Nature-Based Solutions for Landscape Performance Evaluation—Handan Garden Expo Park’s “Clear as a Drain” Artificial Wetland as an Example

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

We have added relevant content in the introduction.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

We have added references to LEED, SITES, and LPS.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

The methodology section has been incorporated into the introduction.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

We have revised the results.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

We have revised and added the conclusion.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: What is the main question of the study?

The aim of the study was to analyse the possibility of comprehensive restoration of ecosystems and water conditions in brown fields such as the Handan Exhibition Park. Using the case study method, the possibility of effective landscape restoration using ecosystems, composite sponge devices was tested, using nature-based techniques, gradually transforming the area in terms of environment and landscape, restoring aquatic ecosystems.

Reply 1: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have added relevant content in the introduction.

Comments 2: Which parts do you consider original or relevant to the field?  What is the specific gap in this area that the article touches on?

Definitely the experimental part, which was very well planned and described.  This work, thanks to the case study, assessed in a systemic way the state of exploitation of the studied area, as well as presented the landscape effects of composite sponge devices.  The authors also showed strategies that, when used with a properly selected methodology based on the principles of the system's ability to self-regulate and self-purify, increase the likelihood of regeneration of the research area.

Reply 2: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have added expressions on the sustainability of constructed wetlands.

Revision 2：(3) At the beginning of the planning of the constructed wetland, the sustainability of the ecosystem was fully considered. In the construction process, local renewable and recyclable materials, including steel slag, plant materials, wood, etc. were given priority to reduce the "ecological footprint" and "life cycle cost". In terms of plant selection, a large number of native plants are selected, which can effectively adapt to local climate and soil conditions while reducing maintenance costs and water consumption. With the establishment of good habitats, it helps to support the sustainable provision of services by local ecosystems. In the future, with the continuous investment in operation and maintenance, the artificial wetland will provide more systematic and integrated ecosystem services, such as stormwater management (reducing regional water security risks), aesthetic enlightenment (promoting regional culture), and so on. (lines 453-463)

Comments 3: What does the material bring to the subject area compared to other published publications?

Post-industrial areas are difficult to revitalize, and post-industrial areas with problems with water pollution are special.  The work contributes to the development of comprehensive ecosystem services systems based on natural technologies and sponge devices. This is a case study that many researchers will certainly refer to when designing tools for the revitalization of similar areas.

Reply 3: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. 

Comments 4: What specific improvements should authors consider with regard to the methodology?  What further checks should be considered?

The methodology, according to the reviewer, has been carefully thought out, systematized and allows for the assessment of biodiversity in the park.

Reply 4: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. 

Comments 5: Describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.  Please also indicate whether all the main questions have been addressed and with which specific experiments.

The conclusions are based on research, and the authors refer to them in a very skilful and organized way.  In my opinion, all research questions have been answered.

However, I think that adding a few additional references to previous studies or other reference materials could strengthen the scientific basis of the presented conclusions.

Reply 5: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have added references to LEED, SITES, and LPS.

Revision 5：Currently, LEED, SITES, and LPS are the three most influential systems for evaluating landscape performance. These systems are associated with the assessment of objects and factors related to ecological benefits such as land, water, habitat, energy utilization, and raw materials. The social benefit index primarily focuses on leisure tourism and similar aspects, while economic research is relatively limited.(lines 59-63)

Comments 6: Are the references appropriate?

Yes, the references are adequate.

Reply 6: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. 

Comments 7:  Please provide any additional comments to the tables and figures data quality.

The text is very well organized and is clear.  It describes the study and conclusions in a way that is logical and understandable for the reader.  The structure of the text, including introduction, research, conclusions, and conclusion, is adequate and facilitates the understanding of the data presented.  The text contains rich information on the various ecological and landscape benefits of the comprehensive sponge object.  It describes in detail the impact of this solution on restoring ecosystems in the Handan Exhibition Park and highlights its important role in improving the quality of life of residents.  Very well prepared visualizations and drawings are noteworthy.  Tables contain a large amount of data that is clearly presented.

Reply 7: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: 

Response 1:    (We have polished the language.)

5. Additional clarifications

Comments 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes, however we need more explanation and reference to landscape performance metrics and the current situation globally for as pertaining to each system. For example, stormwater management (e.g., antiquated systems, ms4 permitting limitations, out of date design storm models, etc.). We also need a section to on the relevance of post occupancy evaluations and why they are important or crucial.

Reply 1: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have added relevant content in the introduction.

Revision 1：Actually observe and study the service quality of these built artificial ecosystems, and establish the relationship between design elements and system function and post occupancy evaluation. This is also an organic part of design ecology, which has theoretical and practical significance for the promotion and continuous optimization of design.(lines 77-819)

Comments 2: Is the research design appropriate?

Yes, however I think a condensed version of what the methods entail should be presented in the introduction (similar to the abstract but a bit more in depth).

Reply 2: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. The methodology section has been incorporated into the introduction.

Revision 2： Based on water quality monitoring, plant diversity survey, model calculation, etc., the ecological restoration performance of "Clear as a Drain" composite sponge facilities was systematically studied, including landscape support services, landscape regulation services, and influencing factors affecting ecological restoration performance. The results were used to guide the scientific management and optimization of other nature-based composite sponge facilities.(lines 92-98)

Comments 3: Are the methods adequately described?

They work however I’m interested to see if this calculations take future growth into account or if this is just a cross-section analysis of the current condition.

Reply 3: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have added expressions on the sustainability of constructed wetlands.

Revision 3：With the construction of good habitats, plant diversity will continue to improve in the future, and ecosystem services will continue to enhance.(lines 252-254);

(3) At the beginning of the planning of the constructed wetland, the sustainability of the ecosystem was fully considered. In the construction process, local renewable and recyclable materials, including steel slag, plant materials, wood, etc. were given priority to reduce the "ecological footprint" and "life cycle cost". In terms of plant selection, a large number of native plants are selected, which can effectively adapt to local climate and soil conditions while reducing maintenance costs and water consumption. With the establishment of good habitats, it helps to support the sustainable provision of services by local ecosystems. In the future, with the continuous investment in operation and maintenance, the artificial wetland will provide more systematic and integrated ecosystem services, such as stormwater management (reducing regional water security risks), aesthetic enlightenment (promoting regional culture), and so on. (lines 453-463)

Comments 4: Are the results clearly presented?

Results are presented clearly. However a final synthesis paragraph or statement would be useful to explain the composite suite of results

Reply 4:Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have revised and added the conclusion.

Revision 4：The results showed that constructed wetlands played an important role in ecosystem support services and ecosystem regulation services, especially in water purification and biodiversity enhancement in summer. Relevant conclusions are as follows:(lines 415-418)

Comments 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results?

The conclusion is useful, however there really needs to be a limitations set of paragraphs as well as a broader impacts section focusing on how does/will this study provide a transferable framework for future research.

Reply 5:Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have revised and added the conclusion

Comments 6: Originality / Novelty Original and novel, however the study needs to be situated more in the context of landscape performance metrics or site scale post occupancy evaluations. Addressing issues of rating systems like USGBC Sites and LEED might also play a role in framing the novel components of this study.

Reply 6: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have added references to LEED, SITES, and LPS.

Revision 6：Currently, LEED, SITES, and LPS are the three most influential systems for evaluating landscape performance. These systems are associated with the assessment of objects and factors related to ecological benefits such as land, water, habitat, energy utilization, and raw materials. The social benefit index primarily focuses on leisure tourism and similar aspects, while economic research is relatively limited.(lines 59-63)

Comments 7: The content is significant however more reference and context for the sponge city initiative might be helpful for the reader.

Reply 7: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have expanded the research background in the introduction

Comments 8: Quality of Presentation

Fair. The methods and results section need more of an introduction to explain why this research design was selected. There needs to be presentation about how this research is impactful, significant and useful as methodology/framework or if the results are the key focus for the research.

Reply 8: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have refined this in the introduction and conclusion.

Comments 9: Scientific Soundness

I didn’t see reference or analysis of projected data outputs.  For example, what might this sight look like in 20 years time and how might the metrics or the results change.  Predictive modeling might not be in the scope of the project but including this in the limitations or conclusions would be helpful.

Reply 9: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. Upon conclusion, we incorporated the potential future ecosystem service impact of "Clear as a Drain".

Revision 9：With the establishment of good habitats, it helps to support the sustainable provision of services by local ecosystems. In the future, with the continuous investment in operation and maintenance, the artificial wetland will provide more systematic and integrated ecosystem services, such as stormwater management (reducing regional water security risks), aesthetic enlightenment (promoting regional culture), and so on.

Comments 10: Interest to the readers

Watch grammar and punctuation. Also, transitions from section to section would be useful. Also, having more subsections in the introduction would help the reader move through the paper.

Reply 10: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have polished the language.

Comments 11: Overall Merit

I’d be interested to see what this looks like as a network-based longitudinal analysis, a network or regional evaluation, or how the conclusion could provide for additional metrics to be included.

Reply 11 :Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. Upon conclusion, we incorporated the potential future ecosystem service impact of "Clear as a Drain".

Revision 11：(3) At the beginning of the planning of the constructed wetland, the sustainability of the ecosystem was fully considered. In the construction process, local renewable and recyclable materials, including steel slag, plant materials, wood, etc. were given priority to reduce the "ecological footprint" and "life cycle cost". In terms of plant selection, a large number of native plants are selected, which can effectively adapt to local climate and soil conditions while reducing maintenance costs and water consumption. With the establishment of good habitats, it helps to support the sustainable provision of services by local ecosystems. In the future, with the continuous investment in operation and maintenance, the artificial wetland will provide more systematic and integrated ecosystem services, such as stormwater management (reducing regional water security risks), aesthetic enlightenment (promoting regional culture), and so on.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Watch grammar and punctuation.

Response 1:    (We have polished the language.)

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We have added relevant content in the introduction..

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

We have added references to LEED, SITES, and LPS.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We've optimized it.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

The methodology section has been incorporated into the introduction.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

We have revised the results.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

We have revised and added the conclusion.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I have found few tipfeler mistakes which you have to carefully read and correct. Furthermore, you have not provide suficient information of the site specifics - you talk about residents but it is impossible to figure up where and how much of people live there.Please provide information about local context concerning the landscape typology and qualities...

Reply 1: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have corrected the errors and added relevant content to the site introduction.

Revision 1：The plant condition was poor, and the flood storage capacity was weak. The terrain within the site was undulating, with large vertical changes, with a maximum height difference was about 30 meters. The site is surrounded by three natural villages, each housing approximately 700 households within a 500-meter radius.(lines 111-115)

Comments 2: Provide some more information of the economic values of vegetation purification from the american example.

Reply 2: Thanks for your helpful comments which would help us to improve the manuscript. We have added the economic value of landscape to the American example.

Revision 2：The United States government has carried out monitoring and evaluation of ecological restoration in the Chesapeake Bay for 40 years, accumulating a large amount of research data, which provides data support for the evaluation of restoration effects, the selection of restoration programs, the selection of restoration technologies, and the decision of performance payment, the government designed impervious ground area and water purification efficiency to measure the effectiveness of performance-based payment contracts. At the same time, related economic benefits such as increasing employment have begun to be included in the scope of collaborative benefits of ecological restoration work;(lines 66-75)

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: 

Response 1:    (We have polished the language.)