Remodeling of Abandoned Land: A Review of Landscape Regeneration and the Reconstruction of Urban Landfill Sites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
This paper is well-written, with good arguments of the method and a good overview.
Minor comments
Are there any trends about applying circular economy principles (from a landscape architecture) to landfills? Some landscape architects in Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium talk about wastescapes.
Marin, J. and De Meulder, B., 2016. Antwerp City Wastescapes. Historic interplays between waste & urban development. International Planning History Society Proceedings, 17(3), pp.179-190.
Amenta, L. and Van Timmeren, A., 2018. Beyond wastescapes: Towards circular landscapes. Addressing the spatial dimension of circularity through the regeneration of wastescapes. Sustainability, 10(12), p.4740.
Landscape architects like Julie Marin also talk about similar ideas, like having attention for local realities.
Marin, J., & De Meulder, B. (2018). Urban landscape design exercises in urban metabolism: reconnecting with Central Limburg's regenerative resource landscape. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 13(1), 36-49.
There are some typos. Also international countries is a bit awkward of saying "other countries". Please correct this.
Please double check the references and if all numbers correspond with the right reference in the bibliography of your revised version.
I am not a native speaker. There are some typos, especially in the red text.
Author Response
Dear experts,
Hello, your comments have been answered one by one, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review of Manuscript ID= Sustainability-2440070
Title= Remodeling of Abandoned Land: A Review of Landscape Regeneration and Reconstruction of Urban Landfill Sites
General comment
This is an interesting review that the authors have revised several national and global studies: however, the paper is not well written that most of the sentences are hard to understand. The paper has some shortcomings in regard to the English language.
Based on the general comment, I do have some major concerns that have to be modified or improved.
1. On the abstract, line 22, please have space between the following words “emphasizeinterdisciplinary” as “emphasize interdisciplinary” similarly for line 27 “theregeneration”
2. Some of the sentences are hard to understand so lengthy, and please rewrite some of the lengthy sentences like (lines 44-50) and have a full stop at the end.
“In order to effectively reduce the burden of waste management, the "14th Five-Year Plan" for 45 the development of urban domestic waste classification and treatment facilities in 2021 46 proposed that by the end of 2025, the domestic waste classification and treatment capacity 47 of 46 key cities, such as municipalities directly under the Central Government, provincial 48 capitals and municipalities with separate plans, should be further improved, and prefecture-level cities should be basically built according to local conditions”
Similarly, refresh Lengthy sentence like line (76-80)
“Theoretical research began in the 1950s in the United States, with envi-76 ronmental engineering as the main focus, and research on the environmental impact of 77 landfill gas and leachate on the site was carried out, resulting in improved methods for 78 landfill processes [6]; in the 1970s, botany and ecology were introduced, with research 79 focusing on the planting of suitable plants on the site [7]”
Line 97-102
“In 1998, Neil Heywood [10] emphasized the use of landscape architecture in land-97 fill landscape regeneration design from the perspective of multidisciplinary collabora-98 tion.England, Germany, and France, in addition to the simple environmental pollution 99 treatment, phytoremediation, and landscape reconstruction of landfills, further research 100 was conducted on the assessment of the later benefits of site renovation, but the overall 101 number of literature in this field was relatively small, with only three articles, accounting 102 for 6% of the total literature at this stage”
Line 218-226
In the fluctuating phase of research (2013 to present), the research entry point has been refined, in addition to the analysis of pollutant management in landfills and the analysis of site landscape regeneration design, the research also focuses on the analysis of 220 comprehensive benefit assessment and public behavior management in the middle and 221 later stages of landfill landscape regeneration and transformation, such as the keywords 222 "Environmental The research also focuses on the evaluation of the benefits and public behavior management in the middle and later stages of landfill landscape regeneration, such 224 as the key words "Environmental", "Space use", "Sustainability", "Waste management", etc.
Line 227-237
In the initial development period of landfill landscape regeneration and renovation 227 research in China (2000-2012), the research focused on landfill pollution treatment and 228 process optimization, landfill landscape regeneration design concepts and approaches, 229 such as the key words "leachate", "reverse osmosis ", "landscape reclamation", "landscape 230 gardening", "urban park", etc.; in the period of fluctuating growth (2012 to present), the 231 research content In the period of fluctuating growth (2012 to present), the research content 232 has been enriched and the perspective has been innovated, with the research content de-233 signed to optimize the technology in waste pollution treatment, improve the standard of 234 waste pollution treatment, and combine artistry and ecology in landscape regeneration 235 design, such as the key words "membrane biochemical reactor", "rainwater sewage diver-236 sion", "standard improvement", and "landscape park", etc. "upgrading", "ecological de-237 sign", "land art", etc.
Line 251-256
From Figure 5, there are 251 nodes and connecting lines in the field of international landfill landscape regeneration and renovation, 252 with a network density of 0.0035, indicating that the cooperation network of relevant re-253 search institutions in this research field is not obvious and is relatively fragmented, and 254 the cooperation among relevant research institutions is weak, basically each research in-255 dependently or limited to cooperation within a limited area.
3. Once the authors revised the literature, I personally expect them to see their recommendations and problems that they have observed in the pieces of literature. So please present the author's perspective below the conclusion
4. From the literature revised in this manuscript, the authors focused on strengthening the collaboration among all concerned bodies to have better landfill facilities. How about the economic or financial aspect of the landfill landscape regeneration and transformation? Moreover, how about land use or environmental policies?
Several lengthy sentences hard to understand and please correct that
Author Response
Dear experts,
Hello, your comments have been answered one by one, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The presented subject is extremely interesting, in the context of the need for studies regarding the Regeneration and Reconstruction of Urban Landfill Sites.
In order to improve the research, I recommend the following:
In abstract, the authors should briefly add the purpose of the study, the objectives and the research methodology used.
The introduction can be extended, referring to a global or continental framework regarding urban landfills.
Methodologically, did the authors focus exclusively on works related to urban landfills in China, or did the approach consider the world literature? It is not very clear considering that the results refer to both situations. What were the working stages? What objectives did they have?
It is also necessary for the authors to specify which is the study area (China? Asia? etc.?) and to describe and argue in detail what the objectives of the study are.
Results: The chapter "Overview of international countries literature publications" fits better in the introduction, because it explains the historical evolution of the approach to the problems related to waste deposits. This chapter must be revised, the analysis of the specialized literature should refer to the research carried out at the level of each continent, emphasizing the proposed approaches.
Also, the subsection "Overview of Chinese Literature Publication" is rather appropriate in the introduction section.
The conclusions should be formulated in direct relation to the results of the study, they should briefly show the directions of analysis used in the different scientific approaches. The current conclusion chapter looks more like some discussions.
A discussion chapter, as well as limitations of the study, would be necessary.
Author Response
Dear experts,
Hello, your comments have been answered one by one, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
This paper sorts out 1436 related literatures on 11 landscape regeneration and reconstruction of landfill sites and analyzed the research focus of each.
In their analysis, it also shows that future studies were recommended to study ecological restoration of the site and the organic combination of site pollution control and landscape planning and design to achieve sustainable landscape reshaping of landfills.
1. In the abstract, the author wrote: “Accordingly, we suggest the following suggestions for landfill landscape regeneration: strengthen the collaboration among research institutions, do comprehensive research on site spatial data and social and humanistic data, and build local landscape design strategies according to local conditions; emphasize interdisciplinary cooperation to enhance the attractiveness of landscape art on the basis of ecological restoration; actively build a scientific and systematic evaluation index system for site landscape regeneration, so as to provide an evaluation basis for design results and project completion; encourage the participation of multiple subjects in the development of landfill landscape regeneration. Encourage the participation of multiple subjects in the development and management of the site to promote the regeneration of urban landfill landscape and stimulate urban vitality.”
Yet how did the authors derive these recommendations in a more systematic method? What is the method of this study? The English grammar of this abstract need proof reading, ex. last sentence has no “noun” but start with “Encourage the participation of multiple subjects.
2. In “Introduction”, the first paragraph supposes to identify major research background or problem of this study. Although the authors have discussed the problem of urban landfill yet it can be improved with more statistic or empirical evidence to demonstrate that this is an important issue worthwhile to investigate in an academic manner. Such as, the author can make reference to UN which has issued 2021-2030 as Decade of Ecosystem Restoration and point out that “urban landfill” might have been overseen by that initiative and could be strengthen?
3. Also, please provide more data about the worldwide trend on urban landfill, before discussing directly China’s landfill size on p. 1-2.
4. The research method of this study is rather short. Can the authors elaborate a bit longer with more discussion on the method including how are you going to analyze, such as time zone analysis, co-citation anlaysis or what kind of software to use to generate Figure 3 on co-occurance. Is your method mainly to compare international vs China literature? If yes, please detail the rational behind for this part. Is this method a systematic literature review that follow any standard? Please see reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221501611930353X
5. Does CNKI database also cover sufficient international literature as discussed in 3.1.1? What data was based to form Figure 1? Only CNKI database? How about Scopus or other internationally recognized literature database?
6. Are there overlapping terms in comparison of international and china literature?
7. Can the authors link section 5 back to the research results and literature review result more with concrete exemplary findings? By linking them, the suggestions can be more empirically grounded and based on the research results of this literature review study.
8. The conclusion of this study can also be improved with more reference with literature that discuss similar research direction, such as how to break through the dilemma of garbage encircling the city?
1. In the abstract, the author wrote: “Accordingly, we suggest the following suggestions for landfill landscape regeneration: strengthen the collaboration among research institutions, do comprehensive research on site spatial data and social and humanistic data, and build local landscape design strategies according to local conditions; emphasize interdisciplinary cooperation to enhance the attractiveness of landscape art on the basis of ecological restoration; actively build a scientific and systematic evaluation index system for site landscape regeneration, so as to provide an evaluation basis for design results and project completion; encourage the participation of multiple subjects in the development of landfill landscape regeneration. Encourage the participation of multiple subjects in the development and management of the site to promote the regeneration of urban landfill landscape and stimulate urban vitality.”
Yet how did the authors derive these recommendations in a more systematic method? What is the method of this study? The English grammar of this abstract need proof reading, ex. last sentence has no “noun” but start with “Encourage the participation of multiple subjects.
English proofreading is recommended.
Author Response
Dear experts,
Hello, your comments have been answered one by one, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
I wish to thank the authors for the responses to the initial review, and several of my questions have been sorted out. They have incorporated all my previous questions and comments. I am satisfied with the responses and I have accepted the paper to be published in the current format.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The article has been improved according to the recommendations and can be published in this form.
Congratulations to the authors!
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have responded to all review comments. No further comment.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am very sorry for the delay in reviewing the manuscript due to the busy work. There is no systematic summary of this review, so I have to decline to accept it. As a review article, it is not enough to quote only 49 articles.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised paper is thought to have improved a lot on the previous points made. However, some works are still needed, in my opinion.
Firstly, as a review paper, the paper lacks in number of international references to deal with. Despite 1,700 Chinese and international studies were analyzed, literature reviews need to be more inclusive and in detail (Line 158-161, Line 330-336, Line 376-380, Line 460-467).
Some of statements and logical structure need to be clarified. Especially, Line 207-227 in chapter 3.2, Line 313-318.
Moreover, some clarification on terminology needs to be handled for instance, “Home-abroad, domestic-foreign, Chinese-international”
Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 have been newly added, but they are not seemed to have strong novelty for the study. Moreover, Line 291-309 of Chapter 3.4 is considered to need to be relocated to other parts.
Some simple corrections needs to be made such as Line 370: Table2 -> Table3.
Chapters 4.3 and 4.4 have the same title. Please correct.
Good luck.
