Decision-Making Framework for GI Layout Considering Site Suitability and Weighted Multi-Function Effectiveness: A Case Study in Beijing Sub-Center
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigate alternative layout plans of Green Infrastructure taking into account their suitability for the considered site as well as the weighted multifunction effectiveness. The latter is derived by summing up the weighted characteristics of the components quantified in the 0 to 5 scale. The index weights were derived on the basis of the opinion of local stakeholder at Beijing urban sub-center. The combined effectiveness is used to derive the regional most prferred GI distribution. The paper proposes an interesting way to improve the infrastructure of urban areas. The final step of the decision making (Chapter 3.3) incorporates subjective decision.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presented for review describes the assessment of the multifunctional performance of green infrastructure GI. A hierarchical evaluation framework comprising three objectives, seven indices, and sixteen sub-indices was established. Very important is that weights were assigned to different indices according to the preferences of stakeholders including government managers, researchers, and residents. The proposed framework can be extended to further cities to detect GI preference. The publication noted that multiple functions of GI on runoff control, economy, and ecology urgently require joint assessment within a unified evaluation system. In my opinion, a very useful and necessary tool was presented in the publication on the example of a case study.
However, the article needs a few fixes:
- Please format table 3.
- Please standardize the captions under the figures in accordance with the guidelines for the author. Please enter full stops at the end of the sentence.
- Please standardize the captions above the tables in accordance with the guidelines for the author.
- Please complete the description of Figure 3.
- In my opinion, the conclusion does not fully reflect the content of the publication.
- Please check if the method of citation complies with the guidelines for the author.
The publication is a valuable source of information, especially for environmental research, and forms the basis for further research.
Thank you for considering my opinion. I encourage the authors to continue working on improving the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your careful check and helpful suggestions! We have carefully considered each comment and improved the paper accordingly.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have raised a very interesting and topical issue. The article fits the aims and scope of the journal. The first serious flaw of the paper is unclear methodology and unclear results. Tables and figures are not clear without a thorough reading of the text. The methodology is also not clear, it is not obvious what is the authors' contribution and what is taken from the literature. There is no explanation of the scientific basis of the concept created.
The second serious flaw of the paper is the lack of a discussion section - a key part of a scientific article. Without this, the results are not credible. The authors should compare their results with the results of studies conducted by other authors, show the advantages and limitations of the presented approach.
Detailed comments:
It is not clear from the description of Table 2 whether this is part of the methodology developed by the authors or data taken from the literature.
The evaluation system shown in Table 3 needs clarification. On what basis was this approach developed?
Figures 3 and 4 should include full names, not abbreviations.
The text should be corrected, it contains editorial errors, spaces are missing in many sections, there are misplaced dots which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the content.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Thank you so much for your careful check and helpful suggestions! We have carefully considered each comment and improved the paper accordingly.
We apologize for the confusion. A section describing the methodology has been included in the revised manuscript in P. 3, L.97-115. And the entire research process has been expanded and explained. In addition, a methodological framework has been incorporated into the article in the revised manuscript in P. 4, L.117.
We've incorporated data sources and citation material to author contributions to separate them more clearly from data sources in the revised manuscript in P. 4, L.139-141. The concept of an indicator system and the ramifications of its development are explored in more detail in the revised manuscript in P. 5, L.163-170.
We have added a description of the results in the revised manuscript in P. 10, L.325-338. We have also added a discussion section describing the limitations and replicability of the results in the revised manuscript in P. 11, L.355-396.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made the necessary changes to the text. The methodology has been improved and a discussion section has been added. The citation format does not quite follow the MDPI rules.
