Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a“reverse-logic”analytical approach that,through a systematic review of 131 NBS treescape case studies across Europe,infers underlying socio-ecological vulnerabilities from documented community benefits.The topic is of significant relevance to the intersection of public health and environmental science.The method shows some innovation,the data sources are relatively extensive,and the analytical framework is clear.However,the manuscript has issues regarding methodological rigour, logical inference, representativeness of the data,and generalisability of the conclusions.

 

1.The logical chain of the“reverse‑logic”inference is not sufficiently rigorous

The authors directly infer“presence of vulnerabilities”from“presence of benefits”.This risks circular reasoning or over‑inference.For example,the existence of recreation and relaxation benefits does not necessarily imply a lack of recreational space or social isolation;it could also result from proactive local policies.I suggest the authors: (1) Clearly distinguish between“observed benefits”and“inferred vulnerabilities”and explain the logical link; (2) Introduce external validation(e.g.,expert judgment,policy documents,regional statistics)to strengthen the credibility of inferences; (3) Discuss potential biases in the inference process in the Methods section.

2.Subjectivity in vulnerability clustering

The five vulnerability clusters(e.g.,“Access&Recreation”,“Well‑being&Isolation”)are intuitively reasonable,but their derivation lacks operationalised criteria and replicability.I recommend: (1) Providing the coding scheme or thematic analysis process used to form the clusters; (2) Considering the use of multiple coder agreement tests or quantitative clustering methods(e.g.,topic modelling)to enhance objectivity; Or provide supplementary explanations using other methods.

3.Unbalanced sample distribution

As the authors acknowledge,case studies are concentrated in the UK,Germany,Spain,and other Western European countries,while Eastern Europe,Southern Europe,and the Arctic are severely underrepresented.Moreover,searching only English‑language databases may introduce systematic language bias. So,I suggest to quantify the impact of such biases on the results in the Discussion;and recommend that future studies extend to multi‑language database searches.Additionally, it is recommended to visually represent these data across the study regions to assist readers in understanding the applicable units of conclusions.

4.Direct contribution to public health needs to be clarified

While the paper mentions health‑related benefits such as mental health,social inclusion,and physical activity,its direct link to core public health issues(e.g.,disease prevention,health inequalities,health policy response)remains somewhat indirect. So, suggest the author to add a specific section on implications for public health policymakers,urban planners,or community health workers, to enhance its practicality and applicability.

Author Response

Comment 1: The logical chain of the "reverse‑logic" inference is not sufficiently rigorous. The authors directly infer "presence of vulnerabilities" from "presence of benefits".This risks circular reasoning or over‑inference.For example,the existence of recreation and relaxation benefits does not necessarily imply a lack of recreational space or social isolation;it could also result from proactive local policies.I suggest the authors: (1) Clearly distinguish between "observed benefits" and "inferred vulnerabilities" and explain the logical link; (2) Introduce external validation(e.g.,expert judgment,policy documents,regional statistics)to strengthen the credibility of inferences; (3) Discuss potential biases in the inference process in the Methods section. Response 1: Thank you, we agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the methodology and limitations sections to define this distinction clearly and to advocate for external validation. This change can be found at line 288; "It is important to distinguish between empirically 'observed benefits' extracted from the case studies and the theoretically 'inferred vulnerabilities'. To mitigate the risk of over-inference, the inferred vulnerabilities presented in this framework serve as theoretical indicators. In practice, these inferences should be paired with external validation, such as regional demographic statistics or local health policy documents, to strengthen their credibility [Added to 4.2.6]. Additionally, the 'reverse-logic' inference carries inherent potential biases regarding over-inference, which must be managed through the aforementioned external validation.

 

Comment 2: Subjectivity in vulnerability clustering. The five vulnerability clusters(e.g., "Access&Recreation", "Well‑being&Isolation")are intuitively reasonable,but their derivation lacks operationalised criteria and replicability.I recommend: (1) Providing the coding scheme or thematic analysis process used to form the clusters; (2) Considering the use of multiple coder agreement tests or quantitative clustering methods(e.g.,topic modelling)to enhance objectivity; Or provide supplementary explanations using other methods. Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a supplementary explanation outlining our thematic analysis process and the use of multiple researchers to enhance objectivity. The following has been added at line 454: "To reduce subjectivity in forming these five clusters, the derivation followed a systematic thematic analysis process. The coding scheme grouped raw vulnerability indicators into overarching themes based on shared socio-ecological stressors. To enhance objectivity and replicability, the assignment of vulnerabilities to specific clusters was cross-examined by multiple researchers to ensure coder agreement".

 

Comment 3: Unbalanced sample distribution. As the authors acknowledge,case studies are concentrated in the UK,Germany,Spain,and other Western European countries,while Eastern Europe,Southern Europe,and the Arctic are severely underrepresented. Moreover,searching only English‑language databases may introduce systematic language bias. So,I suggest to quantify the impact of such biases on the results in the Discussion;and recommend that future studies extend to multi‑language database searches. Additionally, it is recommended to visually represent these data across the study regions to help readers understand the applicable units of the conclusions. Response 3:  We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded our limitations section to discuss the language bias thoroughly, and added the following section, line 312: "The source databases and repositories themselves possess inherent geographical biases. When compounded by searching exclusively within English-language databases, this introduces a systematic bias that severely underrepresents regions such as Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Arctic. As a result, the conclusions cannot be reliably generalised to these regions".

 

Comment 4: Direct contribution to public health needs to be clarified. While the paper mentions health‑related benefits such as mental health,social inclusion,and physical activity,its direct link to core public health issues(e.g.,disease prevention,health inequalities,health policy response)remains somewhat indirect. So, suggest the author to add a specific section on implications for public health policymakers,urban planners,or community health workers, to enhance its practicality and applicability. Response 4: Thank you, we have added a final conclusion specifically tailored to translating these findings for public health practitioners and urban planners at line 690. "While the benefits discussed encompass broad socio-ecological improvements, they possess links to core public health issues. For public health policymakers and community health workers, these findings offer actionable insights for disease prevention and addressing health inequalities. Interventions must move beyond general greening and strategically integrate ecological design with community health policies. By adopting place-sensitive, equity-driven tree designs that respond to regional climatic and health vulnerabilities, practitioners can position NBS as a policy intervention that mitigates public health stressors and strengthens population-level resilience.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Attached are my comments and suggestions.

 

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Introduction and Definitions. There is no solid introduction to the paper's central themes... Definitions are provided, but later in the text (section 3), whereas key concepts must be introduced immediately and defined.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have improved the core conceptual framework to be established immediately to assist the reader. Therefore, we have moved the primary definitions of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), treescapes, and socio-ecological vulnerability into the Introduction.

 

Comments 2: Terminology Consistency. Multiple terms refer to the same thing: I suggest choosing one and using it consistently throughout the text.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have improved the standardised use of "treescapes" in the manuscript to replace varied terms such as "wooded areas".

 

Comments 3: Methodology Structure. This is perhaps the most chaotic and confusing section... the search strategy of Section 4.5 that should go under phase 2... Sections 4.6 and 4.7, which form part of phase 3... rather than within the phase to which they belong. 

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.  We have completely reorganised the Methods section according to your recommendations. Sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 have been merged into their respective phase sub-sections (4.2.2 and 4.2.3) to create a logical, sequential flow.

 

Comments 4: Definition of 'Community'. It might be worth clarifying exactly what you mean, to avoid misunderstandings between different fields... is it a group of people, a neighbourhood, a village, or a town?

Response 4: We agree that "community" can be a nebulous term across different disciplines. To address this, we have taken a two-pronged approach: we added an operational definition to the introduction and refined our Research Questions (RQ1-RQ3) by utilising the more precise terms "societal" and "social" where appropriate. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Page 1, Section 1 and Section 2.

 

Comments 5: Typos and Formatting. The manuscript is riddled with typos, ranging from unclosed brackets, double full stops, and question marks incorrectly inserted.

Response 5:  We apologise for these oversights. Therefore, we have conducted a thorough manual proofread of the manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendation: Major Revision

This manuscript focuses on treescape nature-based solutions (treescape NBS) across Europe. Based on 131 case studies, the authors attempt to apply a “reverse-logic” framework to infer potential socio-ecological vulnerabilities from reported community benefits. The study addresses benefit classification, biogeographical distribution, vulnerability types, and their potential driving factors. The topic is relevant and meaningful, and the idea of inferring vulnerabilities from reported benefits shows a certain degree of novelty. Overall, the manuscript has a relatively complete framework, the number of cases provides a reasonable basis for analysis, and Figure 3 presents the relationship between biogeographical regions and community benefit types in a clear and intuitive way. However, the current version still requires further improvement. I recommend that the manuscript be reconsidered after revision.

1.Introduction: The authors are encouraged to further clarify the specific contribution of this study compared with existing NBS reviews or case-based studies. At present, the Introduction mainly describes the benefits of treescapes, green spaces, and forest exposure for health and well-being, but the limitations of previous studies and the specific research gap addressed by this manuscript are not sufficiently highlighted. A clearer statement of the research gap should be added at the end of Section 1.

2.Section 3.3, Biogeographical regions: The authors should explain how each case study was assigned to a specific biogeographical region. Since some European countries span multiple biogeographical regions, classification based only on country may introduce uncertainty. The authors should clarify whether the classification was based on city, coordinates, project location, or country-level information. If precise spatial matching cannot be conducted, this should be acknowledged as a methodological limitation.

3.Section 4.2.3, PRISMA-Guided Case Study Selection: More information should be provided to improve the reproducibility of the case selection process. The current description does not sufficiently clarify the search dates, screening fields, duplicate identification procedure, or specific reasons for exclusion across the databases. A brief table or supplementary material is recommended, listing the initial number of cases, screened cases, exclusion reasons, and final included cases for the 13 NBS databases.

4.Section 4.2.6, Reverse-Logic Vulnerability Inference: The mapping rules between “benefits” and “vulnerabilities” should be further specified. The five-step procedure is still rather conceptual, making it difficult for readers to understand why a certain benefit category corresponds to a specific vulnerability. The authors are encouraged to add a mapping table, such as “benefit category–indicative vulnerability–vulnerability grouping–supporting rationale”, to improve methodological transparency.

5.Section 5.1: The title “Typography of NBS treescapes” should be revised to “Typology of NBS treescapes”. This section discusses the types of NBS treescapes, whereas “typography” usually refers to text style or typesetting and is therefore not appropriate here.

6.Section 5.4: The authors should use the term “vulnerability clusters” with caution. The five vulnerability categories appear to be thematic groupings rather than clusters derived from a formal clustering analysis. The term could be revised to “thematic vulnerability groupings”, or the authors should provide the clustering rationale, classification rules, and judgement criteria in the Methods section.

7.Conclusion: The authors should ensure consistency in the reported numbers and classifications. The Results section indicates that the cases cover eight European biogeographical regions, whereas the Conclusion refers to five regions. In addition, the Abstract and Table 6 indicate 12 community benefit categories, but Figure 3 and the related results do not appear to fully correspond to these 12 categories. The authors should check and unify these key descriptions to avoid confusion.

8.There are several formatting and editorial issues throughout the manuscript, such as unclosed parentheses and inconsistent citation formatting. The authors are advised to carefully check the entire manuscript and correct these formatting errors before resubmission.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Introduction: The authors are encouraged to further clarify the specific contribution of this study compared with existing NBS reviews or case-based studies. At present, the Introduction mainly describes the benefits of treescapes, green spaces, and forest exposure for health and well-being, but the limitations of previous studies and the specific research gap addressed by this manuscript are not sufficiently highlighted. A clearer statement of the research gap should be added at the end of Section 1. Response 1: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We agree that the specific gap in existing review literature needed to be explicitly highlighted. We have added a clearer statement to the end of the Introduction detailing how this study moves beyond traditional benefit quantification to address the lack of frameworks for identifying underlying socio-ecological deficits.

 

Comments 2: Section 3.3, Biogeographical regions: The authors should explain how each case study was assigned to a specific biogeographical region. Since some European countries span multiple biogeographical regions, classification based only on country may introduce uncertainty. The authors should clarify whether the classification was based on city, coordinates, project location, or country-level information. If precise spatial matching cannot be conducted, this should be acknowledged as a methodological limitation. Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified in Section 3.3 that assignments were conducted at the country level. We agree that this introduces uncertainty for countries spanning multiple regions, and we have explicitly acknowledged this as a methodological limitation in the text. We have corrected this as follows" "Case study assignments were conducted at the country level based on the official biogeographical regions map from the European Environment Agency (EEA). Because some European countries span multiple biogeographical regions, and precise spatial coordinate matching was not available across all repository databases, this country-level classification introduces a degree of spatial uncertainty, which is acknowledged as a methodological limitation."

 

Comments 3: Section 4.2.3, PRISMA-Guided Case Study Selection: More information should be provided to improve the reproducibility of the case selection process. The current description does not sufficiently clarify the search dates, screening fields, duplicate identification procedure, or specific reasons for exclusion across the databases. A brief table or supplementary material is recommended, listing the initial number of cases, screened cases, exclusion reasons, and final included cases for the 13 NBS databases. Response 3: Thank you for this  suggestion to improve reproducibility. We have added the specific search date range to the methodology text and have created a new Supplementary Material that breaks down the initial cases, screened cases, exclusion reasons, and final included cases for all 12 databases.

 

Comments 4: Section 4.2.6, Reverse-Logic Vulnerability Inference: The mapping rules between “benefits” and “vulnerabilities” should be further specified. The five-step procedure is still rather conceptual, making it difficult for readers to understand why a certain benefit category corresponds to a specific vulnerability. The authors are encouraged to add a mapping table, such as “benefit category–indicative vulnerability–vulnerability grouping–supporting rationale”, to improve methodological transparency. Response 4: Thank you for highlighting the need for greater transparency here. We have added specific text outlining our mapping rules via direct thematic correspondence, providing a concrete example within the text to demonstrate how a benefit directly scales to an indicative vulnerability and broader grouping. 

 

Comments 5 & 6: Section 5.1: The title “Typography of NBS treescapes” should be revised to “Typology of NBS treescapes”. Section 5.4: The authors should use the term “vulnerability clusters” with caution. The five vulnerability categories appear to be thematic groupings rather than clusters derived from a formal clustering analysis. The term could be revised to “thematic vulnerability groupings”. Response 5 & 6: Thank you for catching these terminology issues. We have corrected the title of Table 5 to "Typology". Furthermore, we agree with your assessment regarding the formal definition of clusters; we have replaced all instances of "vulnerability clusters" with "thematic vulnerability groupings.

 

Comments 7 & 8: Conclusion: The authors should ensure consistency in the reported numbers and classifications. The Results section indicates that the cases cover eight European biogeographical regions, whereas the Conclusion refers to five regions. In addition, the Abstract and Table 6 indicate 12 community benefit categories, but Figure 3 and the related results do not appear to fully correspond to these 12 categories. The authors should check and unify these key descriptions to avoid confusion. There are several formatting and editorial issues throughout the manuscript, such as unclosed parentheses and inconsistent citation formatting. Response 7 & 8: Thank you for bringing these inconsistencies to our attention. We have corrected the Conclusion to accurately state "eight European biogeographical regions". We have also audited the community benefit categories and removed the redundant "Cultural Identity" category. We have unified the text in the Abstract, Table 6, and Section 5.3 to reflect exactly eleven categories, matching the visual data in the Sankey diagram (Figure 3).

Finally, we have conducted another thorough proofread to close stray parentheses and fix citation formatting. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found