A Proposal of a Tool to Assess Psychosocial Benefits of Nature-Based Interventions for Sustainable Built Environment

Reviewer´ Comment

Authors’ response

You should better outline your research question, the added value of this paper and its academic contribution(s).

The introduction was restructured focused on how to better present the research question, the added value of the paper, as well as its academic contribution.

Similarly, technical and academic contributions lack, as well as the limits of your research (and future perspectives)

The conclusions have been reviewed accordingly, where the technical and academic contributions, as well as the limits of your research and future perspectives have been highlighted.

Finally, I suggest you to integrate the following papers as relevanti in this field:

* Conti, M.E.; Battaglia, M.; Calabrese, M.; Simone, C. Fostering Sustainable Cities through Resilience Thinking: The Role of Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs): Lessons Learned from Two Italian Case Studies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12875.

* Eggermont, H.; Balian, E.; Azevedo, M.; Beumer, V.; Brodin, T.; Claudet, J.; Fady, B.; Grube, M.; Keune, H.; Lamarque, P.; et al. Nature-based solutions: New influence for environmental management and research in Europe. GAIA—Ecological Perspective for Science and Society 2015, 24, 243–248.
* Keesstra, S.; Nunes, J.; Novara, A.; Finger, D.; Avelar, D.; Kalantari, Z.; Cerdà, A. The superior effect of nature-based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science Total Environment 2018, 610–611, 997–1009.

Keesstra, S., Nunes, J. P., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., & Cerdà, A. (2018). The superior effect of nature-based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment, 610-611, 997-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077

Thank you for the suggestions, the new references were reviewed and some of them has been integrated to the text.

Reviewer´ Comment

Authors’ response

* To whom is the assessment tool addressed? To whom could it be useful?

The present tool is citizen-driven, mainly addressed to the users of urban public spaces, in respect to both their regular habits in terms of where they usually go, and their perception of spaces with NBS aimed to neighborhood regeneration.
The authors consider local decision-makers and urban planners may potentially make use of this tool as a support for urban spaces rehabilitation, contributing to increase the quality of life of the residents. Therefore, it is also useful for the society that will make use of those spaces which are designed following those criteria.

* How can one access it? Is its final form the one shown in the Table 1?

The items included in the proposed tool are described as part of the complementary material (Table S1). Although not yet a specific interface has been developed, it is foreseen, and it would be useful and of interest to develop it soon. However, some points to be first considered are the translation to other languages, and the adaptation to different contexts.

* Are these the only questions that were formulated and used? Are they not too few in relation to the importance of the issues under investigation?

The queries used to measure the different spheres can be increased. We would like to suggest this reviewer to check the handbook "Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions" [reference 29] edited by Adina Dumitru and Laura Wendling, where an exhaustive number of indicators of different spheres related to the NBS impacts and benefits are revised and compiled.
In our proposal, a limited number of indicators have been selected; since the tool is to be applied to the general individuals, they have to be brief and simple. The included questions were the most relevant and coherent taking into account the stakeholders involved in the 9 interventions of CLEVER Cities project (London, Milan and Hamburg), as well as the panel of experts consulted in the Delphi method.
An example of that is the scale of environmental restauration perceived (Harting et al., 1996) which is composed by 16 items, while in other versions we may find 30 of them. However, the items selected in our tool are those 4 which contribute the most in each of the subjacent dimensions (fascination, being away, coherence and scope). This way, the tool is not too extensive, and the citizens are keener to answer all of it.

* What were the research restrictions?

We assume "research restrictions" mean the possible limitations on the scope of the research. In this sense, the main barrier found refers to economic resources available to proceed with an in-depth analysis designed to achieve the proposed goals. Because of that, we have used the outputs obtained by the CLEVER project, without much margin to widen the scope and procedures.
Besides, specifically, the most important element when developing a questionnaire is the understanding by the respondents, who are mostly people with non-scientific background, and who have shared their perceptions on the urban public spaces they use. For that, the surveys could not be neither too long, nor too complex, so that we guarantee they provide the desired inputs.

* What are the open fields on which future research could be done to improve/enlarge the tool?

We understand the main field of open research is the systematic and rigorous study of the psychosocial benefits of the NBS. This being a preliminary proposal of measurement, leave space to improvements.
The authors support that future research are needed in order to validate or refute this scale, mainly in respect to real surroundings (ecological validity). Future research could consider different environment, another focus group, and even different NBS. This would allow comparing benefits from different types of NBS in different surrounding, besides validating this type of tool itself. The identification of vulnerable groups would be useful to assess and compare those benefits for a specific group of population.
We understand the tool as a compact scale with minimum elements added, and which could be extended according to different research interest and adapted to different contexts. For example, in case the environmental comfort related to NBS is to be scoped, this scale could be broadened with more specific items (perception regarding wind, humidity, thermal stress, etc.). Otherwise, if the interest rests on restoration capacity, it will consider the complete Harting scale, or other simpler version (of about 10 items), enlarging the information currently considered (for the 4 selected items).

Reviewer´ Comment

Authors’ response

1. The introduction is too long, with too many arguments to say the same thing. It is recommended that the authors summarize the motivation. Much of the discussion in the introduction should be referred in an autonomous “literature review# section.   In addition, the introduction should describe how the article is composed into sections.

The introduction has been revised and restructured following the suggestions of Reviewer 3.

2. Lines 57-58: the economic dimension of sustainability is disregarded. However, it is mentioned in lines 181 onwards that economical aspects are important.

Integrated in the text related to the economic dimension.

3. Lines 181 onwards: the challenges are not structured according to the 3 pillars of sustainability. For example, the authors combine the pillars of social and environmental sustainability in terms of challenges and break down the social pillar into more than one challenge. The article would have gained terms of clarity and logic if the authors had organized the challenges according to the 3 dimensions of sustainability.

The three mentioned challenges correspond to those proposed in CLEVER Cities project, which is the framework of the presented paper. Although they are related to the challenges of the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic), their formulation cannot be changed.

4. The questionnaire was distributed to experts, but how was this quality (expert) measured?

It is an interesting point, although difficult to consider. The authors consider as experts, those individuals with more than 10 years of experience working on the related fields. Indeed, most of the participants have over 20 years of experience, and in some cases, even 40. And a clarification has been integrated into the text.

5. Table presentation needs to be improved.

The authors have tried to create a table the simplest possible, following the APA normative. Nevertheless, if the reviewer or the person responsible for the layout of the document tell us any way to improve it, the authors will implement it.

6. The authors do not present autonomous sections of the “literature review” and “discussion of results”. It is important that the article includes these sections to discuss the results vis-à-vis the results of previous literature.

The autonomous section "Literature Review” has been integrated into manuscript, as well as "Discussion of Results".

7. The number of references is insufficient, at least 60-70 are suggested.

The authors consider the quality and relevance of the references are the most important issued to consider when selecting them, so that the paper tried to include instead of an exhausting list of references, those most updated and relevant reviews, which include contribution of many different authors.
As an example, references 29 and 30 compile a wide range of works of different authors and ongoing research. Also, the handbook "Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions" collect a significative diversity of indicators with their own specific references.
Notwithstanding, new references were included to this list, which were necessary to review in order to react to the reviewers´ comments.