NBS Impact Evaluation with GREENPASS Methodology Shown by the Case Study ‘Fischbeker Höfe’ in Hamburg/Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract is too extended. It needs a slight restructuring so as to include some references about the significance of such topic, overall scope of the paper, methodology used, the main contribution of the current study and the main outcomes.

This topic, although developing a new methodology, falls within an extremely current topic, related to nature-based solutions and well being. In this context, the Introduction section could be improved with more contextual and bibliographical references. There is a large and up-to-date body of international literature both theoretically and applied and the authors are citing a rather limited number of works. There is much reference to the project then to the issue the study is addressing.

The methodology is quite extended and comprehensive.

The results are generally clear and soundly interpreted.

Discussions are meant to interpret the significance of the findings in light of what was already known in the literature about the research problem. In the current study, they are mainly referring to the study area, without putting it into a broader context.

The conclusions are logical and sound. However, the main outcomes of the paper could be related to some quantitative values.

Author Response

Point 1: The abstract is too extended. It needs a slight restructuring so as to include some references about the significance of such topic, overall scope of the paper, methodology used, the main contribution of the current study and the main outcomes.

Response 1: The abstract has been shortened and restructured in the following way: significance of the topic, overall scope, methodology, main outcomes and conclusions.

Point 2: This topic, although developing a new methodology, falls within an extremely current topic, related to nature-based solutions and well being. In this context, the Introduction section could be improved with more contextual and bibliographical references. There is a large and up-to-date body of international literature both theoretically and applied and the authors are citing a rather limited number of works. There is much reference to the project then to the issue the study is addressing.

Response 2: Further bibliographical references have been added to the introduction:

• Liu, B., Lian, Z., Brown, R.D. Effect of Landscape Microclimates on Thermal Comfort and Physiological Wellbeing. Sustainability2019, 11, 5387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195387
• Santamouris, M. Cooling the cities – A review of reflective and green roof mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban environments. Solar Energy, Volume 103, Pages 682-703, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.07.003
• Skodra, J., Zorita, S., Garcia Perez, I., Moebus, S. Co-creating nature-based solutions for healthy and sustainable cities: Urban public health approach, European Journal of Public Health, Volume 30, Issue Supplement_5, September 2020, ckaa165.234, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.234
• WHO Regional Office for Europe. Urban green spaces and health. Copenhagen, 2016.
• Grimmond, C.S.B., Roth, M., Oke, T.R., Au, Y.C., Best, M., Betts, R., Carmichael, G., Cleugh, H., Dabberdt, W., Emmanuel, R., Freitas, E., Fortuniak, K., Hanna, S., Klein, P., Kalkstein, L.S., Liu, C.H., Nickson, A., Pearlmutter, D., Sailor, D., Voogt, J. Climate and More Sustainable Cities: Climate Information for Improved Planning and Management of Cities (Producers/Capabilities Perspective), Procedia Environmental Sciences, Volume 1, 2010, Pages 247-274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.09.016.

Point 3: Discussions are meant to interpret the significance of the findings in light of what was already known in the literature about the research problem. In the current study, they are mainly referring to the study area, without putting it into a broader context.

Response 3: The last paragraph of the section discussions deals with the overall applicability and the cross comparability for assessing the NBS impact in different cities.

Point 4: The conclusions are logical and sound. However, the main outcomes of the paper could be related to some quantitative values.

Response 4: The results of the TCS have been quantitatively compared to the mean PET and the added value of the TCS has been discussed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author/Authors

I really would like to congratulate You with Your valuable and interesting paper. The issue is very up to date and need to be very thoroughly examinate as well by scientists as by practicioners and to be implemented as wide as possible in the contemporary city. In my opinion this work does not need any iprovement. Maybe a little  bit in a theorethical layer but it is always possible because everybody has his own option and "likes" some theories more then another or prefere some referencesand sources. But it is up to You to decide wether You will add something more about the need of implementing sustainability to the city 

 

Author Response

Point 1: I really would like to congratulate You with Your valuable and interesting paper. The issue is very up to date and need to be very thoroughly examinate as well by scientists as by practicioners and to be implemented as wide as possible in the contemporary city. In my opinion this work does not need any improvement. Maybe a little bit in a theoretical layer but it is always possible because everybody has his own option and "likes" some theories more then another or prefer some references and sources. But it is up to You to decide whether You will add something more about the need of implementing sustainability to the city.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your kind response and your interest in this paper! Due to other reviewers, we have replaced some illustrations with a higher resolution. We also added more references to the introduction and the discussion has been extended.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents us the life quality effects of implementing Nature-based Solutions in urban planning with a holistic modelling approach and determining the performance of five environmental indicators. The analysis is based on case study of Hamburg/Fischbeker Höfe’ as part of the CLEVER-cities H2020 project.

The Introduction provides good establishment for the paper, underlines the importance of the analysis and clearly states the goals of the paper. The methodology section is well-structured, informative, and provides a clear understanding of the framework of the analysis and the work process of the modelling toolset. While the Methodology section provides enough details about the Thermal Comfort Score, other Key Performance Indicators (e.g. Thermal Load Score, Thermal Storage Score) are not discussed well enough. The results are presented in a satisfactory manner, however the main findings could have been articulated better.

While the paper provides a convincing display of the capacities of the applied modelling toolset, the discussion could further explore the wider applicability of the approach. The case study covers a very small area – can such an analysis be carried out for larger entities (blocks and districts or cities) too or are there computing power limitations? Some insights about whether the steep input data requirement could hinder wider application would also be valuable.

The paper is very well illustrated: actually, I find the number of illustrations a bit too much for the length of the article. I would consider the omission of some unnecessary figures (e.g. Figure 5, Figure 8), while Figure 13, 16-19 could be merged into one. In case of some figures, the details are too small and the information is not conveyed perfectly (Figure 4, Figure 12).

Also, the paper teems with abbreviations, which make the text a bit hard to read. I understand that some of them is necessary, but I would still recommend the thorough reread of the text to at least partially solve this problem.

A small issue but the correct abbreviation of the current epidemic is COVID-19, not CoV19 (while the pathogen itself is abbreviated as SARS-CoV-2).

In summary, I find this paper well-written and valuable.

Author Response

Point 1: The Introduction provides good establishment for the paper, underlines the importance of the analysis and clearly states the goals of the paper. The methodology section is well-structured, informative, and provides a clear understanding of the framework of the analysis and the work process of the modelling toolset. While the Methodology section provides enough details about the Thermal Comfort Score, other Key Performance Indicators (e.g. Thermal Load Score, Thermal Storage Score) are not discussed well enough. The results are presented in a satisfactory manner, however the main findings could have been articulated better.

Response 1: The methodology of the other Key Performance Indicators (e.g. Thermal Load Score, Thermal Storage Score) will be published soon in another paper. The aim of this paper was to publish just the methodology of the Thermal Comfort Score. This has been added on page 18.

Point 2: While the paper provides a convincing display of the capacities of the applied modelling toolset, the discussion could further explore the wider applicability of the approach. The case study covers a very small area – can such an analysis be carried out for larger entities (blocks and districts or cities) too or are there computing power limitations? Some insights about whether the steep input data requirement could hinder wider application would also be valuable.

Response 2: Yes, the technology can be carried out to a whole city too. You can find that information on Page 4. The insights about the Greenpass Methodology for example data requirement were explained in other publications:

• Scharf, B., Kraus, F., Green4cities - Development of an evaluation tool for green infrastructure and their positive effects derived for cities worldwide. ERA-SME. R&D project, 2015.
• Kraus, F. The GREENPASS® Methodology. Pan European Network – Government 23 publication. October 2017.
• Kraus, F., Scharf, B., Management of urban climate adaptation with NBS and GREENPASS®. EGU General Assembly 2019 – Vol. 21, EGU2019-16221-1, 2019.
• Kraus, F., Scharf B., Climate-resilient urban planning and architecture with Greenpass illustrated by the case study Flair in the City Vienna. SBE series Graz 2019. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 323 012087. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012087
• Scharf, B., Kraus, F., Green Roofs and Greenpass. Buildings 2019, 9, 205. ISSN 2075-5309. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9090205
• Kraus, F., Scharf, B., Greenpass modelling editor: GP.me. Vienna Business Agency, 2016.

Point 3: The paper is very well illustrated: actually, I find the number of illustrations a bit too much for the length of the article. I would consider the omission of some unnecessary figures (e.g. Figure 5, Figure 8), while Figure 13, 16-19 could be merged into one. In case of some figures, the details are too small and the information is not conveyed perfectly (Figure 4, Figure 12).

Response 3: Figure 4 has been replaced with a simpler demonstration of the content. Figure 5 has been removed. Figure 6 has been enlarged as far as possible. Figure 8 and Figure 12 have been replaced with a version of higher resolution. Figure 16-19 have been merged into one.

Point 4: Also, the paper teems with abbreviations, which make the text a bit hard to read. I understand that some of them is necessary, but I would still recommend the thorough reread of the text to at least partially solve this problem.

Response 4: Abbreviations have been corrected (CFD on page 6 and 11, UHI on page 7, PMV and PPD on page 9). All other abbreviations are explained in the document.

Point 5: A small issue but the correct abbreviation of the current epidemic is COVID-19, not CoV19 (while the pathogen itself is abbreviated as SARS-CoV-2).

Response 5: Has been corrected.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting paper.  Before getting into the details of my review, many of the figures are completely unreadable as they are reductions of a larger image.  I have even opened the manuscript on my 27 inch monitor and can not read many of them. For example, the text in the Greenpass tool box Figure 4 is so small that it renders the figure useless.  Figure 6 is also simply diagrammatic at this small size. The same for Figure 8.  The values in Figure 12 are at what, 1 point font?  Unreadable. The same for Figure 22 Climate Analysis map.  Nice colors but the reader has no idea of their values or characteristics.  Note the ERROR code in Figure 5 in the body text!

Figure 22 table data is completely unreadable and renders this image useless for this paper. 

Is Greenpass Key Performance tools used throughout the EU?  Not clear. What planning agencies use this?  How has its long term effectiveness been tested?  The test application of this with the CLEVER system that you describe seems to have been a specific project in Hamburg, however where else?  Other western and central EU locations?  You mention that Hamburg is one of thee forerunner cities but there is no mention of the others?

You mention how Greenpass has been successfully incorporated in 90 projects in 10 EU cities but no mention of these are made, just some statistics with no reference citations.

Your test site in Hamburg is interesting but why just one case study?  Why not test this approach at more than one location for blind comparison of results?  With that, this study lacks scientific and unbiased work and seems more like work suitable for a presentation at a planning conference.

The score differences depicted in figures 17, 18, and 19 are really not much different with the use of NBS.  Why? 

Author Response

Point 1: This is an interesting paper.  Before getting into the details of my review, many of the figures are completely unreadable as they are reductions of a larger image.  I have even opened the manuscript on my 27 inch monitor and can not read many of them. For example, the text in the Greenpass tool box Figure 4 is so small that it renders the figure useless.  Figure 6 is also simply diagrammatic at this small size. The same for Figure 8.  The values in Figure 12 are at what, 1 point font?  Unreadable. The same for Figure 22 Climate Analysis map.  Nice colors but the reader has no idea of their values or characteristics.  Note the ERROR code in Figure 5 in the body text!

Response 1: Figure 4 has been replaced with a simpler demonstration of the content. Figure 5 has been removed. Figure 6 has been enlarged as far as possible. Figure 8 and Figure 12 have been replaced with a version of higher resolution.

Point 2: Figure 22 table data is completely unreadable and renders this image useless for this paper. 

Response 2: Figure 22 has been replaced with a version of higher resolution. As the table data is still not readable, a download link has been added in the figure description to look up the original image.

Point 3: Is Greenpass Key Performance tools used throughout the EU?  Not clear. What planning agencies use this?  How has its long term effectiveness been tested?  The test application of this with the CLEVER system that you describe seems to have been a specific project in Hamburg, however where else?  Other western and central EU locations?  You mention that Hamburg is one of thee forerunner cities but there is no mention of the others?

Response 3: Other frontrunner cities (Milan and London) within CLEVER have been mentioned on page 3.

Point 4: You mention how Greenpass has been successfully incorporated in 90 projects in 10 EU cities but no mention of these are made, just some statistics with no reference citations.

Response 4: At the Greenpass homepage you can find all conducted projects. The link has been added to the references:

• Greenpass References. Available online: https://greenpass.io/references/ (accessed on 15.07. 2021)

Point 5: Your test site in Hamburg is interesting but why just one case study?  Why not test this approach at more than one location for blind comparison of results?  With that, this study lacks scientific and unbiased work and seems more like work suitable for a presentation at a planning conference.

Response 5: The CLEVER consortium agreed to use Hamburg besides London and Milan as a frontrunner city. Different locations of size and type (from 30 ha residential area to a single trainstation) were selected and assessed with the Greenpass methodology. The Hamburg case study is just an example of showing the impact of all other conducted projects which outcomes are similar.

Point 6: The score differences depicted in figures 17, 18, and 19 are really not much different with the use of NBS. Why? 

Response 6: As mentioned the case study in Hamburg is quite small and the NBS in this area is small as well. The area of green roofs and façade greening have been added on page 3. For example, green roofs take just ~ 2.5 % of the whole project area.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I would say that the you have attempted to address some of my points that I have made regarding illegibility of many figures and the data portrayed within each.  Ironically the response has been to delete some of them!

I asked for some discussion about where else has this work been done within the EU as a way to validate the use of Greenpass, etc.  You have indicated that it has been use in 90 other locations but direct the reader to click on a link in the references to see these.  WHY should the reader have to do this?  Would it not be better to include a table or chart that actually shows where these places are, some mention of how large a study area that they are, and how this Hamburg site fits within this larger scheme?  I say this because it should be discussed in the literature review. 

You also point out that the % of the study area that has been affected by the inclusion of green roofs is only 2.5%, which is really in my opinion very minimal.  Just two building roofs. Why so few in this model?  Why not a much more extensive area to support the argument for the benefits of green roofs as an indicator for improved climate suitability?  Could you not model this using the software?  What were the limiting factors to not include perhaps that larger L shaped building as part of your study site?  What are the greater benefits for this area of Hamburg and not just the comfort based on climatic factors for these residents on the study site?  What about energy consumption savings for the buildings themselves?  

Some of my graduate students have been studying the benefits of green roofs in urban settings and the ability for retrofit of existing structures and standards for new building construction.  To select a study location and only show 2.5% change would be a significant flaw of the thesis research.

Author Response

Point 1: I asked for some discussion about where else has this work been done within the EU as a way to validate the use of Greenpass, etc.  You have indicated that it has been use in 90 other locations but direct the reader to click on a link in the references to see these.  WHY should the reader have to do this?  Would it not be better to include a table or chart that actually shows where these places are, some mention of how large a study area that they are, and how this Hamburg site fits within this larger scheme?  I say this because it should be discussed in the literature review. 

Response 1: A table with a selection of previous Greenpass projects with information about the country and size has been added on page 4 & 5.

Point 2: You also point out that the % of the study area that has been affected by the inclusion of green roofs is only 2.5%, which is really in my opinion very minimal.  Just two building roofs. Why so few in this model?  Why not a much more extensive area to support the argument for the benefits of green roofs as an indicator for improved climate suitability?  Could you not model this using the software?  What were the limiting factors to not include perhaps that larger L shaped building as part of your study site? 

Response 2: The L shaped building is a former military barrack, which will be converted to a residential building. However, due to the old structure, which will be maintained, the roof is not suitable for NBS.
Apart from that, this is a realistic scenario. The redesign of the project area was discussed within the CLEVER-cities H2020 project. This paper does not analyze the potential of NBS in this area, it covers the reconceptualization how this is built at the moment. We are well aware that this project area is quite small and so the results are also minimal, but we wanted to show a realistic case study which is actual going to be implemented where we can show the performance of NBS. It is not about the performance issues (as we mentioned last time and you can see in the table above, it is no problem to do simulations of e.g. 20 ha or more) it is just the limitation of the scope of the CLEVER project.

Point 3: What are the greater benefits for this area of Hamburg and not just the comfort based on climatic factors for these residents on the study site?  What about energy consumption savings for the buildings themselves?  

Response 3: We fully agree with you that energy consumption savings would be interesting, but this paper deals just with the performance of the thermal comfort and well-being for the residents. But we can calculate with Greenpass e.g. the cooling grade hours of a building and make specifications about the energy consumption savings. But this topic needs a closer examination, we hope to discuss this in a further publication.