Evaluating Dual Ecological and Well-Being Benefits from an Urban Restoration Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This was a really nice study examining an important topic.The authors study examined two urban rivers with one having a site that was restored using in-stream and riparian techniques. This restored location was compared to one upstream and one downstream location on the same river (Medlock) and to three sites on a similar nearby river with no restoration efforts (Irk). In general, there was improvement in macroinvertebrate assemblages and social perception of the river and park, though some concerns were also noted.

 

It is great to see a combined effort to link ecological and social outcomes of urban river restoration. I thought the survey of participants was well planned and the summary table of results from the focus groups were very interesting to read. In general, the statistics used for analyses were appropriate and I like the use of response ratios. The paper was well organized and easy to read, though a few very minor typos exist that will need correcting. The authors do a nice job citing the literature as well, which provides excellent context for their study. All in all, this was a nice study and I appreciate the opportunity to review this paper.

 

Major comments:

 

(1) I think the reader would benefit from knowing additional details of sites on each river and the justification for choosing each non-restored site location. One very notable finding was that the Medlock upstream site was in better ecological condition than the restored site and the restored site was in better condition that the unrestored downstream site. Looking at the pictures in Figure 1 is great, but what did the upstream site look like? Was it in a more natural condition? Did it also have a brick bottom streambed? It would be quite useful to know these details. If possible, it would be very useful to have a picture of the upstream site added to Figure 1 and it wouldn't hurt to have pictures of the three sites on the River Irk as well so the reader can visually get a sense of all 6 sites. Are there any quantitative or even qualitative data on the physical habitat and catchments of all 6 sites that could be summarized in an appendix (e.g., substrata composition, flow/velocity, width, canopy cover, riparian condition, geomorphology, drainage areas, watershed land cover, how far apart are the three sites on each river, etc.)? These details, or at least a better description of the upstream Medlock site, would be very helpful for interpreting results and possible causes. For example, just looking at Fig. 1a and 1c I think it would be a reasonable expectation that the macroinvertebrate community was probably in better condition in the restored site EVEN BEFORE the restoration occurred (though obviously restoration looks much better). Could it even be a possibility that the restored site was similar to the upstream site before restoration and the restored site is possibly still recovering from the restoration activities that take time (as the authors do cite and discuss as a possibility regarding restoration efforts in general). I do appreciate the authors discussion of caveats and other possibilities, which was well done. As the authors note, it is unfortunate that a before restoration sample was not collected. It would be quite useful to know more details about the sites, but especially that upstream Medlock one.

 

(2) I’m not sure much can be done to address this concern given the study’s sample size, but I’ll state it anyway. Ideally, the authors would use some type of statistical analysis that can account for temporal effects of sampling the same sites during 3 seasons (April/May 2015, September/October 2015, and April/May 2016. The study collected four macroinvertebrate samples during each of three visits to each site during three seasons, and for analyses each the four macroinvertebrate samples per sampling visit were pooled (i.e., my understanding is that this leads to 54 total observations in the statistical analyses based on 3 visits x 3 seasons x 6 sites). How does seasonality affect macroinvertebrates and how might this affect results (e.g., are there effects due to differences in life histories and times of year that some macroinvertebrate might be more or less abundant?)? Has there been a temporal progression in macroinvertebrate recovery over the course of a year at the restored site? Would it be possible to do some type of appropriate statistical analysis that would be comparable to repeated measures or two-way ANOVA that could quantify the seasonal effects over time and repeated measurements on the same sites? Another example is could there be an effect of one spring being wetter or dryer than the other?

 

(3) I get the logic of comparing Medlock results to three upstream to downstream sites in the River Irk, but without additional site information regarding stream sizes and distances from each other and their general condition (e.g, see above comment), how is a comparison between M-Dr:M-U and I-Du1:I-U any more justified or logical than comparing M-Dr:M-U to I-Du1:IDu2 or even to I-Du2:I-U? I wonder if results and conclusions would be different if compared to all three combinations of sites. The same issue exists for comparing M-Dr:M-Du to only I-Du1:I-Du2 when it could just as logically be compared to I-U:I-Du1 or to I-U:I-Du2. Results and conclusions likely would be more robust if these issues are addressed.

 

Minor comments:

Table 1 provides a nice summary of the comparisons.

Lines 220-222: Pretty minor, but how as “saturation of views” determined?

Figure 3: The site abbreviations are inconsistent with what was discussed in the text. Also, probably would be good to remove the numbers in the figures. They just add clutter without meaning to the reader (Same suggestion for figure 4).

Lines 451-452 and lines 470-479: These are examples of where some additional details on the upstream Medlock site would be quite useful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The research is interesting but it needs to be improved.

Main problems of the article: 

Methodology, Interpretation, relevant references.

The Introduction needs to be defined more specifically.

2. The methodology need better explained. 

3. Conclusions are not supported by results adequately.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf