Green and Blue Infrastructure as Nature-Based Better Preparedness Solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction: Key Policy Aspects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to read the manuscript entitled "Green and blue infrastructure as nature-based better preparedness solutions for disaster risk reduction: Key policy aspects". The topic is interesting. However, I do have some comments on this manuscript before it could be considered for publication in Sustainability.
- Please replace the keywords that already appear in the manuscript's title with close synonyms or other keywords, which will also facilitate your paper to be searched by potential readers.
- The type of the manuscript is more like a comment paper or review paper, instead of a research paper. I suggest the authors change its type.
- Some grammatical errors exist in the manuscript. Therefore, a critical review of the manuscript language will improve readability.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and the comments. I have herewith attached the word document explaining the changes we have made according to the comments.
Thank You,
Kind Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper examines the global policy key documents and methods for integrating NBS into DRR.
This is a critical review rather than a research paper.
The paper - as it stands - does not offer significant new knowledge, i.e. does not go beyond a synthesis of the examined policy docs.
In the last sentence of the abstract, the authors recommend that these policies/frameworks are translated into local/regional planning and DRM. This is the critical bit of research missing in this paper: where has this happened adequately? how and why? this could help understand how other regions/cities can work towards this translation/integration of eco-DRR. Examining best practices from the governance and technical point of view is necessary.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and the comments. I have herewith attached the word document explaining the changes we have made according to the comments.
Thank You,
Kind Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The proposed article addresses the inclusion of nature-based solutions for disaster prevention in global policies. The argumentation is based on a policy review and a literature review.
In general, the article is interesting, but some improvements are required, starting from a revision of the text.
The sentence on lines 73-76 is a comment of one of the authors. Please submit a final version of the paper!
It is not clear what the focus of the article is. Is it the feasibility of nature-based solutions for disaster prevention or is it the inclusion of such a perspective in global policies?
Global policies are mainly oriented to the preservation of the ecosystems; does it overlap with the application of nature-based solutions for DRR?
The introduction of nature-based solutions (lines 64-67) for DRR is too straightforward. It is affirmed that a desk review on research papers has been developed. What are the results?
Before nature-based solutions, a vast range of technological remedies were developed and applied. Are nature-based solutions more effective and better accepted by local communities?
Ecosystem conservation is not sufficient to prevent disasters when urban development is not properly oriented. And conflicts between ecosystem preservation and urban or agricultural uses must be addressed. Specific nature based-solutions are required for different disaster prevention cases, in accordance with spatial planning.
Regarding the role of global policies, the inclusion of nature-based solutions requires appropriate downscaling at the local level and adaptation to the specific cases, as stated in the article. Wo are global policies aimed at? Which authorities should apply them? What competencies in the field of spatial planning and urban management need to be renewed?
Are the long quotations from global documents necessary?
Check the language! Sentences begin with a capital letter (lines 125, 280, 611); abbreviating a sentence takes only three dots (line 146); check the sentence on lines 275-276; author(s) on lines 295-297; line 165: in its’ goal…, line 755: decisions makers, etc.
The role of mangroves is repeated more times. Are there other interesting cases?
Bibliography needs revising; e.g. line 916: Fekadu, K., & planning, R. (2014).
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and the comments. I have herewith attached the word document explaining the changes we have made according to the comments.
Thank You,
Kind Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript.
Advice on localisation/contextualisation of the major policies into local context is still largely missing. For example, referring to local DRR and how they miss now (and could take in the future) the opportunity to include NBS is not part of the work.
Please refer to at least a few tangible examples, e.g. for different types of NBS or combinations.
A practitioner and city-perspective is missing entirely from the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and we have attached the revised paper and the comments as an attachment.
Kind Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been improved, but it still needs to be revised to meet the required quality.
In particular, the language has not been controlled, starting from the abstract (which should be reformulated to better express the focus of the article).
e.g.:
Line9: “The impact of disasters sincreased”
Line 11: “the adverse impact…by anthropogenic activities”
Line 13-14: “nature-based solutions are recognised as one of successful and sustainable solutions”
Line 170: how many dots for a shortened sentence?
Line 269: “authorization authorisation”
Line 482: “Many scientists believe climate changeis”
Line493: “TArticle 04 of the Paris Agreement”
Line 501: “this effortthrough”
Line 511: “Forests are considered highly diverse ecosystem”
Line 550: “the Paris Agreement is the minimizing the loss”
Line 552: “Resilience and -managed ecosystems can absorb”
Line 567: “and more challenges will pose by urban growth”
Line 597: “For an example include green patches”
Line 637: “As mentioned by the New Urban Agenda the New Urban Agenda,”
Line 776: “a nature-based solution which complement”
Line 787: “It will also provide a better understanding f which environmental functions”
Line 820: “how the changesin”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and we have attached the revised paper and the comments as an attachment.
Kind Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Please evaluate the following points:
- "EU authorities" does not practically mean something.
- use of the term "the author" (158) is not appropriate academic style.
- please replace eco-systems with ecosystems
- the analysis still fails to contextualise these policies, i.e. how they are downscaled in local policy. Examples would help
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback and the comments. I have herewith attached the word document explaining the changes we have made according to the comments. Please feel free to contact if you have further comments or suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
