Don’t Split Them Up! Landscape Design of Multifunctional Open Spaces Suitable for Coping with Flash Floods and River Floods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The analysis raises interesting questions for landscape interpretation, but the methodology is not scientifically clear. The intention to link scientific research and design thinking is an important goal, but methodologies should not be confused. It would be important to clarify the relationship between research and design. The methodology of "Projective design" and "research by design" cannot meet the criteria of a scientific research.

In addition to methodological issues, the introduction and conclusion should also be reconsidered. The introduction to the study starts too far by explaining the concept of landscape, it would be worthwhile to start with more specific questions. The conclusions should be more explicit about the answers to the research question. In its present form, the lesson moves on a very general level.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

A full proofreading by a native speaker translator will be provided after the final acceptation of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have enjoyed this opportunity to review this manuscript about the case study of Pistoia under the landscape architecture point of view.

The manuscript as it is, I believe needs some improvements before being considered for publication. I hope that my suggestions below provide some guidance for the authors as they revise this manuscript.

As I read the introduction and into the methods, I was left wondering what is the aim of this manuscript? What research questions are the authors trying to address? 

Related to the lack of a clear aim at the outset of the manuscript, I was left wondering what the introduction and material and methods actually contribute to the aim. They are both highly descriptive, but to me, lack any connection to the (eventual) aim of the manuscript.

I would suggest that a clearly articulated aim, along with some more focused research questions should be found at the end of the introduction so that the readers have a clear idea of what you are trying to achieve early on.

The materials and methods appear to be a further study of the literature review begun in the introduction. This structure lacks coherence and some logical notions are unclear. If the authors intend to provide a literature review on the landscape architecture approach, materials and methods section is not the right part of the text to place it. Could you need a specific section after the introduction called "general overview" or "literature review"? However, I found this Section 2 extremely broad, unfocused and using rather confusing wording. 

Perhaps the materials and methods should be organized in two paragraphs: one describing the case study and the other on the methodologies used.

The results section needs to be completely reorganized and clarified, perhaps divided into more than one sub-paragraph. The initial part seems to belong to the materials and methods rather than the results.
Reading this article, I honestly have the impression that the authors have confused the contents to be included in the various sections. The article is interesting but lacks scientific rigor. I advise authors to reorganize the sections more rigorously and avoid dealing with unfocused issues.

The discussions seem like results to me. Furthermore, the discussion and conclusions are very specific to the case study, and in my mind, could have much better linkages back to the more general literature on planning and design, which would provide more generalized implications and uses for your methods.

I have suggested moderate English language changes, however, the work needing to be done falls between this and minor spell-check. There are some awkward phrasings throughout that should be fixed. I suggest that a native English speaker language proof the manuscript before publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

A full proofreading by a native speaker translator will be provided after the final acceptation of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor.

I have finished my review on the proposed paper “Don’t split them up! Landscape design of multifunctional open spaces suitable for coping with flash floods and river floods” sustainability-1547919-peer-review-v1.

 

Summary of the manuscript:

In the proposed paper, the authors’ goal is to investigate a new approach of designing several works for the flood protection of an urban area (Pistoia) and design the landscape with more natural way, dealing with flood phenomena.

 

Review comments:

1. Generally, the manuscript presents an interesting topic and the specific research seems to include some significant points for the research community of this field.
2. The proposed paper is very well written with very good use of English language. Except some minor grammatical mistakes and word errors, this paper is written with a very good scientific style. The authors should check again the paper to correct these minor mistakes.
3. The proposed paper is very well structured. It begins with an analytical Introduction with the appropriate references that helps the reader to get into the subject immediately. In Introduction there is an effort to provide previous studies with similar scientific content, which took place in the research area and in some cases in other countries. Authors describe and set very well the scientific problem and how other researchers have approached. At the end of Introduction, authors clearly state the goals of the research.
4. The methodology is generally very interesting, and well documented, so other researchers could easily repeat it. However, this part should be clearer. I am little confused about the sequence of the methodology. I propose to add a flow chart.
5. The results scientifically explained with the use of the appropriate scientific literature.
6. The quality of the work in Discussion and Conclusions section is very qualitative.

 

Specific points for revision:

In my opinion, the proposed paper could be characterized as a high-quality research work, complies with aims of Sustainability. 

Nevertheless, I have some minor points for revision.

Lines 86-88: The Introduction is OK. However, reading your study I Think that you should add a literature in this statement. I propose to add the following study which is held in a very sensitive environment (Kastridis et al. 2021).

Figure 1: Very interesting image! Can you show (or add a box, arrow etc.) in the following figures (2,3,4,7) the exact location of what you call “study area”?

“4. Discussion and Donclusions: a Landscape-Based Framework”: you have make a mistake in the caption.

Figure 9 and 4. Discussion and Conclusions: a Landscape-Based Framework: Reading this section and observing the figure 9, I understand that you propose the plantation of hygrophilous vegetation (trees and bushes) in the floodplain. I agree with this approach. However, the plantations in the floodplain can cause some problems and increase the flood risk.

“The influence of floodplain vegetation on floods is not fully comprehended. Despite the multiple benefits of planting, it is not possible to predict the exact consequences of flood mitigation, or the reduction in the peak flows. There is an uncertainty concerning the effect of floodplain plantation on altering the water velocity. The presence of vegetation (trees, bushes, grass) in the floodplain increases the surface roughness values, resulting in a reduction in water flow velocity, and consequently, the water level within and upstream the forested area is increased.” (Huw and Nisbet 2007, Van Dijk and Keenan 2007).

In this section, you should add a small paragraph discussing this issue adding the proposed literature and other if you want.

 

 

Huw, T.; Nisbet, T.R. An assessment of the impact of floodplain woodland on flood flows. Water Environ. J. 2007, 21, 114–126.

Kastridis, A.; Theodosiou, G.; Fotiadis, G. Investigation of Flood Management and Mitigation Measures in Ungauged NATURA Protected Watersheds. Hydrology 2021, 8, 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8040170.

Van Dijk, A.; Keenan, R. Planted forests and water in perspective. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 1–9.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

A full proofreading by a native speaker translator will be provided after the final acceptation of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The key concept of the methodological part is "projective design". This method and concept should be presented in more detail, in line with the methodological criteria of scientific research. To what extent does the "research by design" method go beyond design and how it can be applied as a scientific research tool?

Author Response

Kind Reviewer,

As required, we hereby provide a concise description of the changes made to our article as a result of the second round of review. On this occasion we thank you again for their precious work and suggestions. Before responding to your comments, we provide some general explanations. 

The review we carried out was aimed at clarifying the core part of the paper in search of more rigour in the structure without loosing the specificity of our style and approach.

Since it was a consideration transversal to the revisions, which saw us in agreement, the paragraph dedicated to the methodology has been further improved, giving more space to illustrate the methodologies used and making the steps followed clearer through the creation of a synthetic scheme.

Aswers 

“To what extent does the "research by design" method go beyond design and how it can be applied as a scientific research tool?”

With the changes introduced to the paragraphs of the approach and methodology and to that of the results and discussion, we believe that we have clarified the relevance and importance of the method used.

“English language and style are fine/minor spell check required”. 

We agree with this point, according with the Editor we will evaluate the opportunity to a furtheer revision at the moment of the acceptance of the paper.

 

This second round of revision led us to an further restructuring of the article, now much clearer and consistent in its purpose, in its structure and in the articulation of its contents. 

Again thanking you for your valuable contributions, 

We wait your kind response.

Best Regards,

Gabriele Paolinelli, Marco Cei, Nicoletta Cristiani, Ludovica Marinaro and Flavia Veronesi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for the reorganization of the text. After this first step that has made some issues clearer, I still have some curiosities. In several parts of the text the authors refer to a hydraulic authority, I wonder if this authority has a specific name (for example River Basin Management Authority or River District Management Authority or other?).

The description of the method is still a bit broad and unfocused, perhaps using tables that summarize the process would have helped. 

Is section 3 about results and discussion together? In scientific articles this sounds wired to me. 

Author Response

Kind Reviewer,

As required, we hereby provide a concise description of the changes made to our article as a result of the second round of review. On this occasion we thank you again for their precious work and suggestions. Before responding toyou’re your comments, we provide some general explanations. 

The review we carried out was aimed at clarifying the core part of the paper in search of more rigour in the structure without loosing the specificity of our style and approach.

Since it was a consideration transversal to the revisions, which saw us in agreement, the paragraph dedicated to the methodology has been further improved, giving more space to illustrate the methodologies used and making the steps followed clearer through the creation of a synthetic scheme.

Answers

In consideration of what was stated by the reviewer, the introduction provides more clarity information about the purpose of the paper and the research questions it intends to answer.

“Moderate English changes required”

We agree with this point, according with the Editor we will evaluate the opportunity to a furtheer revision at the moment of the acceptance of the paper.

“In several parts of the text the authors refer to a hydraulic authority, I wonder if this authority has a specific name (for example River Basin Management Authority or River District Management Authority or other?)”.

Yes, It has and we have specified the name of the Authority in the text. This advice was helpful in providing similar additional specifications on other stakeholders. Thankyou.

“The description of the method is still a bit broad and unfocused, perhaps using tables that summarize the process would have helped”.

We took this suggestion by intervening on the paragraph with a further substantial revision. The scheme introduced clarifies the process followed and highlights the links with the approach. The section, entirely restructured, now sees a clearer description of the methodologies employed and the process the research has undertaken.

“Is section 3 about results and discussion together? In scientific articles this sounds wired to me”.

In consideration of what has been expressed, we have considered the opportunity to divide the paragraph distinguishing the results from their discussion. 

The section 3 now better explains the results of the integrated design process. Then in section 4 we connected this work to the critical reflection on how this activity, in carrying out the project and revealing the park in the landscape, translates itself into a shaping ecology operation. Thank you also for this suggestion which in our opinion has helped to better calibrate the structure and organization of the contents.

This second round of revision led us to an further restructuring of the article, now much clearer and consistent in its purpose, in its structure and in the articulation of its contents. 

Again thanking you for your valuable contributions, we wait your kind response.

Best Regards,

Gabriele Paolinelli, Marco Cei, Nicoletta Cristiani, Ludovica Marinaro and Flavia Veronesi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf