Regeneration Criteria for Adaptive Reuse of the Waterfront Ecosystem: Learning from the US Case Study to Improve European Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript " Ecosystem Waterfront Regeneration: the adaptive reuse be-2 tween natural disasters and redevelopment strategy" copes with the contemporary debate about urban regeneration and environmental systems. The manuscript requires a new conceptualization and rewriting of the entire text. The reviewer recommends major revisions before publication:
- The content is descriptive and the research design is very week. The manuscript lacks a clear structure and logical connections. Research goals are missing. All these questions the research merits. The reason why you choose to analyses the "Rebuild By Design" must be explained (in the introduction and in the method section - please add the reference for the lines 356-359). If the selected American examples are the best cases, explain why and which authors state this. Highlight more intention to contextualize this in Europe and explain the similarities and differences in two different contexts - if this is the aim of the research at all.
- Abstract: My suggestion is to eliminate the first sentence unless the information on institutional collaboration is key to the work.
- The introduction chapter must be rewritten to respond to a clear logical structure. Write the introduction as one text. Be more concise than vague and stay focused on the key issues of the manuscript. Give an explicit distinction between previous findings and your intentions; for example, I failed to understand whether the text in lines 45-56 shows your intentions or not.
- I failed to understand why section 2 “Literature review” is part of the introduction? If the paper was intended to review the literature, please, demonstrate it after the method (and explain the reviewing criteria in the method section). This section makes a good introduction as currently presented.
- Method: Your process is complex, so my suggestion is to illustrate your research process to avoid being complicated.
- Section 4 present results while 5th is just discussion.
- Conclusion: lines 765-772 are unnecessary because the conclusion is not equal to the summary. Develop a conclusion to include possible applications of your result, possibilities for further development of the research, obstacles, etc.
- Please consider major editing in English. Readability is low throughout the manuscript. It is really difficult to read it and follow the logical flow of sentences. Problems are varied including wordy sentences, missing articles, incorrect sentence structures and inadequate use of words. Just one example: Line 113-114: “While section 3 introduces the methodological approach, based on the themes of the waterfront as a proactive ecosystem with collaborative regeneration of the built environment in which it is possible to identify coastal ecosystem criteria.” - improper formatting, missing article and wordy sentence.
Reviewer
Author Response
Point 1: The content is descriptive and the research design is very week. The manuscript lacks a clear structure and logical connections. Research goals are missing. All these questions the research merits. The reason why you choose to analyses the "Rebuild By Design" must be explained (in the introduction and in the method section - please add the reference for the lines 356-359). If the selected American examples are the best cases, explain why and which authors state this. Highlight more intention to contextualize this in Europe and explain the similarities and differences in two different contexts - if this is the aim of the research at all.
Response 1: All the transformations of the text and its adjustments requested by reviewer 1 are marked in yellow at the extremes of the sentence, those of reviewer 2 in blue. The content and research design have been completely improved based on the indications that reviewer 1 provided. Responding in order to the critical issues of the first point, the structure of the paper was transformed by detailing the titles and subtitles of the sections and separating the introduction from the state of the art as required. The paper is organized into five sections. Section 1 concerning the introduction to waterfront ecosystem scenario and research intentions. Section 2 frames concerns of the literary review of theoretical backgrounds supporting the research to identify the link between ecosystem rebalancing initiatives. The reviewing criteria were based on coastal ecosystem impacts about technological, environmental and human dimensions. Section 3 introduces the methodological approach, based on the comparison between ecosystem reading and focuses emerged by literary review. Section 4 describes results achieved as criteria for coastal ecosystem regeneration. Section 5 discusses the operational indications in comparison with the US and EU contexts.
Furthermore, the research goal has been included in the abstract (lines 27-31) and in the introduction (lines 178-185). Finally, the reasons why selected American examples are the best cases have been included both in the abstract (lines 32-33) and in the introduction (lines 196-200 supported by references 12; 13; 14) and in the methodology (lines 641-649; references 48).
Specifically “American practices were chosen as an exceptional example of a holistic response to the problem of post-disaster interventions [48]. Specifically, learn from the Rebuild By Design competition how winning projects were organized to respond to Hurricane Sandy, the US flood mitigation strategies describe a facing post-disaster strategy. Rebuild By Design rep-resents one of the most recent defense experiments against catastrophic flooding events based on global participation: the US case studies are significant for the holistic quality of the defence proposals which involved experts from all over the world to testing innovative solution”.
Finally, the section dedicated to transferability to the European context has been stressed to validate the criteria adaptability comparing them with the focuses of the US and EU strategic documents (lines 37-39 in the abstract; lines 598-601 in the methods; lines 1480-1509 in the discussion).
Point 2: Abstract: My suggestion is to eliminate the first sentence unless the information on institutional collaboration is key to the work.
Response 2: As suggested by reviewer 1, the information relating to the involvement of university bodies has been delated from the abstract.
Point 3: The introduction chapter must be rewritten to respond to a clear logical structure. Write the introduction as one text. Be more concise than vague and stay focused on the key issues of the manuscript. Give an explicit distinction between previous findings and your intentions; for example, I failed to understand whether the text in lines 45-56 shows your intentions or not.
Response 3: The introduction has been completely rewritten in order to respond clearly to the logical structure of the paper (lines 143-210). Furthermore, the introduction has been rewritten according to a single text, trying to stay focused on the main key issues of the paper and distinguishing previous findings (lines148-169) and research intentions (169-173). The American approach is described (lines 156-159) in comparison to the European approach (lines 160-167) to highlight how they influence each other in relation to the issue of the paper (lines 167-177).
Point 4: I failed to understand why section 2 “Literature review” is part of the introduction? If the paper was intended to review the literature, please, demonstrate it after the method (and explain the reviewing criteria in the method section). This section makes a good introduction as currently presented.
Response 4: The text of the paper has two separate sections for the introduction (section 1 contained in the lines 143-210) and for the review of the literature (section 2 contained in the lines 354-475). Within the critical reading of the literature, the criteria that guided this process (lines 391-433) have been included. Furthermore, the result of the application of these criteria for reading the literature made it possible to identify focuses according to a process described in section 4 relating to the results of the paper as required by reviewer 1 (lines 908-937).
Point 5: Method: Your process is complex, so my suggestion is to illustrate your research process to avoid being complicated.
Response 5: the method has been rewritten in order to be simplified and integrated according to the indications relating to the previous point (lines 595-685). Specifically, “The purpose of the methodology is to carry out a comparative analysis of the US experiences in order to understand the most significant emerging criteria. The research is not aimed at defining a ranking of individual projects but rather at understanding, the strategies adopted. It helps to identify the main elements of success for implanting their transferability in EU strategies. It takes particular attention to the definition of criteria as tool able to improve decision-making processes and in general the ecosystem redevelopment projects. The methodology is divided into three main phases as shown in Figure 1”. In addition, Figure 1 was inserted to describe the methodological path carried out in a clearer and more indicative way.
Point 6: Section 4 present results while 5th is just discussion.
Response 6: Section 4 concerns only to the results (lines 908-1224). Instead, the section 5 concerns only to discussion (lines 1449-1509).
Point 7: Conclusion: lines 765-772 are unnecessary because the conclusion is not equal to the summary. Develop a conclusion to include possible applications of your result, possibilities for further development of the research, obstacles, etc.
Response 7: In the conclusions have been eliminated the entire rewritten section (lines 1535-1572). In particular, the conclusions include possible applications of results (1535-1547), the possibilities for further development of the research (1548.1553), results opportunity (lines1554-1158), results limits (1559-1561), and innovativeness (1562-1572).
Point 8: Please consider major editing in English. Readability is low throughout the manuscript. It is really difficult to read it and follow the logical flow of sentences. Problems are varied including wordy sentences, missing articles, incorrect sentence structures and inadequate use of words. Just one example: Line 113-114: “While section 3 introduces the methodological approach, based on the themes of the waterfront as a proactive ecosystem with collaborative regeneration of the built environment in which it is possible to identify coastal ecosystem criteria.” - improper formatting, missing article and wordy sentence.
Response 8: the entire paper underwent an English language revision process to ensure a higher quality of manuscript readability. The sentences have been simplified and their length reduced.
Reviewer 2 Report
The proposed article has interesting and rather actual content. Anyway, the authors should devote more attention to the work’s main focuses.
1_ The focuses of the article should be clarified. Title and abstract have to be consistent with the following manuscript.
It seems clear that the manuscript deals with US case studies (post-disaster event: Hurricane Sandy), therefore, the article does not present a broader view, as suggested in the abstract – ‘The methodology, based on critical reading of flood mitigation strategies caused by catastrophic climatic events’ (abstract, p.1). Consequently, the reference to Hurricane Sandy / ‘Rebuild by Design’ should appear in the title (?). The actual title is too generic.
If the main object of the article is the ‘Rebuild by Design’ competition, we wonder if the main focus should be clearly declared from the beginning (e.g. as 'learning from US case study / ‘Rebuild by Design’ competition... ', by explaining why and how the US case is significant. To reinforce the possible importance of the US case, authors should also refer to other international examples.
We ask: Are the strengths and weaknesses of the winning projects examined drawn from the literature or are they an original contribution of the authors? (‘4.2. The six winning projects’, from line 417)
In the abstract, authors mentioned the possibility to test/transfer the results of the work - ‘in order to test their transferability in those countries, such as Italy, where the cultural asset dominates the heritage dimension of their ecosystem’. In the manuscript the references to a possible application of one of the ‘Rebuild by Design’ approach solution in Italy are insufficient and vague.
2_ Introduction and titles/subtitles must be revised and enriched; they should introduce the content of the following text and guide the reading.
3_ The authors should emphasize what is the novelty introduced by the article - a reading of the US examples? We guess + an 'ecosystem reading', as suggested in line 655)
4_ References
For a ‘state of the art’ on the reflection on waterfront regeneration processes, we recommend: Avni, N. and Teschner, N. (2019) ‘Urban Waterfronts: Contemporary Streams of Planning Conflicts’, Journal of Planning Literature, 34(4), pp. 408–420. doi: 10.1177/0885412219850891.
5_ Figures
Authors should specify: ‘author's elaboration’ (captions of Fig. 8 and Fig. 9)
Author Response
Point 1: The focuses of the article should be clarified. Title and abstract have to be consistent with the following manuscript.
It seems clear that the manuscript deals with US case studies (post-disaster event: Hurricane Sandy), therefore, the article does not present a broader view, as suggested in the abstract – ‘The methodology, based on critical reading of flood mitigation strategies caused by catastrophic climatic events’ (abstract, p.1). Consequently, the reference to Hurricane Sandy / ‘Rebuild by Design’ should appear in the title (?). The actual title is too generic.
If the main object of the article is the ‘Rebuild by Design’ competition, we wonder if the main focus should be clearly declared from the beginning (e.g. as 'learning from US case study / ‘Rebuild by Design’ competition... ', by explaining why and how the US case is significant. To reinforce the possible importance of the US case, authors should also refer to other international examples.
We ask: Are the strengths and weaknesses of the winning projects examined drawn from the literature or are they an original contribution of the authors? (‘4.2. The six winning projects’, from line 417)
In the abstract, authors mentioned the possibility to test/transfer the results of the work - ‘in order to test their transferability in those countries, such as Italy, where the cultural asset dominates the heritage dimension of their ecosystem’. In the manuscript the references to a possible application of one of the ‘Rebuild by Design’ approach solution in Italy are insufficient and vague.
Response 1: All the transformations of the text and its adjustments requested by reviewer 1 are marked in yellow at the extremes of the sentence, those of reviewer 2 in blue. The title and the abstract have been completely rewritten in order to be compatible with what is stated in the manuscript. In particular, the explicit treatment of US case studies was declared within both the abstract (lines 27-39) and the title of the paper “Regeneration criteria for adaptive reuse of waterfront ecosystem: learning from the US case study to improve European approach”.
The introduction has been completely rewritten (lines 143-210) in order to better clarify the focuses of the article. In addition, at lines 171-185 the focus of the paper was declared from the beginning as reviewer 2 suggests. Specifically “It is clear that while starting from a common purpose, the American approach is more attentive to recreational defensive transformations while the European one to the integration of technological aspects. It is therefore interesting to look at the latest American innovative solutions to improve and implement the European vision, especially from the point of view of landscape transformation. It represents an innovative goal based on preserving the values of the coastal city and waterfront dynamics as ecosystem identity [9]. Taking note of this processes transformation, the paper offers coastal ecosystem criteria as an opportunity for regenerating and defending tangible values (ecological, human, settlement, infrastructural, wildlife, etc.) and intangible values. The latter constitutes the cultural capital of the site defined as a place of intersection for aggregation, ex-change and flow of knowledge, traditions including social and natural identities.
The research intends to establish a system of criteria determined by comparison of analysis of US ecosystem reading. This regeneration and rebalancing process analysis of coastal ecosystems is a significant strategy of sustainable development. The research interprets the waterfront as a complex dynamic system supplying the protection services and the balance of coastal ecosystems. The research goal is to analyse significant American practices, chosen as an exceptional example of a holistic response to the problem of post-disaster interventions, to identify criteria that can be validated in the US and EU strategic contexts to implement these scenarios [10].”
Furthermore, the reasons for the choice of the American cases and how they are significant have been included (lines 191-200) through the support of accredited references 12; 13; 14.
In section 3 dedicated to the methods, it was specified that following the information deriving from the literature an original contribution of the authors about strengths and weakness projects at lines 667-670. In the Section 4 it was stressed for each American projects at lines 978-990; 1009-1017; 1037-1044; 1064-1071; 1091-1099; 1138-1155.
Within the abstract as well as the text of the paper, any reference to transferability in European contexts has been changed as suggested by the reviewer 2. Specifically in the abstract (lines 37-39) and in section 5 (lines 1480-1509). In particular, this concept it is stressed from line 1501 “This comparison highlights how European legislation is highly advanced in the field of sustainability but is not very focused on the specific sector of flooding. The indications of the validation return a scenario of correspondence between the American and European guidelines. However, at the same time, it highlights the lack of the latter to offer precise information on the regeneration of waterfront ecosystem after climate disasters. For this reason, these criteria could act as an integrative factor into the European regulatory framework to implement and fill existing gaps. These criteria would improve the European debate towards the construction of precise guidelines for a waterfront ecosystem regeneration.”
Point 2: Introduction and titles/subtitles must be revised and enriched; they should introduce the content of the following text and guide the reading.
Response 2: The introduction has been completely rewritten as requested in the previous point. In particular, each title / subtitle has been enriched in order to be more relevant and descriptive with respect to the content of the text it presents (line 44; line 211-212; line 382; line 435; line 477; line 686; line 1226).
Specifically “The paper is organized into five sections. Section 1 concerning the introduction to waterfront ecosystem scenario and research intentions. Section 2 frames concerns of the literary review of theoretical backgrounds supporting the research to identify the link between ecosystem rebalancing initiatives. The reviewing criteria were based on coastal ecosystem impacts about technological, environmental and human dimensions.
Section 3 introduces the methodological approach, based on the comparison be-tween ecosystem reading and focuses emerged by literary review.
Section 4 describes results achieved as criteria for coastal ecosystem regeneration.
Section 5 discusses the operational indications in comparison with the US and EU contexts.”
Point 3: The authors should emphasize what is the novelty introduced by the article - a reading of the US examples? We guess + an 'ecosystem reading', as suggested in line 655)
Response 3: The novelty of the paper is described in the introduction (lines 171-177) as “It represents an innovative goal based on preserving the values of the coastal city and waterfront dynamics as ecosystem identity [9]. Taking note of this processes transformation, the paper offers coastal ecosystem criteria as an opportunity for regenerating and defending tangible values (ecological, human, settlement, infrastructural, wildlife, etc.) and intangible values. The latter constitutes the cultural capital of the site defined as a place of intersection for aggregation, exchange and flow of knowledge, traditions including social and natural identities.” And in the conclusion (lines 1562-1572) as “The innovativeness of the research consists in the product that it developed with the construction of the criteria but also in the process in relation to the ecosystem type and state of the art critical reading methods. In fact, they made it possible to trace a principle of circularity attributable to the autopoietic capacity of the waterfront ecosystem cast. The identification of these criteria highlights the need for an integrated approach to ecosystem services and the role of their evaluation as a binder in the phases of urban regeneration. In particular, the document demonstrates how technology supports the improvement of coastal ecosystem services in urban regeneration processes, understanding the coastal ecosystem as centers of production, consumption and demographic settlement. Coastal ecosystem is a wealth of driving forces for the social sustainability, economic growth and environmental protection.”
Furthermore, the term "ecosystem reading" has been used in the text, replacing it with "critical reading of waterfront ecosystem / project".
Point 4: References For a ‘state of the art’ on the reflection on waterfront regeneration processes, we recommend: Avni, N. and Teschner, N. (2019) ‘Urban Waterfronts: Contemporary Streams of Planning Conflicts’, Journal of Planning Literature, 34(4), pp. 408–420. doi: 10.1177/0885412219850891.
Response 4: The reference suggested by reviewer 2 Avni, N. and Teschner, N. (2019) 'Urban Waterfronts: Contemporary Streams of Planning Conflicts', Journal of Planning Literature, 34 (4), pp. 408-420. doi: 10.1177 / 0885412219850891 was included in reference number 10.
Point 5: Figures Authors should specify: ‘author's elaboration’ (captions of Fig. 8 and Fig. 9)
Response 5: As suggested by reviewer 2 'author's elaboration' it was specified for the captions of Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 9 (before numbered as Fig. 8), Fig. 10 (before numbered as Fig. 9) and Figure 11.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Regeneration criteria for adaptive reuse of waterfront ecosystem: learning from the US case study to improve European approach" has been significantly improved.
An article seems to be missing in the title - before waterfront.
However, I have to suggest two other things before publishing.
First, please, write an introduction as a single text. An introduction should explain the state of art. Incomparably better than it was in the first version, but the introduction remains a combination of state of art and literature review.
Second, please give a second review of the English editing.
Best
Author Response
The extremes of the correct text for the indications of reviewer 1 are in yellow while those for reviewer 2 are in light blue
Point 1: The manuscript "Regeneration criteria for adaptive reuse of waterfront ecosystem: learning from the US case study to improve European approach" has been significantly improved. An article seems to be missing in the title - before waterfront.
Response 1: The article "the" was inserted in the title before the word waterfront. So the new title turns out to be "Regeneration criteria for adaptive reuse of the waterfront ecosystem: learning from the US case study to improve European approach" (line 2).
Point 2: However, I have to suggest two other things before publishing. First, please, write an introduction as a single text. An introduction should explain the state of art. Incomparably better than it was in the first version, but the introduction remains a combination of state of art and literature review.
Response 2: The introduction was improved as a single text (lines 124-241). We move and improve literature review comments in section 3 at lines 868-912 and lines 949-986. In this way, the first introductory section is deduced only from the state of the art within a single text and literary review is coherent with developing text.
Point 3: Second, please give a second review of the English editing.
Response 3: The English was revised again with the support of a British speaker.
Reviewer 2 Report
The work does not appear exhaustive, and sufficiently deepened. The announced intentions of the article (abstract) are not reflected in the content of the manuscript. The reason to choose "Rebuild by Design" is not sufficiently explained. No real results are formulated, much less conclusions.
In report 1 I suggested reference 10, the latter is not correctly related to the text: ‘The research goal is to analyze significant American practices, chosen as an exceptional example of a holistic response to the problem of post disaster interventions, to identify criteria that can be validated in the US and EU strategic contexts to implement these scenarios [10]’.
Author Response
The extremes of the correct text for the indications of reviewer 1 are in yellow while those for reviewer 2 are in light blue.
Point 1: The work does not appear exhaustive, and sufficiently deepened. The announced intentions of the article (abstract) are not reflected in the content of the manuscript.
Response 1: In order to make the work more exhaustive and sufficiently detailed, section 3 has been improved with other cultural considerations (lines 868-942).
In order to give consistency between the announced intentions of the article (abstract) and the content of the manuscript, the abstract has been improved at lines 33-52. As “The manuscript addresses the contemporary debate on urban and environmental regeneration, investigating the need to establish new criteria to implement the defence of coastal ecosystems from evolving climate problems. The research looks at metropolitan coastal vulnerabilities, starting with the environmental fragility of flooding, as an opportunity to recover waterfronts ecosystems. The research aim is to learn from the analysis of US advanced regeneration practices to verify the possibility of transferring the principles derived from them to the European context. This transferability takes place through the construction of criteria for the rebalancing of coastal ecosystems, elaborated by an ecosystem reading of the winning projects of the Rebuild by Design competition. These practices are identified in the scientific literature as an exceptional example of a holistic response to the problem of post-disaster interventions. These cases offer an integrated solution in terms of modality back, the money invested, the duration of the design and the time taken to complete it. In addition, these cases, addressing simultaneously multiple vulnerabilities, making it possible to extrapolate from their analysis specific directions to replicate in contexts where even just one of the critical issue is. In order to analyse these cases, the focus emerged from the scientific literature on environmental vulnerabilities, technological innovation and stakeholder involvement were used. The results yield a system of intervention criteria that can be used for the appropriateness of action strategies aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the ecosystem in defence against flooding. Finally, the criteria were compared with the most recent strategic documents of the United States and the European Union in order to demonstrate their relevance and coherence with the international priorities as well as to hypothesise their transferability to the European context.”.
Point 2: The reason to choose "Rebuild by Design" is not sufficiently explained.
Response 2: The reason to choose Rebuild by Design is declared in the abstract at lines 41-46 as “These practices are identified in the scientific literature as an exceptional example of a holistic response to the problem of post-disaster interventions. These cases offer an integrated solution in terms of modality back, the money invested, the duration of the design and the time taken to complete it. In addition, these cases, addressing simultaneously multiple vulnerabilities, making it possible to extrapolate from their analysis specific directions to replicate in contexts where even just one of the critical issue is.”
It has been also explained in the first section at lines 202-233. “An ecosystem reading of flood mitigation strategies in the United States, chosen as the latest example of a holistic response to the problem of post-disaster interventions, identifies six cases of defensive measures. In particular, the research investigates the Re-build By Design practices announced by Housing and Urban Development in the United States to rebuild the New York and New Jersey coastlines following the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The winning Rebuild By Design projects represent the most recent defensive experimentation against catastrophic coastal flooding events based on global participation [20]. Rebuild By Design was chosen for its ability to combine a concomitance of factors: the response methods, the amount of funds invested, the duration of the project and the timing of the implementation of defensive measures [20].
From the point of view of the response mode, the implementation of a call for pro-posals allowed for a holistic quality of defence proposals that involved experts from all over the world to test innovative solutions [21]. In Europe, the approach of an integrated team does not extend to the holistic value whereby experts of world calibre come together for an integrated comparison as in the case of the Costa da Caparica in Portugal [22].
In terms of the amount of funding ($1 billion spent on post-Sandy protection projects in New York and New Jersey) can serve as a model for resilience efforts in other coastal cities [23]. In Europe, the allocation of funds is less and often delayed in time, causing costly and sometimes ineffective economic impact as in the case of the Axis of Greece [24].
From the point of view of project duration, these projects were set up in less than a year precisely to represent the maximum response in the shortest possible time [25]. In Europe, for bureaucratic reasons, the procurement of a project often requires a long pro-cedure as in the case of the Barcelona waterfront in Spain [26].
From the point of view of the implementation time of defensive measures, most of them were carried out on time, in contrast to European cases where the implementation time can be up to 30 years as in the case of Venice in Italy [27].
Finally, all of these Rebuild By Design factors have collaborated in the rebalancing of American coastal ecosystems by returning the experimentation of advanced solutions that respond to a plurality of concomitant vulnerabilities [25]. Addressing simultaneously all these characteristics make ecosystem-rebalancing practices of the winning projects useful to identify transferable solutions in other ecosystems where also just only one or few vulnerabilities are".
In particular, it is supported by the introduction of new references: reference 23 (Collier, S.J.; Cox, S.; Grove, K. Rebuild by design in post-Sandy New York. Limn. 2016, 7, 52-68) and reference 25 (Cardno. C. Rebuilding by Design. Civil Engineering Magazine Archive. 2014, 84, 66-80. The latter specifically concerns Rebuild By Design projects).
In the section 4 at lines 1342-1346 as “In order to restore the topicality and avant-garde nature of Rebuild By Design projects, it is possible to validate the criteria derived by comparing them with the most recent American and European documents. By establishing the criteria with the US and EU strategic lines, it is possible both to demonstrate the correspondence, and therefore the topicality, of the research result, and to integrate the current scenarios by filling any strategic gaps in both contexts.”
Point 3: No real results are formulated, much less conclusions.
Response 3: The results return a system of intervention criteria, which can be used to verify the action strategies intended to ensure the sustainability of the ecosystem (lines 1210-1247). They are defined in the section 3 as "In the case of the first criterion, relating to the Eco-sustainable landscape with natural material, the research emphasizes both the eco-friendly materials for the transformation. From a multi-scale perspective, the protective design must be integrated with the coast, thus defining a new landscape. The latter must meet the surrounding environment by triggering virtuous processes of environmental protection aimed at safeguarding the traditional background of the site.
The second criterion, Comprehensive Strategy for low ecological impact, is based on a holistic approach that places in collaboration several actors to recreate the lost links be-tween the environment and local stakeholders. Furthermore, this criterion aims to exploit multi-actor participation to obtain comprehensive strategies. The collaboration acts on the different dimensions of vulnerabilities with innovative scalar solutions.
The third criterion, Park Productive City zone, is based on the idea of implementing infrastructure capable of producing economic development. This implementation post-pone the attractive capacities to regenerative operation increasing the market value and its employment offer.
The fourth criterion, Adaptive protection for Building system, is based on solutions ca-pable of dealing with ecosystem criticalities, starting with the environmental one, exploits the multi scale dimension of latest defensive technological solutions.
The fifth criterion, Acceptability and Compatibility to the pre-existence, is based on the compatibility of the transformations to integrate the requirements they are called upon to meet. Acceptability of transformation as a predisposition to change the image of a coastal ecosystem with a consolidated historical identity. The principles of acceptability and compatibility can be defined as follows [64]:
- Acceptability: the ability to ensure that project solutions are accepted both by citizens and local administrations and by indirect and potential users of the coastal area. The term refers to the intangible effects of the transformation.
- Compatibility: the ability to avoid irreversible changes in the shape of the site or in its characteristic elements, in the proportions and dimensional relationships between the parts. The ability to avoid degradations or failures deriving from the design solutions. The term refers to the tangible effects of the transformation.
The fifth criterion takes into account the combination of the two identified principles, considering the impacts of the project solution in terms of alteration (or compromise) of the tangible and intangible values of the site.
Finally, the last criterion, Recreational defensive technology, refers to the mixture of several aspects within the single modelling tool of the coast. The technological solution fulfils both human lives and the waterfront protection acting, in the absence of catastrophic climatic events, as recreational equipment useful for income neighbourhood and its stakeholders".
The results are also discussed in the section 4 at lines 1340-1378 as “The system of criteria, determined by analysing the regeneration and rebalancing processes of coastal ecosystems, represents a significant transferable sustainable strategy. In order to restore the topicality and avant-garde of Rebuild By Design projects, it is possible to validate the criteria derived with the most recent American and European documents. By establishing the criteria with the US and EU strategic lines, it is possible both to demonstrate the correspondence, and therefore the topicality, of the research result, and to integrate the current scenarios by filling any strategic gaps in both contexts. The identified criteria correspond to the actions foreseen in the recent US guidelines for a resilient strategy to address critical climate issues expressed in Resilience 21 [65]. Each criterion was correlated to the most significant actions, highlighting the adequacy of what was developed with the current US policy framework. Otherwise, in order to validate the transferability of these criteria also in European contexts, it was significant to correlate the research results to the most recent European goals with reference of the Agenda 2030 [66] and the European Green Deal [67]. This comparison allows us to see how the criteria used meet the European goals by finding a correspondence with some of the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. The criteria are also plastically adaptable in those territories through the indications of the European Green Deal such as Figure 11. The indications of the validation return a scenario of correspondence between the American and European guidelines. This comparison shows the advancement of European legislation in the sustainability field but the lack of specific flooding action. However, it is evident that American one provide precise information on the regeneration of the waterfront ecosystem after climate disasters. For this reason, these criteria could act as an integrating factor in the European regulatory framework to implement and fill existing gaps. These criteria would enhance the European debate towards the construction of pre-cise guidelines for waterfront ecosystem regeneration. This comparison operates in the perspective of new advancement scenarios by testing these criteria in the European context.This experimentation would make it possible to associate the criteria with American actions and European goals in order to construct a system of complex indicators aimed at regulating waterfront ecosystems. The innovation of the American criteria could significantly influence European growth towards building more sustainable landscapes whose ecosystems could represent renewed forms of protective habitats. These criteria would positively influence European strategies, making them more inclusive, and comprehensive. These criteria could hybridize employment and production goals with ecological and recreational qualities of flooding solutions.”
The conclusions were improved in order to give coherence within the manuscript. At lines 1419-1454 discussing the innovations, the limits, the potentiality and perspective of the research in terms of result transferability. It consists in “The research innovativeness consists in product and process the construction of the criteria and their building process relate the ecosystem type with avant-garde methods of critical reading. In fact, they made it possible to trace a principle of circularity ascribable to the autopoietic capacity of the waterfront ecosystem. The identification of these criteria highlights the need for an integrated approach to ecosystem services and the role of their assessment as a binder in urban regeneration phases. In particular, the paper demonstrates how technology supports the improvement of coastal ecosystem services in urban regeneration processes. The manuscript interprets the coastal ecosystem as a centre of production, consumption and population settlement and therefore a driving force for social sustainability, economic growth and environmental protection. The importance of having identified criteria for the regeneration of urban waterfronts lies in their ability to rebalance waterfront ecosystems, while also revitalising the main urban areas in which they are embedded. The aim of the criteria is to helping physical, social and economic rebalance caused by disruptive climatic events and pressures. These criteria embrace the demands of heritage and culture while respecting the identity traits of the genius loci developing towards resilient functions, mindful of social and environmental justice.
In addition, the comparison of the criteria with international thematic standards of reference works demonstrate the relevance and cutting edge of the practices and results achieved. This comparison offers the possibility of constructing new advancement scenarios by envisaging the hypothesis of testing these criteria in the European context. The in-novation of the American criteria could significantly influence European growth towards building more sustainable landscapes whose ecosystems could represent renewed forms of protective habitats. These criteria would improve the European vision in a multiscale perspective, from the building ecosystem to the coastal ecosystem, following the integration and the acceptability with a renewed identity that respects the pre-existence. This experimentation could be implement associating the criteria with American actions and European goals to build a system of waterfront ecosystems indicators.
Finally, the applicability, transferability and replicability of the waterfront regeneration criteria allows defining the specific actions of coastal ecosystems that technicians and administrators can follow. The transferability of the criteria developed in the European context encounters limitations due to the need to plastically adapting these ecosystem re-generation approaches to mitigate the vulnerabilities they address. Otherwise, it offers an opportunity to test how a multi-criteria approach can support and guide practitioners in the planning and design of coastal ecosystems. By involving different aspects of coastal ecosystems, pre-existing assessment tools can be implemented to determine a complex and comprehensive regenerative process.”
Point 4: In report 1 I suggested reference 10, the latter is not correctly related to the text: ‘The research goal is to analyze significant American practices, chosen as an exceptional example of a holistic response to the problem of post disaster interventions, to identify criteria that can be validated in the US and EU strategic contexts to implement these scenarios [10]’.
Response 4: The reference suggested by reviewer 2 Avni, N. and Teschner, N. (2019) 'Urban Waterfronts: Contemporary Streams of Planning Conflicts', Journal of Planning Literature, 34 (4), pp. 408-420. doi: 10.1177 / 0885412219850891 is in the test references number 18. The paper suggested refers to “waterfront functional transformation since the 1970s. The manuscript underline in many ways waterfronts have been proven successful in reviving prime urban areas and have been contested. The article reviews several aspects of the planning conflicts that have been pertinent to the redevelopment of waterfronts internationally: (1) land ownership, (2) heritage and culture, (3) social and environmental justice, and (4) environment and resilience. Based on a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art literature, the manuscript suggest that the growing concerns over social justice and environmental resilience during the course of waterfront redevelopments will continue to challenge cities in the future.”
For this reason, we use this reference for the section 1 at lines 179-183 as “It is relevant if we consider that, since the 1970s, transformations of the world's urban waterfronts have been essential practices for the revitalisation of major urban areas [18]. The rebalancing of coastal ecosystems must therefore take into account various aspects on an international scale, ranging from conflicts over land ownership, cultural heritage, social and environmental justice [18].”
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
According to the ‘Comments for Editors’, I have the impression that the article is much improved (completely transformed) thanks to the reviewers' comments. The article, in the initial version, was really weak. The content, the aim, and the conclusions (at the third revision) should be reformulated and profoundly deepen.
It is neither sufficiently explained nor demonstrated usefulness of ‘Rebuild by Design’ for an improvement of the design approach of the European waterfronts.
Phrases such as 'It is clear that, although starting from a common purpose, the American approach is more focused on defensive recreational transformations while the European one on the integration of technological aspects’ (line 147-148) do not find a clear development in the manuscript.
Author Response
The extremes of the correct text for the indications of reviewer 2 are in light blue
Point 1: According to the ‘Comments for Editors’, I have the impression that the article is much improved (completely transformed) thanks to the reviewers' comments. The article, in the initial version, was really weak. The content, the aim, and the conclusions (at the third revision) should be reformulated and profoundly deepen.
Response 1: To better clarify the content and the aim of the article, the abstract, the introduction and conclusion have been improved.
The abstract as “The article addresses the contemporary debate on urban and environmental regeneration, investigating the need to establish new criteria to implement the defence of coastal ecosystems by climate problems. The research looks at coastal vulnerabilities, starting with the environmental fragility of flooding, as an opportunity to regenerate waterfront ecosystems. The research aim concerns the analysis of US advanced regeneration practices to learn and transfer the principles de-rived from them to the European context. This transferability takes place through the construction of criteria for the rebalancing of coastal ecosystems. The regeneration criteria are resulted from an eco-systemic reading of the winning projects of the Rebuild by Design competition. These practices represents in the scientific literature as an exceptional example of a holistic response to the problem of post-disaster interventions. These cases offer an integrated response in terms of processes, investments, the duration of the design and realization. In addition, these cases simultaneously address multiple vulnerabilities, making it possible to extrapolate from their analysis specific directions to replicate in contexts where even just one of the critical issues exist. The methodological analyses exploit the focus emerged from the scientific literature on environmental vulnerabilities, technological innovation and stakeholder involvement. The results are regeneration criteria able to verify the appropriateness of ecosystem anti-flooding strategies. Comparing the results with the most recent US and the EU strategic documents is possible to demonstrate the regeneration criteria relevance and coherence with the international priorities as well as their potential transferability to the European context.” (lines 30-48).
The introduction lines (172-265) has been improved. The conclusions has been improved at lines (849-886) as “The innovativeness of the research consists in the product developed with the construction of the criteria but also in the process related to the methods of ecosystem reading. The criteria helps to rebalance the physical, social and economic pressures caused by disruptive climatic events, thereby counteracting them and reinforcing the regeneration process. The identification of these criteria highlights the need for an integrated approach to ecosystem services and the role of their assessment as a binder in urban regeneration phases. It possible to trace a principle of circularity ascribable to the autopoietic capacity of the waterfront ecosystem, interpreting the coastal ecosystem a driving force for social sustainability, economic growth and environmental protection. These criteria embrace the demands of heritage and culture while respecting the identity traits of the genius loci and develop towards resilient functions that are mindful of social and environmental justice. The importance of having identified criteria for the regeneration of urban waterfronts lies in their ability to rebalance waterfront ecosystems, while also revitalising the main urban areas in which they are embedded.
In addition, the comparison of the criteria with international thematic standards of reference works to demonstrate the relevance and cutting edge of the practices and results achieved. This comparison offers the possibility to associate the criteria with American actions and European objectives in order to test these criteria in the European context. These criteria would improve the European vision in a multiscale perspective, from the building ecosystem to the coastal ecosystem, following the incentives for integration as well as the acceptability of transformations compatible with a renewed identity that respects the pre-existence. The innovation of the American criteria could significantly influence European growth towards building more sustainable landscapes whose ecosystems could represent renewed forms of protective habitats. These criteria would positively influence European strategies, making them more inclusive, comprehensive, and hybridising employment and production goals with ecological and recreational qualities of solution infrastructure. By involving different aspects of coastal ecosystems, pre-existing assessment tools can be implemented to determine a complex and comprehensive regenerative process. Their applicability, transferability and replicability of the waterfront regeneration criteria allows us to hypothesize the construction of a system of complex indicators to define the specific actions of coastal ecosystems that technicians and administrators can follow. The transferability of the criteria developed in the European context encounters limitations due to the need to plastically adapting these ecosystem regeneration approaches to mitigate the vulnerabilities they address. Otherwise, it offers an opportunity to test how a multi-criteria approach can support and guide practitioners in the planning and design of coastal ecosystems. The transferability of the criteria developed in the European context has limitations due to the need to plastically adapting these approaches to ecosystem regeneration in order to mitigate the vulnerabilities they address.”
Point 2: It is neither sufficiently explained nor demonstrated usefulness of ‘Rebuild by Design’ for an improvement of the design approach of the European waterfronts.
Response 2: It is explained in section 4 at lines 772-778 as “The system of criteria, determined by analysing the regeneration and rebalancing processes of coastal ecosystems, represents a significant transferable sustainable strategy. In order to restore the topicality and avant-garde of Rebuild By Design projects, it is possible to validate the criteria derived with the most recent American and European documents. By establishing the criteria with the US and EU strategic lines, it is possible both to demonstrate the correspondence, and therefore the topicality, of the research result, and to integrate the current scenarios by filling any strategic gaps in both contexts.” And at lines 803-810 as “This experimentation would make it possible to associate the criteria with American actions and European goals in order to construct a system of complex indicators aimed at regulating waterfront ecosystems. The innovation of the American criteria could significantly influence European growth towards building more sustainable landscapes whose ecosystems could represent renewed forms of protective habitats. These criteria would positively influence European strategies and making them more inclusive and comprehensive. These criteria could hybridize employment and production goals with ecological and recreational qualities of flooding solutions.”
Point 3: Phrases such as 'It is clear that, although starting from a common purpose, the American approach is more focused on defensive recreational transformations while the European one on the integration of technological aspects’ (line 147-148) do not find a clear development in the manuscript.
Response 3: The Phrases have been improved to find a clear development in the manuscript, as “The American approach, more focused on defensive recreational transformations than the European technological one, could improve and implement the European vision from the point of view of landscape transformation.”
