Analysis of the Microclimatic and Biodiversity-Enhancing Functions of a Living Wall Prototype for More-than-Human Conviviality in Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is executed at a high technical level and reveals the essence of research on the topic!

Comments:

1. The title of the manuscript is complex, long and end with a question mark! I recommend shortening the topic, for example, "Analysis of the Microclimatic and Biodiversity-Enhancing Functions of a Living Wall Prototype"

2. I recommend adding a few sentences on the "European Green Deal" to the text of the manuscript, which will emphasize the status and importance of research

3. The "Conclusions" section needs to be redone! this section should offer concrete results, recommendations for stakeholders! at the moment, the title "Discussion #2" is more suitable for the section

4. The "References" section needs to be redone according to the publishing house's requirements!

Author Response

The title of the manuscript is complex, long and end with a question mark! I recommend shortening the topic

The title of the article has been changed accordingly. It now reads: “Analysis of the Microclimatic and Biodiversity-Enhancing Functions of a Living Wall Prototype for More-Than-Human-Conviviality in Cities”

I recommend adding a few sentences on the "European Green Deal" to the text of the manuscript, which will emphasize the status and importance of research

Has been added in Section 1. as well as Section 2.1.

“The European Green Deal is an influential policy strategy in this regard [24], as it makes combating climate change a top priority. In addition to achieving climate neutrality by 2050, the EU aims to take various measures to protect people and the environment while ensuring economic competitiveness. As part of this effort, nature-based solutions are prioritized. These measures are built upon natural ecosystems and properties of nature [25].”

“The European Green Deal is an example of such approaches, as it seeks climate-friendly development within the human priorities of growth and competitiveness.”

The "Conclusions" section needs to be redone! this section should offer concrete results, recommendations for stakeholders! at the moment, the title "Discussion #2" is more suitable for the section.

The conclusion has been rewritten to summarize our most important results and offer concrete recommendations for stakeholders.

Newly added paragraphs – for the full context please see the document:

“First, the comparison and characterization of natural and urban environments shows that urban structures lack environmental heterogeneity as well as microclimate and microhabitat variation due to large-scale sealing, which negatively affects floristic and faunal diversity. Second, the case study illustrates that the UNA TERRA prototype contributes to buffering microclimatic conditions through its planting and maintenance concept, which is comparable to natural structures. The formation of a heterogeneous microclimate can be further enhanced by the targeted use of mineral and organic habitat structures. Third, a significant increase in faunistic diversity can be generated by the combined design elements. Overall, the system has the potential to contribute to the promotion of structural richness and biodiversity in urban areas.

Accordingly, our results illustrate that the tested prototype and similar green in-frastructures can act as a revolutionary infrastructure for more-than-human conviviality by actively engaging with and caring for the heterogeneity and ecological interde-pendence of non-human species. The UNA TERRA living wall exemplifies how these aims might be achieved. However, its design characteristics and performance cannot be generalized. Local changemakers need to find place-specific solutions that fit the specific urban environment and ecology. A key characteristic of revolutionary designs that should be implemented across all kinds of urban infrastructures is the adherence to ‘egalitarian humility’, meaning that the uncertainty and openness of urban naturecultures is rec-ognized. This requires new forms of acceptance of the wildness of nature in cities and a change in aesthetic designs and sensibilities. This is not only a technical challenge, but a sociopolitical one that concerns property management, local administration, and gov-ernment.”

The "References" section needs to be redone according to the publishing house's requirements!

The appropriate changes have been implemented. The references are formatted according to the “Information for Authors” guidelines on the journal’s homepage as well as the provided Word template. Citations are numbered in the order of occurrence and are referenced via numbers in brackets in the text. The References section is formatted using the provided formatting style in the Word template. Authors are free to style the full bibliographic information in a style they prefer as long as they stick to the aforementioned guidelines. Assistant Editor Kay Zhang assures us that the full bibliographic information will be adapted to fit the ACS style by the journal itself at a later stage once it is accepted, so it is not necessary for us to use this style ourselves.

Reviewer 2 Report

A study was conducted to investigate the potential of living walls to enhance ecosystem and ecological benefits within an urban ecosystem. In general, this study has provided an in-depth and interesting debate/discussion on the role of humans over the control of nature when it comes to incorporating greens to regulate the impact of climate change in cities. The interdisciplinary lens applied in allowing minimal human interference in the UNA TERRA case study has resulted in unexpected results of species diversity introduced. However, the ecological benefits of a living wall to regulate temperature are somehow expected if compared to a bare wall. More specific comments are provided in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General feedback: “However, the ecological benefits of a living wall to regulate temperature are somehow expected if compared to a bare wall. More specific comments are provided in the attached file.“

The argumentation has been revised accordingly. Specific changes are presented below.

General feedback: Repetitions throughout the text

These have been omitted.

Title: I have mix feeling about ending the title with a question mark. A full stop might seem more impactful.

The title has been changed accordingly. It now reads: “Analysis of the Microclimatic and Biodiversity-Enhancing Functions of a Living Wall Prototype for More-Than-Human-Conviviality in Cities”

Section 3.2.2.: „Not something new. What do the authors want to imply in this section?“

This paragraph has been revised. The focus of the paper is now on the illustration that heterogeneous microclimates (created through plant selection and complementary habitat systems) can be achieved through the UNA-TERRA prototype. The deliberate integration of a heterogeneous microclimate in green facades to promote biodiversity is a novelty.

Section 3.2.3.: „What is the justification of selecting these intervals?“

The series of images exemplarily depicts the development of the prototype. As this type of biodiversity-enhancing greening and maintenance concept is a novelty, it was important for the authors to provide the reader with a visual impression. Therefore, in Section 4., when describing the careful biodiversity-enhancing maintenance, reference is made again to the photos.

Section 3.2.3.: „If I understand correctly, during installation, there are no plant species? This is not made clear in the study.

This point is already being discussed in the text. We hope this is sufficient:

“34 species of plants were installed according to a planting plan. Just four months after installation, ecological monitoring identified 36 plant species on the wall. Two species were established themselves spontaneously after four months.”

Kapitel 3.2.3.: „Methodology: The observation period only took place on 1 day? How does the study address biasness in this regard?“

The study illustrates initial results on the microclimate and biodiversity of the UNA-TERRA wall. Additional measurements are certainly useful and should be carried out, as now added in the article (>Section 3.2.4.). Especially the potential for promoting biodiversity is likely to increase over the years. Another publication with several measurement series is planned, but would exceed the scope of this paper. In this paper, the aim was to shed light on the potentials from a social science perspective and to promote the differentiation of gray, green, and revolutionary infrastructure in facade areas.

Section 3.2.4.: „This, in fact, would be the largest drawback of the current study. The comparison of a living wall will definitely outperform a bare concrete wall under any circumstances.“

And: Section 4.: „The claim of "highly efficient system" is debatable if the comparison is with a bare wall.

This has been revised. As described in the first comment, the focus is on illustrating a heterogeneous microclimate through structural richness. The deliberate integration of a heterogeneous microclimate in green facades to promote biodiversity is a novelty.

Section 4.3.: “Line 674-692: A good argument indeed. However, the current case study is very specific to a particular micro-climate and local variants. The outcome of this study is far from applicable for generalization to another context.”

Limitations regarding the generalization of findings from the case study have been added to the beginning of the section to make clear that the referenced argument needs to be reflected considering the specific application and context:

“However, these results are case-specific and cannot be directly translated to other contexts. The successful design and implementation of similar green infrastructures requires careful analysis of the local urban ecology and built environment it is deployed in.”

Section 4.4.: “It would be interesting for the authors to discuss about regulating the "unknown" in the application of prototypes like UNA TERRA. How much of interference should be allowed?”

The following paragraph on the question of interference and regulation has been added to the section:

“However, it is important to distinguish egalitarianism from indifference. There needs to be constant reflection and negotiation about what kinds of life forms, natural processes and nature-culture relations are beneficial, or at least acceptable, to more-than-human con-viviality. Damage to the built structure by flora and fauna is unacceptable from the point of view of its human dwellers, just as the inhabitation of living walls by mice or hornets once a certain threshold has been crossed.”

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is relevant for this journal. It discusses the timely topic of facade walls as urban green infrastructure providing results of the investigation of a prototype built on the campus within a larger discussion framework. Green walls are a discussed solution regarding their sustainability and contribution against urban heat islands and the climate change driven hazards caused by this. The abstract summarises well the paper. Already the introduction provides a good and extensive review of literature, almost 100 references from various sources in terms of type, geography, chronology. The methods section is fine. The results section starts with the mentioned larger framework to discuss green infrastructure solutions such as green walls. This would suit better the discussion. Results are in my opinion those related to the design and the measurements related to the prototype.

Author Response

The results section starts with the mentioned larger framework to discuss green infrastructure solutions such as green walls. This would suit better the discussion. Results are in my opinion those related to the design and the measurements related to the prototype.

The structure of the text has been revised to integrate this feedback. Please see the full document for the scope of these changes.

Section 3.1. “Rethinking the Nature of Cities: Urban Naturecultures and Assemblages” was removed, so that the design and measured performance of the prototype form the Section 3. “Results” of this study.

For our interdisciplinary approach it is key to introduce the main social science concepts before the Discussion, as these are also being referenced in the engineering science perspective and form the backbone of the study.

Section 2.2. “Social Science Perspective” therefore introduces the employed theoretical approaches from social sciences: urban naturecultures, assemblages, and urban political ecology.

We have also added Section 4.1. “Rethinking the Nature of Cities”, which includes a general discussion of the interdependence of human habitation with non-human species and nature in cities from a social science perspective. These arguments are now part of the discussion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend for printing!

Author Response

We further improved the readability of the introduction to better capture the readers' interest and make our research interest clearer from the beginning.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions from the previous round of review. The revised manuscript is satisfactory. However, there are still some parts which can be further improved before being considered for acceptance. My specific comments are provided in the attached document. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We implemented all comments and suggestions to the manuscript:

All sub-figures were labeled. The captions now elaborate on each subfigure separately.

p. 14: The ecological monitoring is only carried out once in the whole research? Or is only presented as example? I'm curious what is happening during other seasons? 

The following text was added to make this aspect clearer. The findings are of exemplary character and need to be investigated further in future research:

"An ecological monitoring of the associated fauna was carried out on July 13, 2022. Since only one ecological monitoring has been carried out so far, the results are to be evaluated as initial, not yet completed, and exemplary findings. To consolidate these initial findings, further investigations must be carried out in the following months and years."

p. 15: "Why is this so?", with reference to the finding that all nest entrances of the hardwood block were closed.

The following text was added to the paragraph to better explain this finding: 

"In October, all nest entrances in this test field were closed as shown in Figure 12.e in the bottom left corner. Nest closures can be identified by a sealed nest tube entrance. In this case the tubes were closed with wood particles, small stones and clay. Such closures are made, among others, by the Heriades species and the Passaloecus species."

In addition, the caption of figure 12 was improved in this regard.