, 2016-036. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Find attached the point-by-point response to the comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved the paper, clarifying most aspects indicated in the previous review. There are still some weaknesses regarding the clarification of how the Framework supported the processes. In a sense, the paper has all the information but needs thorough editing.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, please find attached the letter detailing the adjustments made after the second revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

With these revisions the authors have addressed the points I raised during the first round of review. However a couple minor points still remain:

- Table 1 could be moved to supplemental materials.

- Figure 5 is somewhat pixelated in the review PDF, double check to make sure the final version for publication is not.

- The revisions to the manuscript have introduced some typos and other minor grammatical issues (ex., doubled periods) that need to be corrected. As part of these revisions I'd suggest considering the use of all-caps since it breaks up the flow of text and can make it harder to read - perhaps italics instead if there's nothing in the journal's manual of style?

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, please find attached the letter detailing the adjustments made after the second revision

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf