Pre-Existing Interventions as NBS Candidates to Address Societal Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to assess pre-existing interventions in the city of Lublin that may be candidates to be considered as NBS based on one criterion: societal challenges. The argument is that there is no officially recognised NBS intervention in Lublin, and those pre-existing interventions were neglected in previous studies.

The contextualisation of the paper topic concerning existing research that deals with NBS in Poland/Lublin should be included to show the lack of research regarding pre-existing interventions that could be considered potential NBS. Is this issue addressed in other urban contexts?

Suppose there is a lack of research on this topic. In that case, it is advisable to state the importance of analysing those pre-existing interventions under the lens of NBS considering that they were made in another time according to particular purposes that do not necessarily meet NBS requirements and today's sustainability issues. How and why will recognising them contribute to fostering NBS in Lublin? How and why can identifying pre-existing interventions and NBS contribute to promoting NBS implementation in other cities?

The paper does not address the knowledge gap intended to be developed and its contribution to future NBS implementation in Lublin or other cities facing current sustainability challenges.

The paper does not clarify why the societal challenge was adopted among the eight criteria established to define NBS; and why the societal challenge is relevant concerning Lublin city's existing urban situation and needs. It is also questionable to adopt one criterion (out of 8) to indicate the pre-existing interventions as possible NBS when at least 75% of the eight criteria must be met for an intervention to be considered NBS.

Methodologically, there is a lack of rigour concerning the parameters of analysis and the societal challenge to be analysed, apart from the apparent lack of data, which compromises the final results. Besides, it is essential to discuss in detail the data collection techniques used (apart from mapping), the types of respondents approached, their profiles, etc.

It is recommended to add references to the text. There are many statements without references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

The paper aims to assess pre-existing interventions in the city of Lublin that may be candidates to be considered as NBS based on one criterion: societal challenges. The argument is that there is no officially recognised NBS intervention in Lublin, and those pre-existing interventions were neglected in previous studies.

 

The contextualisation of the paper topic concerning existing research that deals with NBS in Poland/Lublin should be included to show the lack of research regarding pre-existing interventions that could be considered potential NBS. Is this issue addressed in other urban contexts? Suppose there is a lack of research on this topic. In that case, it is advisable to state the importance of analysing those pre-existing interventions under the lens of NBS considering that they were made in another time according to particular purposes that do not necessarily meet NBS requirements and today's sustainability issues. How and why will recognising them contribute to fostering NBS in Lublin? How and why can identifying pre-existing interventions and NBS contribute to promoting NBS implementation in other cities?

The paper does not address the knowledge gap intended to be developed and its contribution to future NBS implementation in Lublin or other cities facing current sustainability challenges

 

• Thank you for your comments. The Scopus database search (criteria pre-existing AND nature-based solution in ALL Fields) showed that there are only 23 papers referring to those two key words. None of these papers explores the Poland case study. Therefore, the search results showed that the topic discussed in the paper is not only novel and relevant to the Polish conditions, but also that there is a lack of similar studies worldwide. Of course, there are studied referring to Polish urban parks, allotment gardens, urban waters etc. in the context of considering them as NBS. Therefore, the second Scopus search (search criteria: Poland OR Polish AND nature-based solution in ALL Fields, June 2022) was performed. Despite, the fact that the search results showed 224 papers (including only 2 referring to the city of Lublin) they usually refer to elements of GBI as being NBS from the definition, without taking into consideration the fact that to be framed as NBS a given pre-existing intervention should meet IUCN global criteria for NBS, including challenge-orientation. The above-mentioned explanation has been included at the end of the introduction.

 

 

The paper does not clarify why the societal challenge was adopted among the eight criteria established to define NBS; and why the societal challenge is relevant concerning Lublin city's existing urban situation and needs.

 

• Thank you for your valuable comment. The explanation why the societal challenge is relevant concerning Lublin city's existing urban situation and needs was provided in section 2.1.

 

It is also questionable to adopt one criterion (out of 8) to indicate the pre-existing interventions as possible NBS when at least 75% of the eight criteria must be met for an intervention to be considered NBS.

• According to IUCN global standards at least 75% of the eight criteria must be met for an intervention to be considered as strong NBS candidate, ≥25 &<50 to be considered as Partial NBS, as ≥50 &<75 to be framed as Adequate. In the paper, however, we do not assess all the 8 criteria of considering pre-existed interventions as NBS which are  (1) NBS effectively address societal challenges; (2) The design of NBS is informed by scale; (3) NBS result in a net gain in biodiversity and ecosystem integrity; (4) NBS are economically viable; (5) NBS are based on inclusive and transparent governance processes; (6) NBS equitably balance trade-offs; (7) NBS are managed adaptively and (8) NBS support sustainable development. The paper focused only on one of them which is challenge orientation. The limitation of such approach was included in section 4.3.

 

 

Methodologically, there is a lack of rigour concerning the parameters of analysis and the societal challenge to be analysed, apart from the apparent lack of data, which compromises the final results.

 

• Data used in the study are presented in lines 212-218 and also included in Table 1, column C. If reviewer is of the opinion that it is required to take into account a specific type of data, please specify what data is missing.

 

 

Besides, it is essential to discuss in detail the data collection techniques used (apart from mapping), the types of respondents approached, their profiles, etc.

• Thank you for your comment. The respondents that taken part in the study include only representatives of different departments of the Lublin City Office (LCO) that possess knowledge on different aspects of functioning and development of pre-existing interventions. The study does not includes the ‘general public’(inhabitants, students, representatives of NGS, etc.) as respondents group and did not aimed to assess the challenge orientation preferences/opinion/needs in relation to different socio-economic groups of respondent. Therefore, the profile of the respondents (Lublin City Office workers) was not important taken into account the aim of the survey, which was  to obtain the data such as number of Existence of climate awareness educational actions or localization of Solution equipment in solar panels.

 

 

It is recommended to add references to the text. There are many statements without references.

 

• Thank you for your comment. Ten new references referring to NBS and societal challenges have been included in the revision. Besides, references from the original version of the article were provided to support some of the statements.
• All changes have been marked green in the revision version of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

1-Shapes and maps do not have the required quality.

2-Strengthen theoretical analysis on tables.

3-Conclusions need further analysis

Author Response

1-Shapes and maps do not have the required quality.

• The figures in the original version of the manuscript had a resolution of 300dpi - the minimum required by the journal. In order to improve their quality figures in the resolution of 500 dpi have been included.

2-Strengthen theoretical analysis on tables.

• Thank you for your comment. We include in-depth theoretical analysis of the tables in the text. We hope that this solution corresponds to the reviewer’ comments.

3-Conclusions need further analysis

• Thank you for your comment, which is consistent with the comment of the reviewer 3. The conclusions section has been included to be more understood by general public.

 

• All changes have been marked green in the revision version of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The main questions addressed by this research were elaborated mostly on lines 99 - 104, where the authors mentioned that within the NBS handbook (Think Nature), however, there is a lack of consideration of local differences interventions and an absence of specific assessment criteria.  Thus, their research (as stated on lines 116-122) would like to assess the challenge orientation of particular NBS types which is the pre-existing interventions that were somehow neglected in previous studies. I would say for this subject matter, would be considered interesting in the research that uses a mapping technique to derive their findings.

The mapping technique in Geospatial research is considered quite relevant where researchers use Mapping tools such as GIS for data mapping & data integration.  In this research, the researcher uses pre-existing interventions such as the Database of Topographic Objects, the study of conditions and directions of spatial development, and many more as presented in lines 173-180 on page 5.

 

This research gives a new set of criteria & scale for mapping in the field of human health, climate change adaptation, and mitigation, and ecosystem degradation/biodiversity as addressed in the abstract lines 21-25.

This paper is seen to be too technical.  It would be easy to understand as a person with expertise in the field.  However, the authors might want to furnish the findings to be a more opened and simplified version of the 'so what' to encourage public reader understanding of the topics and findings.

Author Response

1-Shapes and maps do not have the required quality.

• The figures in the original version of the manuscript had a resolution of 300dpi - the minimum required by the journal. In order to improve their quality figures in the resolution of 500 dpi have been included.

2-Strengthen theoretical analysis on tables.

• Thank you for your comment. We include in-depth theoretical analysis of the tables in the text. We hope that this solution corresponds to the reviewer’ comments.

3-Conclusions need further analysis

• Thank you for your comment, which is consistent with the comment of the reviewer 3. The conclusions section has been included to be more understood by general public.

 

• All changes have been marked green in the revision version of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper can be accepted without any further changes.

Author Response

The paper can be accepted without any further changes.

• Thank you for very flattering review. All changes have been marked green in the revision version of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed paper meets the required clarifications and inputs.