Evaluating Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in Peri-Urban Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of Water-2230517 2-11-2023

ONLY TO BE SHARED WITH AUTHORS. DO NOT PUBLICLY POST THIS REVIEW.

It is somewhat difficult to offer suggestions for improving this paper without questioning some of the overarching ideas in the overall design of the underlying research program, something which a reviewer really is not in the position to do. It helps that the Handbook generated by the project called NATWIP and the main framework paper cited in the document (de Lima et all, 2022) are clearly written and the authors of this paper are consistent in using these materials as the context for their effort to develop and test a usable indicator framework for Nature Based Solutions (NBS) in solving environmental problems in settings where they might be practical (peri-urban locations).

Unfortunately only a small number of the underlying cases managed to get through the entire policy/project cycle from issue identification to full implementation and assessment, so the authors are stuck using the different cases to highlight different waypoints in the de Lima/ NATWIP framework.

One basic thing that bogs down the paper is trying to cover an overall framework for evaluating policy/ project interventions through their entire life cycles with the much narrower purpose of tracing the challenges faced by so-called “Nature Based Solutions”.  NBS  are now more frequently proposed in water and natural resources management more broadly as supposedly preferable due to their hoped-for sustainability and reduced negative externalities that are believed to accompany complex top-down technical solutions that dominant urban environmental management. The paper gets distracted by trying to deal with a comprehensive, data driven approach to overall water resources management.  

In addition to being rather hard to define in a given context, a NBS still has to compete with other technical solutions in the realms of being appropriate ( to the problem), acceptable (great skepticism can cloud a NBS, while technical solutions may be unacceptable due to cost or knock-on negative impacts) effective, feasible, cost-effective, implementable, and measurable.  The authors correctly emphasis a learning-based approach itself is an innovation that is very hard to foster and sustain when the NBS has an uncertain likelihood of addressing the water problem compared to other well-understood options. In other words, uncertain efficacy and cost, as well as policy resistance are major factors affecting the uptake of a NBS, in addition to all the other factors set out by the authors in every step of the policy/project cycle.

The authors also usefully point out how valuable the perception of a constituency group or beneficiary is in determining progress and impact in the absence of expensive and rarely implemented data collection.  A systematic approach to collecting and recording these perceptions is very much a learning process and can be a way to reduce policy resistance as the pros and cons of a given NBS are contemplated and tested.  The authors could do more to emphasis this finding from the cases.

I think that the case studies, most of which offer glimpses into different steps but not all of them, are useful in highlighting the attempt by the authors and the overarching research project to understand how the NBS innovation in a given context can be allowed to be considered, and once adopted, how the special need for a learning -based approach to implementation and evaluation can lead to improved water governance overall. These case studies seem to be small in number compared to ongoing global experience, and the researchers would do well to draw in the massive body of experience in water resources management,which is accompanied by robust (if sometimes misguided) project selection, monitoring and evaluation schemes.The Global Environmental Facility has spent billions on implementing and monitoring water projects, including NBS, as has the US Agency for International Development,with it own use of “Theory of Change” terminology and monitoring and measurement approaches. The article steers clear of recognizing these (and many other) efforts but perhaps should acknowledge them.

In terms of readability, the formatting of all the Tables in the review draft make for tough reading and I am not sure add much value except as appendices or supplementary material. The tables covering the case studies might better better presented in narrative form, emphasizing the case study that best represents insight into a particular set of indicators.

In sum, I would prefer that the authors back away from tackling the massive subject of monitoring/evaluation of water resources projects in general, and instead focus on what the NBS are in each case (in other words, what is innovative and subject to skepticism by authorities or beneficiaries) and how the case study contributes to arguing for the need 1. To include NBS in water resource decisions  and 2. How to use both quantitative and qualitative approaches that foster learning about the merits and longer term benefits of NBS and enhance the patience that is necessary for an NBS to prove itself in comparison to other options that may seem economical but prove not to be sustainable or generate undesired externalities.

           I also encourage the researchers to explore the vast global experience in seeking innovative, nature oriented solutions to flooding and pollution, emphasizing longer term benefits that can be financially and socially sustained.  They also might benefit from understanding how major donors design and monitor their water resources projects and offer a critical assessment of these.  I have to wonder how much learning and sustainability are possible in some of these logical framework and ‘theory of change’ driven approaches. 

Author Response

Comment: It is somewhat difficult to offer suggestions for improving this paper without questioning some of the overarching ideas in the overall design of the underlying research program, something which a reviewer really is not in the position to do. It helps that the Handbook generated by the project called NATWIP and the main framework paper cited in the document (de Lima et all, 2022) are clearly written and the authors of this paper are consistent in using these materials as the context for their effort to develop and test a usable indicator framework for Nature Based Solutions (NBS) in solving environmental problems in settings where they might be practical (peri-urban locations).

Unfortunately only a small number of the underlying cases managed to get through the entire policy/project cycle from issue identification to full implementation and assessment, so the authors are stuck using the different cases to highlight different waypoints in the de Lima/ NATWIP framework.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. It is true that not all of the case studies have reached the final monitoring stage and that several are in the planning stage. Whilst this means that we have case studies in different stages of the process we still feel that the application of the framework is valid. Indeed it is actually often problematic to move from the planning to the design / implementation stage in certain circumstances. The Norwegian case study, for example, faces problems with funding and changing political agendas which often dictate whether the local municipality has funds to carry out NBS projects.

Comment: One basic thing that bogs down the paper is trying to cover an overall framework for evaluating policy/ project interventions through their entire life cycles with the much narrower purpose of tracing the challenges faced by so-called “Nature Based Solutions”.  NBS  are now more frequently proposed in water and natural resources management more broadly as supposedly preferable due to their hoped-for sustainability and reduced negative externalities that are believed to accompany complex top-down technical solutions that dominant urban environmental management. The paper gets distracted by trying to deal with a comprehensive, data driven approach to overall water resources management. 

Reply: We aimed to answer two questions in the paper: (1) Can this framework be robust and yet flexible enough to be applied across a diverse selection of NBS projects that are at different phases of the project cycle and ad-dress different kinds of water challenges within varied ecological, social, and economic contexts, and (2) Is it possible to draw generalizations from a comparative analysis of the application of the framework to the case studies. To this end we feel that approaching each case study using a comprehensive approach as described was the best way to answer these questions.

Comment: In addition to being rather hard to define in a given context, a NBS still has to compete with other technical solutions in the realms of being appropriate ( to the problem), acceptable (great skepticism can cloud a NBS, while technical solutions may be unacceptable due to cost or knock-on negative impacts) effective, feasible, cost-effective, implementable, and measurable.  The authors correctly emphasis a learning-based approach itself is an innovation that is very hard to foster and sustain when the NBS has an uncertain likelihood of addressing the water problem compared to other well-understood options. In other words, uncertain efficacy and cost, as well as policy resistance are major factors affecting the uptake of a NBS, in addition to all the other factors set out by the authors in every step of the policy/project cycle.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for noting this. We have not adjusted the paper.

Comment: The authors also usefully point out how valuable the perception of a constituency group or beneficiary is in determining progress and impact in the absence of expensive and rarely implemented data collection.  A systematic approach to collecting and recording these perceptions is very much a learning process and can be a way to reduce policy resistance as the pros and cons of a given NBS are contemplated and tested.  The authors could do more to emphasis this finding from the cases.

Reply: We agree with the reviewer and have added the following text:

"Related to this is the way in which the data were collected, as using interviews to collect perceptions can be a very powerful process and one that other case studies may employ. By empowering people by giving them the possibility to share insights, resistance to the implementation of a NBS can be reduced as advantages and disadvantages of the given NBS are contemplated and tested."

Comment: I think that the case studies, most of which offer glimpses into different steps but not all of them, are useful in highlighting the attempt by the authors and the overarching research project to understand how the NBS innovation in a given context can be allowed to be considered, and once adopted, how the special need for a learning -based approach to implementation and evaluation can lead to improved water governance overall. These case studies seem to be small in number compared to ongoing global experience, and the researchers would do well to draw in the massive body of experience in water resources management,which is accompanied by robust (if sometimes misguided) project selection, monitoring and evaluation schemes.The Global Environmental Facility has spent billions on implementing and monitoring water projects, including NBS, as has the US Agency for International Development,with it own use of “Theory of Change” terminology and monitoring and measurement approaches. The article steers clear of recognizing these (and many other) efforts but perhaps should acknowledge them.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for pointing us in this direction, it was not our intention to steer clear of recognising these efforts so it is appreciated that we can now include them. In the broader scale of monitoring water projects, we have added the text at line 831:

"It is also worth considering the broad experience that different parts of the world have with NBS, both in terms of implementation and monitoring. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a multilateral fund dedicated to confronting biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution, and strains on land and ocean health and GEF has vast experience in monitoring water projects. GEF's work focusing on marine and freshwater ecosystems and their conservation and management involves a strong element of monitoring"

The additional information related to the US Agency for International Development (including the Theory of Change) has now been added at line 135:

" The ToC has been used under different context, however a vast re-source database has been built up by the United States Agency for In-ternational Development including a workbook and examples".

As well as at line 880:

The United Stets Agency for International Development is another organisation leading with experience related to the use of NBS for water management. Learning from such organisations is of great benefit.

Comment: In terms of readability, the formatting of all the Tables in the review draft make for tough reading and I am not sure add much value except as appendices or supplementary material. The tables covering the case studies might better better presented in narrative form, emphasizing the case study that best represents insight into a particular set of indicators.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment, though we would actually prefer to keep the tables as they are. Following a comment from Reviewer 2 we have added more narrative to describe the case studies.

Comment: In sum, I would prefer that the authors back away from tackling the massive subject of monitoring/evaluation of water resources projects in general, and instead focus on what the NBS are in each case (in other words, what is innovative and subject to skepticism by authorities or beneficiaries) and how the case study contributes to arguing for the need 1. To include NBS in water resource decisions  and 2. How to use both quantitative and qualitative approaches that foster learning about the merits and longer term benefits of NBS and enhance the patience that is necessary for an NBS to prove itself in comparison to other options that may seem economical but prove not to be sustainable or generate undesired externalities.

Reply: We thank the review for this comment. We feel that we have clearly defined the questions we would like to address in the paper and do so. However we also acknowledge the huge subject area that the review refers to. We have added the following at line 725:

" Indeed, it becomes apparent that NBS should be included in decisions taken related to water resources."

And the following at line 740:

" Despite the diversity of the case studies, it is important to acknowledge that both quantitative and qualitative approaches that foster learning are needed. By identifying the positive aspects and longer term benefits of NBS it should be possible to show that given time, the NBS may be able to provide a more economic and sustainable solution."

Comment: I also encourage the researchers to explore the vast global experience in seeking innovative, nature oriented solutions to flooding and pollution, emphasizing longer term benefits that can be financially and socially sustained. They also might benefit from understanding how major donors design and monitor their water resources projects and offer a critical assessment of these. I have to wonder how much learning and sustainability are possible in some of these logical framework and ‘theory of change’ driven approaches.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for pointing us to concrete examples of global experience which we have added as detailed above, framed in a broader context. We appreciate the comment related to the theory of change, and feel that this is a novel aspect of the framework that we have developed and then used here. Therefore we have not made any changes (other than the one detailed above) related to the theory of change.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper the Authors apply the framework proposed by de Lima (2022) [1], for the sustainability of NBS for water in peri-urban areas, to seven case studies of peri-urban areas, with different characterists, in the world. The aims of the paper are two: the first one is to test the flexibility of the framework and its adaptability to NBS projects addressing different kinds of water challenges and varying ecological, social and economic contexts; the second one is to identify possible generalizations from a comparative analysis of the application of the framework to case studies with different characteristics.

The results show that each peri-urban case needs a specific application of the NBS framework, but that, between the different case studies, some points in common may be identified. In particular, each implementation of NBS project needs multi-level collaborations and strong interactions at a local governance, where most of case studies was stated as “top down”.

The work is an interesting application of the framework proposed by de Lima (2022) [1], for the NBS approach.

The work is well organised, the purpose is clearly described, the case studies considered with their differences are well analysed, the results are well shown.

I suggest that the Authors improve the comments concerning Table 3.

As for editing, I suggest that the Authors improve the quality of figures 1, 2, 3.

[1] Ana Paula Morais de Lima, Aline F. Rodrigues, Agnieszka Ewa Latawiec, Viviane Dib, Fernanda D. Gomes,Veronica Maioli, Ingrid Pena, Fernanda Tubenchlak, Alanna J. Rebelo, Karen J. Esler, Amy M. P. Oen, Nancy Andrea Ramírez-Agudelo, Elisabeth Roca Bosch, Nandita Singh, Lina Suleiman and Sarah E. Hale.

Framework for Planning and Evaluation of Nature-Based Solutions for Water in Peri-Urban Areas.

Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 7952; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137952

Author Response

Comment: In this paper the Authors apply the framework proposed by de Lima (2022) [1], for the sustainability of NBS for water in peri-urban areas, to seven case studies of peri-urban areas, with different characterists, in the world. The aims of the paper are two: the first one is to test the flexibility of the framework and its adaptability to NBS projects addressing different kinds of water challenges and varying ecological, social and economic contexts; the second one is to identify possible generalizations from a comparative analysis of the application of the framework to case studies with different characteristics.

The results show that each peri-urban case needs a specific application of the NBS framework, but that, between the different case studies, some points in common may be identified. In particular, each implementation of NBS project needs multi-level collaborations and strong interactions at a local governance, where most of case studies was stated as “top down”.

The work is an interesting application of the framework proposed by de Lima (2022) [1], for the NBS approach.

The work is well organised, the purpose is clearly described, the case studies considered with their differences are well analysed, the results are well shown.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this very positive review of the work. We are pleased they have grasped our aims, the overarching results and consider the application of the framework to these case studies as interesting.

Comment: I suggest that the Authors improve the comments concerning Table 3.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment and have now changed the previous text related to table 3 to the following:

The information collected in the context stage of the framework (Table 3) demonstrates that NBS can be adopted as a solution for addressing a wide range of water-related challenges in peri-urban areas. Here the challenges were water excess or shortage as well as water quality degradation. The case studies were mostly at the local or neighbourhood scale and this was also mirrored in the scale at which effects of the NBS implementation were felt. The information collected showed that a wide range of actors may be involved with the NBS process, including government at local and national levels, industry, local businesses, civil society, and local communities. Ownership of NBS can be public (government) as well as private (local community). The case studies indicated a need for more explicit emphasis of NBS within relevant policy frameworks. In many countries there are overarching policy concerning water quality, though the link to NBS is more often felt on a smaller scale. The majority of case studies described social benefits arising which were felt as improved recreation, physical and mental health improvements and social inclusion. Most common barriers to adoption of NBS were seen as institutional, financial, political (governance), technical, as well as societal.

Comment: As for editing, I suggest that the Authors improve the quality of figures 1, 2, 3.

Reply: We have improved the quality of all figures by adding the meaning of the arrows in figure 1, by changing the font size and colour in figure 2 and by changing the size, colour and layout in figure 3.