A Framework for Evaluating the Effects of Green Infrastructure in Mitigating Pollutant Transferal and Flood Events in Sunnyside, Houston, TX

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

From my point of view, this article presents a research project that deals with a very interesting and important topic. However, this article has some important lacks in this present form. Therefore, this text is not acceptable to be published yet and this is mainly because of the following issues:

1. From my point of view, there are several confusing parts. Starting with the title, which is too general and lacks information about the case study on which the article highly focuses. Similarly, the abstract is mostly a general introduction to the topic (first five lines) and lacks more specific information about this research objectives, methods, main results and main contribution. In this sense, the introduction lacks a final part explaining the article structure briefly in some lines.
2. The methods section is highly confusing. Subsection 2.1 explains the case study and would better be in an independent case study section. Subsection 2.2 is the proposal to solve the case study although it is unclear if it is a result from this research project or a case study to be analyzed. In my opinion the two first paragraphs are part of the case study while the two second parts are methodology. In my opinion each pair should be in a different section. Besides, the two methodology paragraphs should give more detailed explanations about the sessions (number, topics, engagement procedure…), community members and stakeholders (number, age, gender, expertise, training…), etc. Subsection 2.3 should justify the use of this performance toolkit compared to others. This is the main and more delicate problem of this article because in this present version the method is not explained or justified enough. The authors need to: more clearly present and cite the methods – from general to particular, the toolkit and each tool - and previous studies that have successfully applied it, justify all parameters such as the period of years, clearly explain how all the numbers are calculated in this toolkit (formulae, databases…) and, in consequence, explain the validity and replicability of the results. Furthermore, the methods explanations – 2 last paragraphs of 2.2 plus the whole 2.3 section - are confusing and the authors should find ways to better explain it to readers. Maybe a general framework at the beginning of this section, with the different parts/steps, their materials and methods could improve its understanding.
3. The results section must improve accordingly to comment 2). In my opinion it should start with the participatory master plan, explaining it and presenting figure 4, which is not part of the methods but the first result. Another option is that this master plan is taken as a case study to analyze but the present option – master plan as methodology – is inadequate and confusing as previously said. Then this section should follow the same structure of the methods section framework and steps. This section should clearly explain the results. For example, the current version lacks explaining table 1 rows properly. These results should be discussed before the conclusions in a “discussion” or “results and discussion” section.
4. The conclusions section needs to be rewritten and explain directly, clearly, briefly this research project main novelty and contribution to its field of expertise. The first paragraph is a generally summary that cannot be in the conclusions. The expanded explanation and discussion of results should be moved to results and discussion sections respectively, while conclusions should be reduced to the main findings. If the research has limitations (for example the application to only one case study) these should be briefly but clearly stated. These limitations could justify a brief final invitation directed to future studies and avoid false/unfounded/injustified generalizations like the two final paragraphs.

 

Other comments:

- Line 377 in page 11 lacks a figure/number where there is ##

- Several references are too old, and the authors should change as many as possible to more updated similar studies.

- Some figures location is inappropriate and confusing. All figures must be located as close as possible to its first citation in the text. For example, figure 2 is first cited in page 5 line 193 but located in page 3.

Author Response

1. From my point of view, there are several confusing parts. Starting with the title, which is too general and lacks information about the case study on which the article highly focuses. Similarly, the abstract is mostly a general introduction to the topic (first five lines) and lacks more specific information about this research objectives, methods, main results and main contribution. In this sense, the introduction lacks a final part explaining the article structure briefly in some lines.

• Thank you for your comments. We have adjusted the title to better reflect the uniqueness of the manuscript. Further, the abstract has been overhauled in an effort to better and more concisely describe the important aspects of the paper. Finally, the introduction has been thoroughly edited and reorganized for content and an additional paragraph has been added to describe the article structure at the end of the introduction.

1. The methods section is highly confusing. Subsection 2.1 explains the case study and would better be in an independent case study section. Subsection 2.2 is the proposal to solve the case study although it is unclear if it is a result from this research project or a case study to be analyzed. In my opinion the two first paragraphs are part of the case study while the two second parts are methodology. In my opinion each pair should be in a different section. Besides, the two methodology paragraphs should give more detailed explanations about the sessions (number, topics, engagement procedure…), community members and stakeholders (number, age, gender, expertise, training…), etc. Subsection 2.3 should justify the use of this performance toolkit compared to others. This is the main and more delicate problem of this article because in this present version the method is not explained or justified enough. The authors need to: more clearly present and cite the methods – from general to particular, the toolkit and each tool - and previous studies that have successfully applied it, justify all parameters such as the period of years, clearly explain how all the numbers are calculated in this toolkit (formulae, databases…) and, in consequence, explain the validity and replicability of the results. Furthermore, the methods explanations – 2 last paragraphs of 2.2 plus the whole 2.3 section - are confusing and the authors should find ways to better explain it to readers. Maybe a general framework at the beginning of this section, with the different parts/steps, their materials and methods could improve its understanding.

• This section has been significantly reorganized for clarity and readability. We have relocated different aspects of the 3 subsections to better link the information together. Further, we have provided more in-depth descriptions of each tool utilized, its capabilities, and its inputs and formulae. Each one also now has added a link to the tool itself and how it operates.

1. The results section must improve accordingly to comment 2). In my opinion it should start with the participatory master plan, explaining it and presenting figure 4, which is not part of the methods but the first result. Another option is that this master plan is taken as a case study to analyze but the present option – master plan as methodology – is inadequate and confusing as previously said. Then this section should follow the same structure of the methods section framework and steps. This section should clearly explain the results. For example, the current version lacks explaining table 1 rows properly. These results should be discussed before the conclusions in a “discussion” or “results and discussion” section.

• The results section has been rewritten, now separating it into both a results and discussion section. The Master plan was developed as part of the research. It is the portion of the research in which all 3 tools were applied, examining the site before and after the Master Plan. Therefore, we had tried to better express this to appease the confusion. The plan was not a case study, but it was the direct inputs device for running all 3 tools. We hope this is better elucidated in the manuscript now.

1. The conclusions section needs to be rewritten and explain directly, clearly, briefly this research project main novelty and contribution to its field of expertise. The first paragraph is a generally summary that cannot be in the conclusions. The expanded explanation and discussion of results should be moved to results and discussion sections respectively, while conclusions should be reduced to the main findings. If the research has limitations (for example the application to only one case study) these should be briefly but clearly stated. These limitations could justify a brief final invitation directed to future studies and avoid false/unfounded/injustified generalizations like the two final paragraphs.

• We have included much of the current conclusions section into a new Discussions section. We have rewritten the conclusion section and included a new paragraph on the limitations of the study.

 

Other comments:

- Line 377 in page 11 lacks a figure/number where there is ##

• This was not referring to a figure, but was an amount of pollution reduction from the tool the discrepancy has been fixed.

- Several references are too old, and the authors should change as many as possible to more updated similar studies.

• New references have been added and adjusted accordingly

- Some figures location is inappropriate and confusing. All figures must be located as close as possible to its first citation in the text. For example, figure 2 is first cited in page 5 line 193 but located in page 3.

• All figures have been relocated to get them closer to where they are referenced in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a useful contribution to the literature on green infrastructure and is suitable for publication.

However, I always find it hard to believe such precise types of valuations, which are represented down to last cent, and would prefer tools that generate a range of values.  

Author Response

This is a useful contribution to the literature on green infrastructure and is suitable for publication. However, I always find it hard to believe such precise types of valuations, which are represented down to last cent, and would prefer tools that generate a range of values.  

• To make up for your comment, we have rewritten the conclusion section and included a new paragraph on the limitations of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

From my point of view, this article presents a research project that deals with a very interesting and important topic. It has improved a little compared to the previous version. However, this article has still some important weaknesses. Therefore, this text is not acceptable to be published yet and this is mainly because of the following issues:

 

1. From my point of view, there are several confusing parts. Starting with the title, which is too general and lacks information about the case study on which the article highly focuses.
2. The methods section is highly confusing. Subsection 2.1 explains the case study and would better be in an independent case study section. Subsection 2.2 is the proposal to solve the case study although it is unclear if it is a result from this research project or a case study to be analyzed. In my opinion the two first paragraphs are part of the case study while the two second parts are methodology. In my opinion each pair should be in a different section. Besides, the two methodology paragraphs should give more detailed explanations about the sessions (number, topics, engagement procedure…), community members and stakeholders (number, age, gender, expertise, training…), etc. Subsection 2.3 should justify the use of this performance toolkit compared to others. In the conclusions, in lines 927-928 it refers to “other tools”, which should be presented previously and its not application justified. This is the main and more delicate problem of this article because in this present version the method is not explained or justified enough. Apart from giving the website source for more information, the authors need to: more clearly present and cite the methods – from general to particular, the toolkit and each tool - and previous studies that have successfully applied it, justify all parameters such as the period of years, clearly explain how all the numbers are calculated in this toolkit (formulae, databases…) and, in consequence, explain the validity and replicability of the results. Furthermore, the methods explanations – 2 last paragraphs of 2.2 plus the whole 2.3 section - are confusing and the authors should find ways to better explain it to readers. Maybe a general framework at the beginning of this section, with the different parts/steps, their materials and methods could improve its understanding.
3. The results section must improve accordingly to comment b). In my opinion it should start with the participatory master plan, explaining it and presenting figure 4, which is not part of the methods but the first result. Another option is that this master plan is taken as a case study to analyze but the present option – master plan as methodology – is inadequate and confusing as previously said. Then this section should follow the same structure of the methods section framework and steps. This section should clearly explain the results. For example, the current version lacks explaining table 1 rows properly.
4. The conclusions section needs to be rewritten and explain directly, clearly, briefly this research project main novelty and contribution to its field of expertise. The first lines are a generally summary but not conclusions.

 

1. Other comments:

- Check spelling of added parts: line 78 “induvial”

- Avoid informal register, for instance the use of “we”, for example in the introduction’s last paragraph.

- Several references are too old, and the authors should change as many as possible to more updated similar studies.

Author Response

1. From my point of view, there are several confusing parts. Starting with the title, which is too general and lacks information about the case study on which the article highly focuses.

• We have updated to title to be more comprehensive and focused as well as highlight the case site. It is now “A framework for evaluating the effects of green infrastructure in mitigating pollutant transferal and flood events in Sunnyside, Houston, TX.”

1. The methods section is highly confusing. Subsection 2.1 explains the case study and would better be in an independent case study section. Subsection 2.2 is the proposal to solve the case study although it is unclear if it is a result from this research project or a case study to be analyzed. In my opinion the two first paragraphs are part of the case study while the two second parts are methodology. In my opinion each pair should be in a different section.

• We have totally rearranged this section. Section 2 now describes the case stud, its area and population, and the issues within the community. The engaged master plan section has now been moved into the methods section for clarity.

2b. Besides, the two methodology paragraphs should give more detailed explanations about the sessions (number, topics, engagement procedure…), community members and stakeholders (number, age, gender, expertise, training…), etc.

• We have included this information within a new paragraph. An urban growth plan for the community was developed through a series of four community engagement sessions. These four sessions took place once every two months over an 8-month period. The first meeting consisted of a tour of the site led by a community resident, three leaders of a local organization known as Charity Productions, 28 undergraduate students, and four university professors. Charity Productions links professors and professionals with underserved and marginalized communities to help solve neighborhood issues through engagement. The second meeting allowed students to interact with local residents and high school student and present initial analysis findings and drawings. The third meeting was a presentation of different design scenarios to local organization leaders and community representatives. During the final meeting, the final Master Plan was presented to leaders of Charity Production, local residents, and the engaged high school students.

2c. Subsection 2.3 should justify the use of this performance toolkit compared to others. In the conclusions, in lines 927-928 it refers to “other tools”, which should be presented previously and it’s not application justified. This is the main and more delicate problem of this article because in this present version the method is not explained or justified enough. Apart from giving the website source for more information, the authors need to: more clearly present and cite the methods – from general to particular, the toolkit and each tool - and previous studies that have successfully applied it, justify all parameters such as the period of years, clearly explain how all the numbers are calculated in this toolkit (formulae, databases…) and, in consequence, explain the validity and replicability of the results. 2d. Furthermore, the methods explanations – 2 last paragraphs of 2.2 plus the whole 2.3 section - are confusing and the authors should find ways to better explain it to readers. Maybe a general framework at the beginning of this section, with the different parts/steps, their materials and methods could improve its understanding.

• A new section has been added entitled “Landscape Performance Justification.” Justification for performance models, other performance models, and information on these models and their applications has been provided. Ten new citations have also been added in this section. The addition reads below:
  • Landscape performance can defined as the degree of effectiveness with which the functions provided by different dimensions or components of a landscape achieve the expected goals and contribute to sustainability [53]. Many measures and tools have been recently developed to more scientifically evaluate impacts and more accurately measure the effectiveness with which landscape solutions fulfil their intended purpose. The goal of landscape performance is to quantitatively demonstrate the environmental, social, and economic benefits of built projects or, at the planning and design stage, to gauge the project’s level of fulfilment to intended goals [54].Examples of benefits quantified from existing landscape performance measures include carbon reduction, water quality increase, energy production, increased access to food, and increased green space for recreation or habitat [55]. To evaluate measures related to infrastructure changes, the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) has compiled a series of Performance Tools that measure the effectiveness with which designed/planned solutions fulfil their intended purpose and help assess proposed community conditions. The Performance Toolkit offers a broad range of models to analyze the social, hydrologic, and economic impacts of designs and plans for adaptive resource management that can accommodate unforeseen factors affecting a landscape’s overall performance. Because a majority of these calculators utilize area inputs that feed into formulae/algorithms for impact outputs, they are easily applied to community designs to examine the current and proposed performance of structural and non-structural infrastructure. The LAF’s benefits toolkit (https://www.landscapeperformance.org/benefits-toolkit) includes 29 performance models and calculators which vary in their foci, but cover a broad range of indicators for performance from carbon sequestration through the Pathfinder tool [56], ecological species richness through the iNaturalist tool [57], nature-based services through the InVEST tool [58], outdoor recreation benefits from the SOPARNA tool [59], agricultural food production value with the Vegetable Garden Value Calculator [60], hardscape recycling benefits from the Recycling and Reusing Landscape Waste Cost Calculator [61], and many other tools linked to landscape benefit quantification, including the three highly utilized tools described and justified below.
• In a separate section, now called “Research Framework and Justification” we also specifically discuss the details and methods/measures involved with the perveance tools utilized in the research. The section reads below:
  • As noted, this research uses a multi-combinational approach to analyzing conditions in Sunnyside by applying a mixture of highly used performance models. To conduct the analysis of the developed participatory Master Plan, three GI-related performance tools were applied to the Master Plan: The Value of Green Infrastructure (VGI): A Guide to Recognizing its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits Tool, the GVC, and the L-THIA Low Impact Development Spreadsheet. A description of each tool and justification of their utilization is presented below.
  • The Value of Green Infrastructure (VGI): A Guide to Recognizing its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits, was developed to assess the economic benefits provided by GI. It provides formulae for quantifying both stormwater reduction amounts and an economic valuation of the reduction in stormwater due to GI provisions. A complete overview of the formulae and needed measures for the tool can be found here: https://cnt.org/publications/the-value-of-green-infrastructure-a-guide-to-recognizing-its-economic-environmental-and. The VGI tool helps decision-makers understand, quantify, and assign economic value to GI practices and investments [26, 27]. It has been heavily used in both research and practice to estimate water, energy, air quality, and climate change mitigation benefits for green roofs, permeable pavement, and rainwater harvesting [63]. Another CNT tool, the GVC has been used to assess the effectiveness of stormwater management practices on water quality and hydrology [64], build adaptive capacity for flood proofing urban areas [46] predict green roof runoff capture [65], assess GI impacts in new housing developments [66], and evaluate stormwater runoff storage for urban community gardens [67]. The GCV calculates the volume of runoff based on inputted land use percentages. The valuation of the impact of GI on infiltration rates, evapotranspiration amounts, and stormwater runoff reuse is calculated by modeling the ability of each type of GI utilized to capture runoff [68, 69]. Both construction and maintenance costs for each type of GI utilized in the design/plan are estimated, providing a total life cycle cost for a given project at 5-, 10-, 20-, 30-, 50-, and 100-year periods. The formulae inherent to the tool and the list of input and out variables can be found here: https://cnt.org/tools/green-values-calculator. The L-THIA model is an urban growth analysis tool that estimates the long-term runoff and nonpoint source pollution impacts of different land use development scenarios. It provides the estimated long-term average annual runoff – rather than only extreme events – based on long-term climate, soil, land use and curve number (CV) conditions for specified state and county locations in the U.S. It also generates estimates of 13 types of non-point sources pollution loadings to water bodies (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorous, suspended particulates) based on land use changes. Land use classes which are used as input variables for the model include commercial, industrial, high-density residential, low-density residential, water/wetlands, grass/pasture, agriculture, and forest. The model has been used to track land-use change in watersheds for historical land-use scenarios [60, 61], identify non-point source pollution sensitive areas, and evaluate land use development for non-point sources pollution management [62]. The full spreadsheet for data input needs and formulae for the tool can be found here: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~lthia/.

1. The results section must improve accordingly to comment b). In my opinion it should start with the participatory master plan, explaining it and presenting figure 4, which is not part of the methods but the first result. Another option is that this master plan is taken as a case study to analyze but the present option – master plan as methodology – is inadequate and confusing as previously said. Then this section should follow the same structure of the methods section framework and steps. This section should clearly explain the results. For example, the current version lacks explaining table 1 rows properly.

• We have moved the Master Plan into the results section, at its beginning. Also, we have better explained and defined the rows on table 1. Table 1 shows the percentage of GI types within the neighborhood, comparing existing conditions with the Master Plan’s design. For inputs the total percentage of and total square foot age of Pervious Surface area (amounts of non-hardscaped landscape), the percentage of Green Space (the amount of non-developed area), the percentage of Development Area (area with buildings, streets, or impervious surface), and the square footage of Green Roof area (a type of green infrastructure which is vegetation planted over a waterproofing system that is installed on top of a flat or slightly–sloped roof) were all calculated. The implementation of green practices in the masterplan for Sunnyside increased the projected pervious surface area from 10% to 32%. The projected green space increased nearly 3-fold, from 9% to 26%. The master plan also adds green roofs (219,978 square feet), and rain gardens (27.2 square feet).

1. The conclusions section needs to be rewritten and explain directly, clearly, briefly this research project main novelty and contribution to its field of expertise. The first lines are a generally summary but not conclusions.

• The conclusion have been rewritten and framed to discuss, in order, 1) the novelty and uniqueness of the research, 2) a comparison between the benefits and weaknesses of the tools utilized, 3) lessons learned from coupling this approached with engagement activities, and 4) limitations.

 

1. Other comments:

- Check spelling of added parts: line 78 “induvial”

• The typo has been corrected

- Avoid informal register, for instance the use of “we”, for example in the introduction’s last paragraph.

• All instances of informal register (3, in total) have been corrected

- Several references are too old, and the authors should change as many as possible to more updated similar studies.

• 11 existing references have been updated or replaces and 10 new references have been added, a total of 21 updated references.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

From my point of view, this article presents a research project that deals with a very interesting and important topic. It has improved compared to the previous version. However, this article has still some important weaknesses. Therefore, this text is not acceptable to be published yet and this is mainly because of the following issues:

 

- The methods section is highly confusing. Maybe a general framework at the beginning of this section, with the different parts/steps, their materials and methods could improve its understanding. The first paragraph of section “3.1. Engaged Master Plan” explains the Master Plan selection and should be moved to the results. The methods section should explain what (a Master Plan) will be chosen/developed/analyzed and how (which methods, tools) and why (justify these methods, tools). Another option is that this master plan is taken as a case study to analyze but the present option – master plan description as methodology – is inadequate and confusing.

 

- The Master Plan is now in the results section, but it is not presented as research outcome. Lines 686-687 explain that it “was evaluated” and if so it should go to the case study. This would be the aforementioned option about taking this master plan as a case study to analyze but the present option is inadequate and confusing as previously said.

 

- Subsections “3.1. Landscape Performance Justification” and “3.2. Research Framework and Justification” should justify the use of this performance toolkit compared to others. In this present version it better explains this toolkit, but it does not justify its use. Lines 515-517 refer to “many measures and tools” but it is highly imprecise because lacks giving any exact example, explain them or refer to them in the references. It also lacks justifying why the LAF toolkit is used instead of the other “measures and tools”.

 

- Other comments:

- There are two sections numbered 3.1

- Check spelling of added parts: line 513 “can defined”; etc.

- Avoid informal register, for instance the use of “we”, line 999.

Author Response

From my point of view, this article presents a research project that deals with a very interesting and important topic. It has improved compared to the previous version. However, this article has still some important weaknesses. Therefore, this text is not acceptable to be published yet and this is mainly because of the following issues:

- The methods section is highly confusing. Maybe a general framework at the beginning of this section, with the different parts/steps, their materials and methods could improve its understanding. The first paragraph of section “3.1. Engaged Master Plan” explains the Master Plan selection and should be moved to the results. The methods section should explain what (a Master Plan) will be chosen/developed/analyzed and how (which methods, tools) and why (justify these methods, tools). Another option is that this master plan is taken as a case study to analyze but the present option – master plan description as methodology – is inadequate and confusing.

• Thank you for your comment. In an effort to further clarify that the Master Plan was developed by the researchers as part of the performance application process, and not simply evaluated as a separate case study to support the presented research, we added another section outlining the framework of the analytical approach in the paper. Section 3.1 is now titled “Analytical Approach,” and explains the full process. It clarifies that the research’s methodological process for this research is a two-step process involving a myriad of task within each step. First, the authors utilized a series of participatory sessions to develop a Master Plan for the community based on existing issues which were exposed by neighborhood residents, stakeholders, and local organizations. The Master Plan was visualized, developed, and detailed fully by the authors of the manuscript in conjunction with community members and a planning-based outreach program known as Texas Target Communities, a unit with nearly 30 years of experience in developing plans for neighborhoods. After the Master Plan was finalized, in an effort to project the probable impacts of the generated plan, the researchers utilized a series of proven spatial performance models and tools to quantify its effects. The sections below further outline the procedures utilized within these steps to both fully develop the engaged Master Plan and well as apply the performance tools and models the plan once it was developed. I hope this clarifies the Plan Development as part of the result sand methodological approach and therefore needs to be in the section that it is.

 

- The Master Plan is now in the results section, but it is not presented as research outcome. Lines 686-687 explain that it “was evaluated” and if so it should go to the case study. This would be the aforementioned option about taking this master plan as a case study to analyze but the present option is inadequate and confusing as previously said.

• We have further explained the outputs form the Master Plan and created its own section in the results as Section 4.1.” Master Plan Output.” The performance outputs are now explained in Sections 4.3 and 4.3. The Master Plan for Sunnyside was evaluated to assess its potential economic and hydrologic impacts, with GI as a particular variable of interest. The developed plan includes a new green infrastructure network which is a connected set of open spaces for increased urban stormwater management and water quality increase. For example, Sunbeam St, acting an eco-boulevard, traverses the center of the site connecting the area to the primary arterial roads to the west and east. Pedestrian trails are also interwoven through the green infrastructure network, increasing pedestrian access to adjacent land uses and facilities. The designed land use arrangement caters to urban regeneration and community revitalization. A large portion of existing vacant parcels are converted to parks, open space, and Adonal small scaled green infrastructure. Along the proposed eco-boulevard are low-rise neighborhood offices, mixed-use, and increased housing density. To the north, proposed private institutional land uses include a medical campus and healthcare facilities. Public institutional and civic clubs are scattered throughout the site as community anchor points. Clusters of commercial land uses are also dispersed to provide access to essential amenities within walking distance of residents and to increase jobs per acre. The remaining land uses are a mixture of existing and infill residential.

 

- Subsections “3.1. Landscape Performance Justification” and “3.2. Research Framework and Justification” should justify the use of this performance toolkit compared to others. In this present version it better explains this toolkit, but it does not justify its use. Lines 515-517 refer to “many measures and tools” but it is highly imprecise because lacks giving any exact example, explain them or refer to them in the references. It also lacks justifying why the LAF toolkit is used instead of the other “measures and tools”.

• In what is now Section 3.3, we try to explain that the LAF toolkit is a collection of 29 different performance tools and options. It is, quite honestly, the most comprehensive scientific collection of different tools that is available to researchers at the time. Each tool provides a different economic, ecological, hydrological, or social way to evaluate design impact and performance. We have tried to clarify this better. Other than separate or isolated other tools, we know of no other resource which has complied so many tools to evaluate different design and planning impacts that is available. These claims are reinforced by Yang et al. in references 53 and 54 as well.

 

- Other comments:

- There are two sections numbered 3.1

• We have updated all section numbers for accuracy. Thank you.

- Check spelling of added parts: line 513 “can defined”; etc.

• This should read “can be defined”. The typo has been corrected.

- Avoid informal register, for instance the use of “we”, line 999

• We found two more incidences of this informal register after the three we fixed last time. These have all been corrected.