Research on the Construction and Application of Rural Digital Design Ecosystem under the “Dual Carbon” Goal—Take the Carbon Sequestration Benefits of Street Trees in Nanjing’s Bulao Village as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to provide feedback on the recently submitted manuscript with the ID forests-2825810, titled "Research on the construction and application of rural digital design ecosystem under the 'dual carbon' goal—Take the carbon sequestration benefits of street trees in Nanjing's Bulao Village as an example."

Firstly, I would like to commend the authors on the comprehensive coverage of rural revitalization, digital ecosystems, and the potential for digital design ecosystems to support rural development in the introduction. The inclusion of relevant concepts and appropriate references establishes a solid foundation for the research.

Moreover, the utilization of the i-Tree model to quantify the carbon sequestration benefits of street trees is a commendable choice, effectively demonstrating the application of the proposed digital design ecosystem framework. The methods section is well-written, providing clear details on data inputs and the quantification process associated with the i-Tree model.

The presentation of results in tables and figures regarding the carbon sequestration benefits of different street tree species is clear and informative. However, to further enhance the manuscript, I would like to suggest the following improvements:

Expand the Literature Review:

Provide a more comprehensive literature review in the introduction, specifically focusing on research related to rural landscape design and environmental improvement through digital tools. This addition will strengthen the rationale for the study.

Detail Data Collection Methods:

Include more details on the data collection methods, particularly how the tree inventory data was gathered. Describing the sampling strategy and data collection protocols will enhance the reproducibility of the study.

Analyze Differences Between Tree Species:

Delve deeper into the analysis of differences among tree species based on factors such as size, growth rates, etc. This analysis could provide valuable insights into the variations in carbon sequestration benefits among different species.

Discuss Practical Implementation:

Extend the discussion on practical implementation of the digital design ecosystem framework. Explore how these approaches can be integrated and applied in rural planning and design projects.

Include Limitations and Future Research:

Discuss the limitations of the current study and propose potential directions for future research. This will add depth to the manuscript and encourage further validation and development of the digital ecosystem framework.

I believe these suggestions will contribute to the overall strength and impact of the manuscript. I appreciate your consideration of these recommendations.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best regards,

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1.Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2.Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

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

Comments 1: Provide a more comprehensive literature review in the introduction, specifically focusing on research related to rural landscape design and environmental improvement through digital tools. This addition will strengthen the rationale for the study.

Response 1: The development of digital ecosystems in rural areas mentioned in 1.1 Rural digital ecosystems, including four aspects: industry, elements, platforms, and systems, is the overall macro environment of the countryside, and I wonder if it can be regarded as environment-related research.

Comments 2: Include more details on the data collection methods, particularly how the tree inventory data was gathered. Describing the sampling strategy and data collection protocols will enhance the reproducibility of the study.

Response 2: In 2.2 Data Analysis, I introduced the specific operation steps of i-Tree in the section of data analysis, and explained the information that needs to be sorted out in the early stage when performing data calculation.

Comments 3: Delve deeper into the analysis of differences among tree species based on factors such as size, growth rates, etc. This analysis could provide valuable insights into the variations in carbon sequestration benefits among different species.

Response 3: Detailed records of tree height, DBH and type of street trees in Bulao Village are a necessary part of the input to the i-Tree model, because when using this software, only these three aspects of the plant data measurement are needed to obtain the current and 20-year changes in the carbon sink benefit of each tree.

Comments 4: Extend the discussion on practical implementation of the digital design ecosystem framework. Explore how these approaches can be integrated and applied in rural planning and design projects.

Response 4: Ok, I'm in 4.1. Structural characteristics of the digital design ecosystem complements how to better use the digital design ecosystem, integrates the characteristics of the digital design ecosystem with rural planning and design projects, and explains how design can be better integrated into the countryside according to different characteristics.

Comments 5: Discuss the limitations of the current study and propose potential directions for future research. This will add depth to the manuscript and encourage further validation and development of the digital ecosystem framework.

Response 5: I add the limitations and shortcomings of the research in 5. Conclusion and put forward research expectations for the future.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: forests-2825810

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Research on the construction and application of rural digital design ecosystem under the "dual carbon" goal——Take the carbon sequestration benefits of street trees in Nanjing's Bulao Village as an example

Comments

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts to conduct this research work. However, I would like to bring the following points to the attention of the authors to improve the manuscript:.

1. Title

Research on the Construction and Application of Rural Digital Design Ecosystem under the "Dual Carbon" Goal——Take the Carbon Sequestration Benefits of Street Trees in Nanjing's Bulao Village as an Example

The title needs rewriting as it includes less useful words like ‘Research on’, as an example’, take the’.

2. Abstract
3. This section needs reframing as it mixes the method section with the findings.
4. This section lacks clarity in showing the objectives of the study.

Lll.

 

3. Introduction
4. The authors lack clarity in stating the main and specific objectives of the study.
5. The strength is that the gaps are discussed well.

Lll. What is the relevance of creating a sub-section under the introduction section?

4. Materials and methods
5. Overview of the study area—lacks citations.

It will be more understandable if you include a map of your study area.

1. Maps 1–3 are not visible, especially figure 1.

Lll. It is hard to understand whether it is a study based on existing information or projections for the study village.

1. The time of data collection is not clear.
2. No procedures were indicated to identify the species. It is a black hole.
3. The work lacks a statement of the methods of data collection, sampling procedures, and the like.
4. Results

Compared with the discussion section, the findings of the study are too small. Only the species type and their carbon sequestration are stated. However, there is no result covering Digital Design Ecosystem is found.

6. Discussion

This section is well described compared with the findings; however, the existing discussion lacks comparison with previously available literature. The concept is subjective, which is solely the authors’ view.

7. Conclusion- good
8. References- can include more literature

For additional comments, please see the pdf of the manuscript.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1.Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2.Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
(x) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

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

Comments 1: Title

Research on the Construction and Application of Rural Digital Design Ecosystem under the "Dual Carbon" Goal——Take the Carbon Sequestration Benefits of Street Trees in Nanjing's Bulao Village as an Example

The title needs rewriting as it includes less useful words like ‘Research on’, as an example’, take the’.

Response 1: I will shorten the topic to: Construction and Application of Rural Digital Design Ecosystem under the "Double Carbon" Goal: Carbon Sequestration Benefits of Street Trees in Nanjing Bulao Village.

Comments 2: Abstract

This section needs reframing as it mixes the method section with the findings. This section lacks clarity in showing the objectives of the study.

Response 2: Okay, I think your opinion is very important, and I will reorganize the summary into four parts: purpose, method, result, and conclusion, hoping to better express the connotation of the article and make it easier for readers to understand.

Comments 3: Introduction

The authors lack clarity in stating the main and specific objectives of the study. The strength is that the gaps are discussed well. What is the relevance of creating a sub-section under the introduction section?

Response 3: In order to prove the research significance of this paper, especially the birth of the rural digital design ecosystem, to meet the contradiction between the actual needs of villagers and the inheritance of history and culture, and to realize the micro renewal of the countryside through scientific calculation methods, the implementation is less difficult, which is conducive to the protection of resources with historical and cultural value in the community and the preservation of urban memory.

Comments 4: Materials and methods

Overview of the study area—lacks citations. It will be more understandable if you include a map of your study area. Maps 1–3 are not visible, especially figure 1.

Lll. It is hard to understand whether it is a study based on existing information or projections for the study village. The time of data collection is not clear. No procedures were indicated to identify the species. It is a black hole. The work lacks a statement of the methods of data collection, sampling procedures, and the like.

Response 4:

(1) Figure 1 in the article is a hand-drawn map of the study area, because the shooting angle is not clear, I replaced it with a satellite image, and adjusted the clarity of Figure 2 and 3.

(2) On 2023.03, I conducted a field investigation on the existing street trees in Bulao Village, and mainly measured the specific data such as tree height, DBH, and light intensity of street trees, which have been sorted out in the following and table. As for the identification of tree species, most of it depends on my usual study of botany courses, and a small part comes from the app that identifies trees and flowers.

(3) The i-Tree software was input to calculate the carbon sequestration benefit of trees, and the total benefit and average benefit of tree species were calculated based on the number of the same tree species obtained from the field survey. I will add the specific operation steps of i-Tree in the article, and other parts that need to be modified are annotated in the document.

Comments 5: Results

Compared with the discussion section, the findings of the study are too small. Only the species type and their carbon sequestration are stated. However, there is no result covering Digital Design Ecosystem is found.

Response 5: 3. Results is a summary of the data of street tree species, tree height, type, DBH, tree age, light intensity, and distance from buildings obtained from my research in Bulao Village, and the carbon sequestration benefits of street trees in Bulao Village are obtained. Results show the early resource gathering of the digital design ecosystem, and the mid-term and post-stage sessions are presented in 4. Discussion, including the ways in which design intervenes in the countryside, and presents the form and design strategy.

Comments 6: Discussion

This section is well described compared with the findings; however, the existing discussion lacks comparison with previously available literature. The concept is subjective, which is solely the authors’ view.

Response 6: In fact, this section is also a supplement to the digital design ecosystem of Bulao Village and is a practical application of the rural digital design ecosystem summarized through literature combing. I believe that the theoretical framework constructed through many literature readings and cases is relatively objective, and I take the carbon sequestration benefits of street trees in Bulao Village as an example to show you how to use this method to carry out scientific green and sustainable rural planning.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 1: For your valuable comments to me in PDF, including suggestions in English, I will show you in Word. In addition, I am very honored to receive your comments on the changes, and thank you for pointing out my shortcomings, thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introduces the Digital Design Ecosystem. It explains pretty well how the tool was constructed, and, from my point of view, the paper should focus on the tool and discuss the advantages of the digital method with the designers and planners. It is also curious that the authors did not suggest several scenarios to show how the tool can help professionals. Instead, the results section gives information about the situation of Bulao village. This is one application of the model, but the reader can be disappointed because the results section does not show how powerful the model can be in assessing alternative designs.

Additionally, the discussion does not properly examine the results but introduces some new design aspects. It is awkward. The conclusion is an interesting statement but is not linked to the paper's results. In the same vein, in the abstract, the affirmation that  "Practice shows that inheriting the connotation value of rural culture, improving the quality of the rural environment, and increasing residents' and tourists' sense of belonging and identity to the countryside are conducive to jointly promoting sustainable rural development under the background of "dual carbon" is not demonstrated in the paper and should be erased.

 

I recommend that the authors clearly announce the paper's objectives at the end of the first paragraph.

In the theoretical framework, the case of Dorma Land in Caofeidian Wetland Tourism Resort is used as a previous successful application, but there is no reference where the reader can find information about this case study, which is pointed out as a source of inspiration. Would it be possible to consider this case study as a first application and clearly distinguish it from the theoretical approach? 

 

 

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1.Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2.Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

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

Comments 1: The paper introduces the Digital Design Ecosystem. It explains pretty well how the tool was constructed, and, from my point of view, the paper should focus on the tool and discuss the advantages of the digital method with the designers and planners. It is also curious that the authors did not suggest several scenarios to show how the tool can help professionals. Instead, the results section gives information about the situation of Bulao village. This is one application of the model, but the reader can be disappointed because the results section does not show how powerful the model can be in assessing alternative designs.

Response 1: Unfortunately, the results of my paper did not meet your expectations. However, what I want to show you in the article is that after the construction of multiple dimensions of the rural digital design ecosystem expressed above, I will take Bulao Village as an example to show the application of the system in the countryside. Because this paper focuses on the sustainable development of green villages, I will focus on the carbon sink function of plants and summarize the plant data table of street trees in Bulao Village, which can provide a scientific theoretical basis for the design intervention of the discussion part.

Comments 2: Additionally, the discussion does not properly examine the results but introduces some new design aspects. It is awkward. The conclusion is an interesting statement but is not linked to the paper's results. In the same vein, in the abstract, the affirmation that "Practice shows that inheriting the connotation value of rural culture, improving the quality of the rural environment, and increasing residents' and tourists' sense of belonging and identity to the countryside are conducive to jointly promoting sustainable rural development under the background of "dual carbon" is not demonstrated in the paper and should be erased.

Response 2: Ok, thanks for your valuable comments, I'll readjust 4. Discussion to better communicate with 3. Results section is consistent and makes it more relevant to the digital design ecosystem. In addition, my original intention is that 4. Discussion, as an important embodiment of the scientific design of rural design, shows how designers can carry out rural planning and design more reasonably through scientific and technological means. By applying the digital design ecosystem in Bulao Village, mutual inference can be extended to other villages that have not yet been clearly planned, which is conducive to the development of more scientific and reasonable design.

Comments 3: I recommend that the authors clearly announce the paper's objectives at the end of the first paragraph.

Response 3: I will readjust the end of the first paragraph and show it to you in Word.

Comments 4: In the theoretical framework, the case of Dorma Land in Caofeidian Wetland Tourism Resort is used as a previous successful application, but there is no reference where the reader can find information about this case study, which is pointed out as a source of inspiration. Would it be possible to consider this case study as a first application and clearly distinguish it from the theoretical approach? 

Response 4: Caofeidian Wetland Park is only introduced here as a successful case of design intervention in the countryside, which is intended to better support the construction of a theoretical framework. It is indeed my source of inspiration, there are a lot of scientific studies to show the particularity of Caofeidian environment, so it is now more precious in planning and design, and it is an excellent example of scientific design and rational integration into rural planning and design. If you think this case is a little abrupt, then I will delete it and only keep the Bulao Village as a case study in this article, which is clearer and more complete.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: forests-2825810

Type of manuscript: Article

Round 2

Title: Construction and Application of Rural Digital Design Ecosystem under the "Double Carbon" Goal: Carbon Sequestration Benefits of Street Trees in Bulao Village, China

Dear authors,

You have adequately revised the manuscript, which is appreciable. However, very little editorial work is still demanding.

1. On the title, there will be more directives if you include the name of the country.
2. On the abbreviation: please define the full term before using the abbreviations, like DBH in the abstract section.
3. The study objective is briefly mentioned and located in paragraph 1, but most of the time, the readers expect it to be at the end of the last paragraph of the introductory section.
4. In Table 1, the phrase ‘leaf area index’ should begin in capital L.
5. In my previous comment on figure 7, the values 1≤~20, 20≤~40, and 40≤~60 are not referring to the numbers of trees; if so, why have you also indicated the same idea in the y-axis? Also, what does the term ‘TYPE’ refer to? Double-check this figure again to avoid such confusion.
6. Is it a review paper? On the revised version, you included the following sentence: "Therefore, this paper reviews the current literature on the rural digital ecosystem and the dynamic capacity of the system, sorts out the key points and shortcomings of rural research at home and abroad, and proposes future research directions.”
7. Still, the manuscript has numerous too-long statements.
8. In the conclusion section, you included citations, which is less common. If it is a must, please include the concept in the discussion section as well. But you can generate your own results'-based conclusion.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1.Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2.Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

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

Comments 1: On the title, there will be more directives if you include the name of the country.

Response 1: Okay, I've changed the subtitle to the carbon sequestration benefits of street trees in Bulao Village, China.

Comments 2: On the abbreviation: please define the full term before using the abbreviations, like DBH in the abstract section.

Response 2: Ok, I'll check the abbreviations of the full text and revise them in Word.

Comments 3: The study objective is briefly mentioned and located in paragraph 1, but most of the time, the readers expect it to be at the end of the last paragraph of the introductory section.

Response 3: Okay, I've adjusted that.

Comments 4: In Table 1, the phrase ‘leaf area index’ should begin in capital L.

Response 4: Ok, I've modified it in the table.

Comments 5: In my previous comment on figure 7, the values 1≤~20, 20≤~40, and 40≤~60 are not referring to the numbers of trees; if so, why have you also indicated the same idea in the y-axis? Also, what does the term ‘TYPE’ refer to? Double-check this figure again to avoid such confusion.

Response 5: I have readjusted this table, which has already been indicated in the article.

Comments 6: Is it a review paper? On the revised version, you included the following sentence: "Therefore, this paper reviews the current literature on the rural digital ecosystem and the dynamic capacity of the system, sorts out the key points and shortcomings of rural research at home and abroad, and proposes future research directions.”

Response 6: This article is not a review paper. However, because the theoretical framework of the digital design ecosystem requires a large number of research bases for theoretical derivation, I have described more of the literature review in the early stage. The second half of the article mainly focuses on the practical application of the framework and provides a new idea for future research on rural areas.

Comments 7: Still, the manuscript has numerous too-long statements.

Response 7: Okay, I'm going to make changes in the new word.

Comments 8: In the conclusion section, you included citations, which is less common. If it is a must, please include the concept in the discussion section as well. But you can generate your own results'-based conclusion.

Response 8: Ok, I've adjusted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is challenging to compare the two versions; however, most of the reviewers' comments were more or less addressed.

Author Response

It is a great honor to hear from you. If you can, I hope you choose "I would like to sign my review report". If you think there is anything that needs to be adjusted, I will make changes as soon as possible.