Integrating Biophysical and Economic Assessment: Review of Nature-Based Adaptation to Urban Flood Extremes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There are some format errors in your paper

 

2.  As you mention “Finally, some gaps should be addressed on the third focus area concerning the adaptation theme.”, which gaps should be focused, or if someone fill this gap, can it promote NBS better?

 

3. As I see, you just enumerate the quantity of papers that you searched, including different themes, different countries, etc., what is the relation of these papers, I think you’d better use some literature research software, such as citespace, to deeply analyze this topic.

 

4. After describing other persons’ research, what is your opinion, and what is he direction of future research related to this topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Integrating biophysical and economic assessment: Review of Nature-Based Adaptation to urban flood extremes

One of the quite few review articles, where the content is very well adapted to the chosen topic and title.
Perhaps, a CiteSpace software, would have offered an additional and more resoluted possibility of spatial development (of Figure 6 type) of the concentration of studies on the chosen topic level.
Congratulations! Experienced authors have left their mark on the article.

Personally, I would have taken two and two extreme case studies, two, where the impact of the natural component was decisive and resulted in minimal damage, and another two, where the impact of the natural component was minimal, due to its near absence, and the damage was considerable. Of course, both versions of case studies must be considered on the same conditions of geographical existence (rock, morphology, climate, water density, soil texture, land cover, degree of anthropization etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Initially, I would like to congratulate the authors for the excellent work submitted to the journal. The importance of discussing the topic discussed is of unique relevance to environmental science as a whole. The systematic review carried out is impeccable. Congratulations on the results found. My only suggestion, but I believe that it will give the authors a little work, however, it will give much more weight to the discussions presented, is to insert, in the discussion of the results (line 393 onwards), the importance of the NBSs in the construction and execution of the UN Sustainable Development Goals for the 2030 Agenda? Among the 17 axes dealt with in the Agenda, at least 8 can be addressed in this research. Obviously, it is not the objective of the research, but it can be inserted as a way to increase the support of the discussion of the work done, and without a doubt, increase the visibility of the work after publication. I would love to see this increase in work, which is already very well done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The revised article, entitled "Integrating biophysical and economic assessment: Review of Nature-Based Adaptation to urban flood extremes", provides a literature review and update on the use of nature-based solutions as adaptation measures to extreme urban flooding events associated with extreme precipitation. It looks at how these types of adaptation solutions are employed from an urban design standpoint.

In my opinion, the article does a good job. It addresses a current issue (climate change, risks and adaptation) and does so with a correct approach and development. In this sense, my congratulations to the authors.

At first reading, what I expected to find was a catalog of adaptation measures, a comparative analysis of them, highlighting those most used and "best" from the point of view of urban adaptation. However, reading the document reveals that the approach is different, and perhaps just as interesting. At this point the question arises as to whether the title is correctly appropriate in view of the document presented, or whether it could be adjusted in some way. I leave it pending an assessment by the authors.

Structurally, the document is unbeatable. An introduction, followed by a methodological presentation, the results, a discussion, and finally some conclusions. Nothing to comment on or object to.

As for the methodology used to search for articles, it seems to me to be correct. It is true that nowadays there are other types of search engines that can help us (Google Scholar) or other tools that even allow us to analyze the relationships that may exist between articles, authors and topics (ResearchRabbit or ConnectedPapers). It could be objected to this process, however, that there are countless grey literature, recommendations, research project results, with abundant information on adaptation that have not been considered.

The results and their subsequent analysis also seem to me to be accurate sections. I find the idea of dividing this section into Emergent themes very interesting.

The discussion, although perhaps a bit short in length, I think it is correct. The authors have been able to identify those gaps that exist in the literature and argue about the possible need to address and deepen them. In this sense, I would propose a couple of questions (which may not be easy to answer): why have these gaps not been covered, and what reasons could be found to justify this lack of interest in these topics?
Since the focus of the manuscript is urban design, I would propose to make a brief description of how the different adaptation policies that are analyzed are considered from this perspective.

Finally, I personally always expect to find in the conclusions a reference to the usefulness of the study conducted. In this case, this is clearly described, opening the door to future research in order to use the results and continue with the research initiated. Thank you for these final paragraphs.

A few brief final comments, which I hope will help to improve the final version of the document:

1.- At some point in the completion of the paper, the cross-references seem to have been lost. There are numerous "Error! Reference source not found" texts that should be corrected.

2.- Line 75 refers to "flood risk mitigation". Although it may be a correct reference, when we are talking about climate change it is more correct to use adaptation, and leave the term mitigation for the reduction of the effects of CC by reducing emissions.

3.-The Excel used to obtain data (line 148), although referenced, could perhaps be incorporated as an extra annex.

 

Sincerely, my congratulations for the work done. Best of luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

 The similarity index is high. It should be reduced to 15% or less.

The title is very confusing "Integrating biophysical and economic assessment" Are you integrating and assessing at the same time?

The introduction is farfetched from the main aim of the study. There is a huge divorce in the conceptualisation of various terms presented. e.g., 'Flood extremes' which was the major focus of the study was not captured throughout the analysis and review. Note that flood extremes is different from flood adaptation or risk which the authors were focusing on. There was no sound literature to discuss the biophysical and economic integration highlighted in the title.  Authors should rethink the work and realign their ideas.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

please read and check the whole paper seriously, ensure that your paper is in accordance with the journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors carried out the requested revisions and content insertions regarding the UN 2030 Agenda. The quality of the manuscript is excellent and I recommend its publication. Congratulations to the authors.