Risk Reduction Framework for Blue-Green Roofs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and well written paper on a relevant and timely topic. The use of blue-green infrastructure to address climate change is of international interest. The paper presents a potentially useful contribution to this area but is in need of some improvement. The review of literature seems to lack some of the notable research carried out on green roofs by Sara Wilkinson. I would also like to see a more convincing account of the difference between blue-green roofs and green roofs. I suspect there is some overlap in these terms and their interpretation. 

The methodology is not well described. For example, there is no account of the semi-structured interviews, the participants and why they were selected, the questions posed and the the analysis of these. There is some ambiguity in the overall research design and for example how the workshop fits into this. 

The conclusions are quite disappointing and fail to bring out the contribution of the study. I would encourage the authors to strengthen these and clearly articulate the originality of the research. 

Figure 3: I suggest the circles in this diagram are labelled to show the defects more clearly. This would allow for a shorter title for the figure. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The review of the manuscript „Risk reduction framework for blue-green roofs”

 

This manuscript presents an assessment of risk estimation regarded green roofs, but did not describe with the pertinent detail, according to its design and operation. Therefore, being omitted the object of the study, its assessment has no value.

The Introduction provided the incomplete information of manuscript subject. What's more, there is information that should not be there (author's specialization; purpose of the doctoral dissertation ...). There is lack of aim of the study (is only highlight in Abstract).

The material and methodology part is full of mental shortcuts, incomplete, not giving the possibility to repeat the research. Information on how the research was conducted is fragmentary. Basic information is missing. How many articles were taken into account in the review, what was the basis for their selection, what keywords were taken into account ... How many experts were interviewed? What questions have you asked? There is a scale in the results that was not mentioned in the methodology ... The methodology should be written so that everyone who reads the article could easily repeat the research.

The results part doesn't show any results, only loose descriptions, don't really know what.

The discussion part should be a critical review of previously publish studies with the results obtained in this study. This is also compering and contrasting the results with other published materials.

 

In this article, there is no discussion, any comparing...

 

There is lack of references in the reference  list.

More comments (but not all) are indicated in the pdf version of the manuscript.

The work does not bear the features of a scientific article. Seems to be a project report.

I strongly recommend that the Author read a few scientific articles to see what a properly written article should look like. In particular, please pay attention to the "Material and methodology" section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- Try the following title  “Nine 9 key challenges in the risk reduction of blue-green roofs”

 

-We live now in a climate emergency so its most strange that the authors have not start the paper by mentioning exactly that. It seems that they are not aware about the words of a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford authored a paper where one can read the following:

 “Let’s get this on the table right away, without mincing words. With regard to the climate crisis, yes, it’s time to panic”

Pierrehumbert, R., 2019. There is no Plan B for dealing with the climate crisis. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, pp.1-7.

So please start the introduction by draw a connection between environmental degradation and resource efficiency

 

- “The relative number of compact roof defects attributed to precipitation moisture 94

was found by Bunkholt et al. [26] to have increased over the last decade”. What´s the reason ?

 

- “The work has primarily been carried out in a Norwegian context to exemplify the 121

framework approach to a specific setting. However, the results are considered valid for blue-green roofs across cold-climate regions in general, both for new builds and renovations”. On what basis can the authors make such conclusion ?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded well to my initial comments and the paper is now much improved.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no more comments.