Case Study-Based Integrated Assessment of Former Waste Disposal Sites Transformed to Green Space in Terms of Ecosystem Services and Land Assets Recovery
, Juris Burlakovs 2, Maija Fonteina-Kazeka 1,3, Magdalena Wdowin 2, Emil Hanc 2, Vita Rudovica 4, Maris Krievans 5, Inga Grinfelde 6, Kristaps Siltumens 6, Mait Kriipsalu 7, Hani Amir Aouissi 8, Aissam Gaagai 8 and Muhammad Zahoor 9
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall the article presented is quite good, there is a novelty about the use of landfills for urban green areas. Notes to consider:
1. In the method section, indicators need to be added for "more relevant" or "less relevant" decisions
2. Discussion; give reasons for each component (Attributed parameters in Table 3) what are the indicators for the “applicable” or “not applicable” decision (stated in Table 3)
3. The technique of writing supporting sources (literature) needs to be improved. I did not find which was the author's original opinion, and which was supported by previous research from literature sources. There is an impression of weak scientific contributions from the author. It is better for each component discussed to appear as original thoughts from the author, then side by side or support or contradict previous research as scientific reinforcement.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your time spent for reviewing and positive overall assessment of our manuscript. Our target is to improve the quality of the paper, and your comments and suggestions serve as useful advice. Answers to your comments are given below.
Overall the article presented is quite good, there is a novelty about the use of landfills for urban green areas.
Notes to consider:
- In the method section, indicators need to be added for "more relevant" or "less relevant" decisions
Answer: As suggested, the methodological section is supplemented (lines 186-196) by the principle approach explanation for decision estimation. It should be noted that criteria evaluation is based on certain methodological steps including assessment of targets, accessibility, public acceptance, complexity and revitalization implementation practice. However, this is the research of our team and it might seem subjective from some points of view even if we tried to be as objective as possible.
- Discussion; give reasons for each component (Attributed parameters in Table 3) what are the indicators for the “applicable” or “not applicable” decision (stated in Table 3)
Answer: The discussion part is supplemented (lines 484-486) by the reasoning indicated approach.
- The technique of writing supporting sources (literature) needs to be improved. I did not find which was the author's original opinion, and which was supported by previous research from literature sources. There is an impression of weak scientific contributions from the author. It is better for each component discussed to appear as original thoughts from the author, then side by side or support or contradict previous research as scientific reinforcement.
Answer: Our approach in preparing this manuscript involved revealing our own opinion above all in the discussion part indicating references as the background of our estimations. It might happen that the style of the expression is variable regarding the reflection of references in the text. We agree that supporting references might be used more broadly, however, this is original research, and we have to put emphasis on the selected case discussion in a concentrated manner. Anyway, the use of supporting literature sources was scrutinized, and some new references were added (see throughout the discussion part).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper aims to perform a case-study-based integrated assessment of closed and revitalized waste disposal sites with already implemented functionality change from ‘lost territories’ primarily to green space beneficial for society and the urban environment in terms of ecosystem services and land assets recovery. Chosen four case studies (implemented in the USA, Australia, Poland and Estonia) serve as successful examples of a sustainable degraded site revitalization gateway indicating opportunities for accelerating land value through the prism of ecosystem services estimations and spatial planning criteria. Here are some suggestions for this article：
1. If it is possible to mention the method used in the article it will make the abstract more clear and concise.
2. A "Discussion" section could be added to the article to analyze the similarities and differences between the results of this paper and those of similar studies, etc.
3. Table 4 can make its analysis more convincing if it can show the direct use value, tourism attraction value and real estate value before the revitalization of the case, so that the values before and after the revitalization can be compared.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript; we appreciate your comments and tried to improve our paper by following them. Answers to your comments are given below.
Here are some suggestions for this article：
- If it is possible to mention the method used in the article it will make the abstract more clear and concise.
Answer: The abstract was supplemented (lines 34-35) as suggested.
- A "Discussion" section could be added to the article to analyze the similarities and differences between the results of this paper and those of similar studies, etc.
Answer: The discussion part was supplemented (e.g., lines 274-280, 285-293, 347-353, 382-386, 429-435) with some clarifications and the findings from other research.
- Table 4 can make its analysis more convincing if it can show the direct use value, tourism attraction value and real estate value before the revitalization of the case, so that the values before and after the revitalization can be compared.
Answer: As suggested, the discussion was supplemented (lines 559-580 and 590-604) with an explanation. The fact is that at the beginning, areas without remediation implementation have no extended value in terms of real estate or land assets evaluation. Depending on calculation approach, it could be assumed that the value might be even negative if revitalization is not implemented due to the mandatory maintenance needs. Municipalities come across legislative problems and restrictions for any kind of land use in vicinities of polluted sites. Close to such areas as landfills and dumps, the market for residential buildings is absent, as well as these sites are out of touristic routes and destinations. Usually, the territories are physically closed to any external activities, and such a situation may remain for decades. Therefore, the estimation of lost income without revitalization and potential income after implemented revitalization may play a significant role in the decision-making process for the sustainable spatial development of an area.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have to say that this is a good qualitative research paper. The paper is suitable for the special issue. The author tries to apply the ecosystem services' estimation (ESE) method to waste disposal sites and decompose it into biophysical, socio-cultural, economic dimensions. In addition, the author selects four typical cases from the United States, Australia, Poland and Estonia for in-depth analysis. The selection of these cases is based on a variety of perspectives, with diversity of geographic location, development stage and environmental characteristics, and is more consistent with the research objectives and methods.
It is worth noting that the author needs to revise the part of the paper before it is officially published. Detailed suggestions are as follows:
First, Line 58 needs to be updated
"1999" is an old year. After all, it was more than 20 years ago. The author should check it to determine whether there is a new version. If possible, the author should update it.
Second, data source description of 2.2, 2.3 and Table 4
The author introduces the research methods well in sections 2.2 and 2.3. Unfortunately, the paper lacks a description of data acquisition methods or data sources, which leads to confusion in the data in Table 4. The author should add several sentences in sections 2.2 and 2.3 to describe the data source or acquisition method.
Third, the author needs to introduce external evidence and write the discussion part
Although it is an innovative exploration, it is not rootless. The author should compare the analysis results of this paper with the papers of other scholars.
Of course, they can be comparative analysis based on different fields. For example, from the three dimensions of biophysical, socio-cultural and economic, the author looks for the similarities between his analysis results and other scholars. The differences cannot be ignored, and the author had better analyze the reasons for them.
If it is difficult to analyze the dimensions, the author can also try new ways. For example, the author can also make comparative analysis based on cases, and compare the analysis results with other scholars around four cases to highlight the innovation and shortcomings of this paper.
The author can choose one of the two way or use them at the same time. Anyway, as long as it is done, it is very good.
Fourth, the author needs to find application scenarios for the analysis results and conclusions.
As a case study, theoretical and academic nature are not the priority objectives of this paper. It is the unshrinkable responsibility of this paper to find solutions for similar problems encountered in more regions. Therefore, the author should add one or more paragraphs to describe the application scenario of the case study. For example, how to apply the results and conclusions of this paper in the process of site selection, planning, construction, management, maintenance and transformation of waste disposal sites.
Fifth, the author needs to analyze the limitations of this study
Influenced by many factors such as background environment, data, technical methods, any research has certain deficiencies. Case studies are no exception. The author should briefly describe the limitations of this study in the last paragraph of the paper. They include defects in the research process, or matters needing attention in the application process of the paper.
In short, this is a paper worthy of revision and improvement.
Good luck.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your time spent for reviewing and positive overall assessment of our manuscript. Our target is to improve the quality of the paper as much as we can, and your comments and suggestions serve as useful advice. Answers to your comments are given below.
It is worth noting that the author needs to revise the part of the paper before it is officially published. Detailed suggestions are as follows:
First, Line 58 needs to be updated
"1999" is an old year. After all, it was more than 20 years ago. The author should check it to determine whether there is a new version. If possible, the author should update it.
Answer: This is a good remark. Of course, the directive has had several supplements during the time since its first edition. The text was corrected indicating the last year (2018) of consolidation (line 59), as well as the reference [6] was updated for consolidated document version.
Second, data source description of 2.2, 2.3 and Table 4
The author introduces the research methods well in sections 2.2 and 2.3. Unfortunately, the paper lacks a description of data acquisition methods or data sources, which leads to confusion in the data in Table 4. The author should add several sentences in sections 2.2 and 2.3 to describe the data source or acquisition method.
Answer: The frames of methodological approach in ecosystem services evaluation and economic valuation are supplemented with additional remarks in the text (e.g., lines 186-196, 484-486, 559-580).
Third, the author needs to introduce external evidence and write the discussion part
Although it is an innovative exploration, it is not rootless. The author should compare the analysis results of this paper with the papers of other scholars.
Of course, they can be comparative analysis based on different fields. For example, from the three dimensions of biophysical, socio-cultural and economic, the author looks for the similarities between his analysis results and other scholars. The differences cannot be ignored, and the author had better analyze the reasons for them.
If it is difficult to analyze the dimensions, the author can also try new ways. For example, the author can also make comparative analysis based on cases, and compare the analysis results with other scholars around four cases to highlight the innovation and shortcomings of this paper.
The author can choose one of the two way or use them at the same time. Anyway, as long as it is done, it is very good.
Answer: The text is supplemented as suggested (e.g., lines 274-280, 285-293, 347-353, 382-386, 429-435) with some clarifications and the findings from other research.
Fourth, the author needs to find application scenarios for the analysis results and conclusions.
As a case study, theoretical and academic nature are not the priority objectives of this paper. It is the unshrinkable responsibility of this paper to find solutions for similar problems encountered in more regions. Therefore, the author should add one or more paragraphs to describe the application scenario of the case study. For example, how to apply the results and conclusions of this paper in the process of site selection, planning, construction, management, maintenance and transformation of waste disposal sites.
Answer: We appreciate your interest in a holistic view of the frontiers. The additional paragraph (lines 590-604) is added in the discussion part as well as a sentence in conclusions (lines 642-643). However, we are planning to discuss this issue deeper point by point in our upcoming review paper.
Fifth, the author needs to analyze the limitations of this study
Influenced by many factors such as background environment, data, technical methods, any research has certain deficiencies. Case studies are no exception. The author should briefly describe the limitations of this study in the last paragraph of the paper. They include defects in the research process, or matters needing attention in the application process of the paper.
In short, this is a paper worthy of revision and improvement.
Good luck.
Answer: This is a useful point to be added. Possible obstacles and limitations are discussed at the end of Section 3.5 (lines 559-604).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I think the paper has been greatly improved and the author has provided a good solution.
