Review Reports - Calculation and Optimization of the Carbon Sink Benefits of Green Space Plants in Residential Areas: A Case Study of Suojin Village in Nanjing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Calculation and optimization of carbon sink benefits of green 2 space plants in residential areas: A case study of Suojin Village in Nanjing

Comments to the Author:

The scholarship of the paper while very good as a study, does not meet the standards of clarity and novelty. The following issues must be addressed before going to a final decision:

ABSTRACT

1. The abstract should be rewritten. The structure of a scientific abstract must include the brief objective, rationality of the present study, brief data sets and methods, outcomes, and their possible applications.

2. Keywords should be more attractive and relevant.

3. “…transformation of low-carbon settlements”. complete the statement

INTRODUCTION

4. The introduction section must be concrete and comprehensive, which helps to understand the entire scenario of the research and its significance, and perspicuously mention the objectives of the current research/study. Also, use sufficient literature in the introduction section.

5. The literature review is not complete as there are already published related articles in various journals. Please look through those papers and include them (especially the articles explaining previous methodologies regarding the carbon sink by green spaces and their estimation methods).

6. The literature used in this study is old and outdated. Please includes the recent literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

7. Please explain the significance of the selected study area/ patches of area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

8. Data sources, collection of datasets, and methods for the data analysis are not clear and insufficient.

9. The authors have used several methods such as eco i-tree, National tree benefits calculator, CITYgreen, Pathfinder, etc, but did not elaborate on their application and significance in the present study and their validation methods.

10. Mention the equation numbers.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

11. Proper and concrete explanation has to be required for “4.1 Calculation of annual carbon sequestration of a single tree”

12. Well the explanation is required for “4.2 Calculation of carbon sequestration for the regional area”

13. “Technical Highlights of Low Carbon Settlements” please rewrite the paragraph.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

14. The discussion will be placed first, then the conclusion. Please use the section heading “DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION”

15. The "Conclusion and Discussion" section contains only a number of theoretical and conceptual notes.

OTHERS OBSERVATION

1. Properly cite Figure and Table numbers.

2. How has the field survey data been validated?

3. Giving emphasis on the international readership of the journal.

Author Response

Dear :

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Calculation and optimization of the carbon sink benefits of green space plants in residential areas: A case study of Suojin Village in Nanjing” (sustainability-2009336). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are highlighted in the paper.

The primary corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows：

Point 1: The scholarship of the paper while very good as a study, does not meet the standards of clarity and novelty. The following issues must be addressed before going to a final decision:

ABSTRACT

Response: The abstract is organized into [Purpose], [Method], [Result] and [Conclusion] to make the abstract clearer and easier to understand.

2. Keywords should be more attractive and relevant.

Response: Delete keywords that repeat semantic expressions, and add keywords that are more relevant to the study site: carbon sinks in Suojin Village settlement.

3.“…transformation of low-carbon settlements”. complete the statement

Response: We have Completed the sentence.

INTRODUCTION

Response: The introduction is revised into two parts: policy background and expert research. The policy background starts from domestic and foreign directions, indicating the importance of studying carbon sinks and the policy basis for current research. The expert research section supplements some existing research content summarizes it and finds the research direction of this paper.

Response: Based on the original article, the literature review section is supplemented. The carbon sink benefits between green space and residential areas are studied from the aspects of urban carbon emissions, green space carbon sequestration, and carbon sink capacity. The aim is also to illustrate that the study of plant carbon sequestration benefits in settlements is valuable and meaningful.

6. The literature used in this study is old and outdated. Please includes the recent literature.

Response: Updated references to add some references from 2017-2022.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

7. Please explain the significance of the selected study area/ patches of area.

Response：This paper explains the superior geographical location and culture of Suojin Village, pointing out that the research plot has a long history of construction and covers a large area, and as the “first street of Jinling Happiness”, the low-carbon strategy for the future development of Suojin Village has a certain demonstration effect on the development of old residential areas in China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

8. Data sources, collection of datasets, and methods for the data analysis are not clear and insufficient.

Response: The data source of the article is the specific value obtained by the author from the field investigation, and the paper finally adopts NTBC's carbon sink estimation research method, which needs to measure the tree species, breast diameter, distance from the building and other data of the research site, and enters the research data into the NTBC web system to obtain the corresponding economic benefit values, including the amount of air pollution removed, carbon dioxide, etc., so that the benefit of a single tree can be estimated.

Response：The overall idea of this paper is to first compare and analyze i-tree, National tree benefits calculator, CITYgreen, Pathfinder, and other methods, summarize their advantages and disadvantages, and then select one of the most suitable research methods for the Suojin Village area. For example, this article chooses the research method of NTBC, and in the data research in the second half of the article, this method is used to analyze the results. Not all research methods will be used in the data processing of this article.

10. Mention the equation numbers.

Response: We have checked and adjusted

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

11. Proper and concrete explanation has to be required for “4.1 Calculation of annual carbon sequestration of a single tree”

12. Well the explanation is required for “4.2 Calculation of carbon sequestration for the regional area”

Response: Since 4.1 and 4.2 are juxtaposed, the NTBC estimation system research method is added at the beginning of this chapter with a brief overview of the research methodology, explaining the process of using this method from data collection to final conclusion.

13. “Technical Highlights of Low Carbon Settlements” please rewrite the paragraph.

Response： The paragraph is reorganized in the article.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

14. The discussion will be placed first, then the conclusion. Please use the section heading “DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION”

Response： The title has been changed to “Discussion and conclusions”

15. The “Conclusion and Discussion” section contains only a number of theoretical and conceptual notes.

Response: In the discussion and conclusion, the discussion of the strategy of adding to the low-carbon provided a new idea for the low-carbon development of the Suojin Village settlement from the perspective of replacing plants with strong carbon sequestration capacity. The specific strategy is based on the results obtained from previous data surveys and calculations using NTBC.

OTHERS OBSERVATION

1. Properly cite Figure and Table numbers.

2. How has the field survey data been validated?

3. Giving emphasis on the international readership of the journal.

Response：

1. The citation chart and table numbers have been checked and modified.

2. The content of the article was selected by referring to some articles on urban carbon sink estimation, and finally NTBC was chosen as the method for estimating carbon sink benefits. Through research on the actual site of Suojin Village, photos were taken of different kinds of plants, and data such as plant diameter at breast height, crown width, distance from buildings, and growth condition were measured.

3. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.It is true, as you say, that not enough attention is paid to foreign readers, and we hope to provide a window into the Chinese community and bring some comparison and inspiration.

Please see the attachment.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meets with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript (MS) “Calculation and optimization of carbon sink benefits of green space plants in residential areas: A case study of Suojin Village in Nanjing” aims to use the carbon sequestration capacity and ecological effect of plants to slow down the climate deterioration in urban areas, it is necessary to reconsider the carbon sequestration capacity of the communities and the targeted optimization strategies. It addresses an important topic on the carbon sink profits of settlements and maximizing the ecological benefits of them in urban green construction are the keys to the construction of low-carbon buildings and green establishments. Not only for residential areas but also the whole city, urban green areas with reasonable planning and design can have high carbon sink benefits, which are of great relevance to the city's ecological development. The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text. The section is named 2. Site Status is well redacted but on lines 85 to 88 and also from 95 to 107 I highly recommend improving the text or constructing a table of each area and the plants that grow there. Figures 3, 4, and 5 are too small to see anything, It would be great to see them larger. Furthermore, the article is not satisfactorily constructed, for example on page 4 of 16 line 109 the third title said: Results Methodology and applicability evaluation, I recommend they should separate the material and methods section from the results of this work because the sections are not clear enough.

Figures 5 (line 123) and 6 (line 147) should be bigger, and the foot of the image needs to be improved to help the reader follow the diagram.

Inside section number 4: Results and Analysis, I strongly believe it would be desirable to add the “Step 1, 2, 3 tables” as supplementary material or improve them to facilitate the reading because it is confusing to understand them. As a suggestion, perhaps shows in the main text of the MS a diagram or some graphics which help the reader to better visualize the result of this work or the idea that they want to show, but also explain in words the results of this study for easier readability, and show the table as supplementary material.

I strongly recommend to avoid for the systematics of the different plants in the angle brackets and use italic writing following the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. I thought this may help the readers to remember the several spp. they use to quantify the carbon sink benefits.

Regarding the References; I cannot see how the authors cite them along the MS, so they should follow the rules of the journal and include them along the text of the MS. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends). I recommend the authors consult the instructions of the journal where is explained the following:

“In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).”

Other areas need revision:

Section number 5, should be called Discussion and Conclusion (change the order), as I said before the references citing is missing along the text, including this section. It is really important to Discuss with other previous studies to enhance the importance of the results of this work.

The authors have to eliminate the template from line 400 to line 459.

Overall the paper is a balanced assessment of the carbon sink benefits of green areas around the residential areas, the author has published several papers along the lines of this study, and this is undoubtedly a follow-up to his efforts in this area, however from my advice, the authors need to improve the whole recommendation first before the MS can be published in Sustainability (MDPI journal).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear :

The primary corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:

Point 1: The manuscript (MS) “Calculation and optimization of carbon sink benefits of green space plants in residential areas: A case study of Suojin Village in Nanjing” aims to use the carbon sequestration capacity and ecological effect of plants to slow down the climate deterioration in urban areas, it is necessary to reconsider the carbon sequestration capacity of the communities and the targeted optimization strategies. It addresses an important topic on the carbon sink profits of settlements and maximizing the ecological benefits of them in urban green construction are the keys to the construction of low-carbon buildings and green establishments. Not only for residential areas but also the whole city, urban green areas with reasonable planning and design can have high carbon sink benefits, which are of great relevance to the city's ecological development. The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text. The section is named 2. Site Status is well redacted but on lines 85 to 88 and also from 95 to 107 I highly recommend improving the text or constructing a table of each area and the plants that grow there. Figures 3, 4, and 5 are too small to see anything, It would be great to see them larger. Furthermore, the article is not satisfactorily constructed, for example on page 4 of 16 line 109 the third title said: Results Methodology and applicability evaluation, I recommend they should separate the material and methods section from the results of this work because the sections are not clear enough.

Response 1:

a.We have changed lines 85-88 of the original text describing the species of plant community to a table.

b. We have changed the picture to a higher definition picture in Figure 3.4.5 and enlarged it appropriately.

c. The “Results Methodology and Applicability evaluation” section first introduces the six carbon sink estimation methods, then analyzes the feasibility of these methods, summarizes the advantages and disadvantages, and then selects the appropriate carbon sink estimation method according to the current situation of the site in Suojin Village and the mix of plants. That's how I wrote the “Results Methodology and Applicability evaluation” section.

Point 2: Figures 5 (line 123) and 6 (line 147) should be bigger, and the foot of the image needs to be improved to help the reader follow the diagram.

Response 2:We have modified Figures 6 and 7 and modified the chart order.

Point 3: Inside section number 4: Results and Analysis, I strongly believe it would be desirable to add the “Step 1, 2, 3 tables” as supplementary material or improve them to facilitate the reading because it is confusing to understand them. As a suggestion, perhaps shows in the main text of the MS a diagram or some graphics which help the reader to better visualize the result of this work or the idea that they want to show, but also explain in words the results of this study for easier readability, and show the table as supplementary material.

Response 3: We have modified the table in step 1.2.3 to a visual chart, and the original table is placed at the end of the article as supplementary material. And the use of NTBC as a system at the beginning of this chapter is also shown in the form of diagrams.

Point 4: I strongly recommend to avoid for the systematics of the different plants in the angle brackets and use italic writing following the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. I thought this may help the readers to remember the several spp. they use to quantify the carbon sink benefits.

Response 4:

a.The purpose of using angle brackets is to rank these plants according to the carbon sink benefits they will produce in the current year and the next 20 years.

b. Change the special plant name to italics, which helps with reading.

Point 5: Regarding the References; I cannot see how the authors cite them along the MS, so they should follow the rules of the journal and include them along the text of the MS. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends). I recommend the authors consult the instructions of the journal where is explained the following:

Response 5: Renumber references.

Point 6: Section number 5, should be called Discussion and Conclusion (change the order), as I said before the references citing is missing along the text, including this section. It is really important to Discuss with other previous studies to enhance the importance of the results of this work.

Response 6: The title has been changed to “Discussion and conclusions” to supplement the corresponding references.

Please see the attachment

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meets with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and original, I appreciate your efforts in writing.

I have no comments upon the content of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear

Thank you for your comments and encouragement on our manuscript entitled "Calculation and optimization of the carbon sink benefits of green space plants in residential areas: A case study of Suojin Village in Nanjing" (Sustainability - 2009336). This is especially important to us as first contributors and will strengthen our confidence to continue our research.

Point 1: The paper is interesting and original, I appreciate your efforts in writing. I have no comments upon the content of the manuscript.I suggest English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Response 1: Thank you very much for your approval. we have invited specialized staff to help with the language, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is significantly improved. The author has addressed all comments. May be considered for publication.