Application of Geodesign Techniques for Ecological Engineered Landscaping of Urban River Wetlands: A Case Study of Yuhangtang River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from the reviewers. We apologise for the confusion generated by the previous version of the manuscript and sincerely hope that our article is now more comprehensive with this new version.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The file of the comments is attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from the reviewers. We apologise for the confusion generated by the previous version of the manuscript and sincerely hope that our article is now more comprehensive with this new version.

Please see the attachment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear reviewer,        

        We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from the reviewers. We sincerely hope our article is more comprehensive with this new version.

       Modifications of the new version are listed as follows:

Some improper words and expressions in L. 42, 44, 51, 75, 89, 94, 103, 117, 154, 155, 276, 289, 434, 451, 462, 564, 595, and 639 are modified.

A more detailed description of the 6-step-based geodesign methodology is now explained and cited in section 1.

The author agrees with the opinion of the viewer that an important way forward to improved design decision-making is to better integrate a multidisciplinary landscape architecture/engineering approach using some type of BIM platform (e.g., Revit, Civil 3D, etc.). Now it is clarified in ‘section 5. Further discussion’.

The author now clarified that ‘topological roughness’ in the paper is defined by Riley’s TRI index.

The author now uses the term ‘riparian zones’ instead of ‘riparian’ in the paper.

The author clarified that the 5 flood risk categories are based on probability.

In section 3.1.1., the author now expresses ‘a bigger and more permeable floodplain area will increase infiltration’ to avoid ambiguity.

In L. 437, the incorrect expression “hirst” is now removed.

In L. 496, 523,  the incorrect term “complex barge” is now replaced by ‘ concrete embankment ’.

The last sentence in Section 5 is now re-written.

 

The Author

Nov. 2022

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear reviewer,        

        We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from the reviewers. We sincerely hope our article is more comprehensive with this new version.

       Modifications of the new version are listed as follows:

 

A more detailed description of the 6-step-based geodesign methodology used in river EEL planning is now explained and cited in section 1.

The author now uses the term ‘riparian zones’ instead of ‘riparian’ in the paper.

Some incorrect term, e.g., “complex barge”, is now replaced.

The author now expresses that ‘ for improving Ecological design decision-making, it is to better integrate a multidisciplinary landscape architecture/engineering approach using some type of BIM platform (e.g., Revit, Civil 3D, etc.)’  in ‘section 5. Further discussion’. Some related literature is now cited.

The last sentence in Section 5 is now rewritten to emphasise the further potential of improving geodesign methodology for ecological landscape design.

Also, the author now corrects some grammar mistakes to make sentences more concise.

 

The Author

Nov. 2022

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author (s)

A lot of improvement can be seen in the structure of the paper which makes it more readable. 

Despite the improvements, there is some cluster of ecological landscape designs in related to wetlands that could be part of the list of references in the paper to make it more interesting for the scholarships. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear reviewer,        

        We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from the reviewers. We sincerely hope our article is more comprehensive with this new version.

       Modifications of the new version are listed as follows:

 

Some improper words and expressions in L. 42, 44, 51, 75, 89, 94, 103, 117, 154, 155, 276, 289, 434, 451, 462, 564, 595, and 639 are modified.

A more detailed description of the 6-step-based geodesign methodology is now explained and cited in section 1.

The author agrees with the opinion of the viewer that an important way forward to improved design decision-making is to better integrate a multidisciplinary landscape architecture/engineering approach using some type of BIM platform (e.g., Revit, Civil 3D, etc.). Now it is clarified in ‘section 5. Further discussion’.

The author now clarified that ‘topological roughness’ in the paper is defined by Riley’s TRI index.

The author now uses the term ‘riparian zones’ instead of ‘riparian’ in the paper.

The author clarified that the 5 flood risk categories are based on probability.

In section 3.1.1., the author now expresses ‘a bigger and more permeable floodplain area will increase infiltration’ to avoid ambiguity.

In L. 437, the incorrect expression “hirst” is now removed.

In L. 496, 523,  the incorrect term “complex barge” is now replaced by ‘ concrete embankment ’.

The last sentence in Section 5 is now rewritten.

 

The Author

Nov. 2022

 

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear reviewer,        

        We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from the reviewers. We sincerely hope our article is more comprehensive with this new version.

       Modifications of the new version are listed as follows:

 

A more detailed description of the 6-step-based geodesign methodology used in river EEL planning is now explained and cited in section 1.

The author now uses the term ‘riparian zones’ instead of ‘riparian’ in the paper.

Some incorrect term, e.g., “complex barge”, is now replaced.

The author now expresses that ‘ for improving Ecological design decision-making, it is to better integrate a multidisciplinary landscape architecture/engineering approach using some type of BIM platform (e.g., Revit, Civil 3D, etc.)’  in ‘section 5. Further discussion’. Some related literature is now cited.

The last sentence in Section 5 is now rewritten to emphasise the further potential of improving geodesign methodology for ecological landscape design.

Also, the author now corrects some grammar mistakes to make sentences more concise.

 

The Author

Nov. 2022

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The only remaining comment I have is that L. 663 should replace "SUWD" with either "WSUD" (although in China, Sponge City may be a more common term?) or perhaps better, "Nature-based Solution". Otherwise, the authors have addressed my comments and I wish them luck on their future work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Now the author have modified 'SUWD' into 'Nature-based Solution' in the text.

We would like to appreciate the reviewer again for the advice.