Ecosystem Services Evaluation of Nature-Based Solutions with the Help of Citizen Scientists
, Elena Troiani 2, Michele Ferri 5 and Steven A. Loiselle 1,3,6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
From my point of view, there is only minor additional work for this paper. The paper is strong in methods used in the study as well as in presented results. I do not feel to change the basis of the paper. The PDF structure seems to be little bit "messy" but I think it is not a authors mistake.
I have only minor suggestion:
- 64 -66 - it is focused on ES and CAP - this seems to be related to "policy section" from the rows 86.
- 481: ..."we used costs associated to similar NBS projects focused on nutrient reduction to the Venice Lagoon." - please add the reference for the mentioned project from the section "2.7 Economical evaluation N and P", it would be clearer for the reader to repeat this reference.
- The results graphics in the discussion section should be in results.
Author Response
Point 1: 64 -66 - it is focused on ES and CAP - this seems to be related to "policy section" from the rows 86.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment and her/his other constructive comments. We have revised the introduction to consolidate the sections. This resulted in few paragraphs that follow a more logical pattern
Point 2: 481: ..."we used costs associated to similar NBS projects focused on nutrient reduction to the Venice Lagoon." - please add the reference for the mentioned project from the section "2.7 Economical evaluation N and P", it would be clearer for the reader to repeat this reference.
Response 2: We revised these sections of Methods and Discussion, including references and links to where the material for each project can be obtained.
Point 3: The results graphics in the discussion section should be in results.
Response 3: We moved this Figure to the Results section and made the associated adjustments to the text and numbering.
Reviewer 2 Report
The focus of the article is current and the solution is needed both theoretically and practically. The work presents interesting data that are unique in a way. However, the article needs to address rather formal shortcomings according to the following comments.
The introduction of the article seems rather sloganic, without coherence. It should be more readable.
The introduction (research) should place more emphasis on the problem that is being addressed.
At the end of the introduction, a clear research goal should be set, the discussion of the scenarios is more a question of methodological approach.
The color resolution for Figure 1 is too detailed and confusing. I recommend simplifying it.
In the methodological part, it is necessary to state what needs to be done to achieve the goal and how the results of the model will be evaluated.
I will describe the model relatively briefly. This description does not indicate the benefit of the chosen model for achieving the goal.
At the beginning of chapter 2.3 it should be stated what data are needed to achieve the goal, resp. implementation of the methodological procedure.
Chapters 2.4 to 2.7 need to be related to the stated goal and describe the petodic procedure in more detail.
Chapter 3. Results begins without an introduction directly on precipitation. It is necessary to state the context or to present the results in relation to the methodological procedure.
Author Response
Point 1: The introduction of the article seems rather sloganic, without coherence. It should be more readable.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment and her/his other constructive comments. We revised the abstract and Introduction, reorganising the latter to follow a more logical order. We consolidated the Introduction text to more coherent with the objectives of the study, and less discursive and sloganic.
Point 2: The introduction (research) should place more emphasis on the problem that is being addressed.
Response 2: We revised the manuscript to focus more on the study objective and results, and how these address the key challenge around nutrient pollution, in the context of ecosystem services. We added a clear research goal to the last paragraph of the Introduction
Point 3: At the end of the introduction, a clear research goal should be set, the discussion of the scenarios is more a question of methodological approach.
Response 3: The revised the Introduction concludes following this suggestion
‘The present study utilizes multiple data sources and CS to explore the link between NBS and ESs related to nutrient retention. We compare different riparian zone NBS in relation to their ES costs and benefits related to nutrient retention under a future climate change scenario (2050) in one of Italy’s most important rivers.’
Point 4: The color resolution for Figure 1 is too detailed and confusing. I recommend simplifying it.
Response 4: We simplified the color resolution in Figure 1, as suggested.
Point 5: In the methodological part, it is necessary to state what needs to be done to achieve the goal and how the results of the model will be evaluated.
Response 5: We revised the Methods section to better focus on the study objectives (research goal) and the model development and validation. This included a more clear list of data required for the model, scenario (NBS) selection, and cost calculation.
Point 6: I will describe the model relatively briefly. This description does not indicate the benefit of the chosen model for achieving the goal.
Response 6: We revised the model description to focus only on those aspects that were directly related to the study objectives, and how this type of model is best suited for this analysis
Point 7: At the beginning of chapter 2.3 it should be stated what data are needed to achieve the goal, resp. implementation of the methodological procedure.
Response 7: We provided a more complete description of the data required to meet the objectives of the study, with clear indications on the nutrient data sources used in the model validation.
Point 8: Chapters 2.4 to 2.7 need to be related to the stated goal and describe the methodical procedure in more detail.
Response 8: The revised Methods sections are focused on the stated research goal, and are more clearly presented. The reorganisation of Methods resulted in one less sub-section.
Point 9: Chapter 3. Results begins without an introduction directly on precipitation. It is necessary to state the context or to present the results in relation to the methodological procedure.
Response 9: We revised the Results to follow a more clear logical path, addressing directly our study objectives around NBS scenarios to optimise nutrient retention ES. We included an short introduction to these sections (3.1 Climate change, 3.2 Nutrient export)
“The changes in nutrient retention related ESs in the Piave catchment showed the relative impact of different NBS scenarios and the impact of climate change, in particular precipitation.”
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present the findings of a study of the Piave River basin using data gathered both by agency staff and citizens. While citizen-gathered data were used, the participation of citizens in the project seems to have been limited--to the extent that highlighting their role in the evaluation in the title seems misplaced. Nevertheless, it is good to show how data gathered by citizens can be used in catchment evaluations. This role (and associated data) are often overlooked. Consequently, this is an important paper.
There are many places in the manuscript where the plural form should be used, adding an "s" to "volunteer" for example as on lines 24 and 44; likewise for "scenario" on line 28.
On line 43, "are" should be "is".
On line 57, "have" should be "has".
In section 2.6 (line 249 ff), has FreshWater Watch published a handbook or guide for volunteers? It should be cited on line 252.
Lines 349-350 are incomplete: there seems to be some missing text?
On lines 369-372, the usual forms of the nutrients are "nitrate-nitrogen" and "phosphate-phosphorus".
On line 380, "referred" is mis-spelled.
On line 384, "are" should be "is".
On line 434, a reference to river naturalization would seem to be required.
Line 447 is incomplete--some text seems to be missing.
On line 482, it would seem that a reference is required to the Venice Lagoon case.
On lines 515-517, insert "of" between "transport" and "phosphorus"; "particulate" probably should be "particulates".
On line 525, replace the date with the reference number..."[107]"?
The references are appropriate and current and the figures and tables are necessary for the text.
Author Response
Point 1: There are many places in the manuscript where the plural form should be used, adding an "s" to "volunteer" for example as on lines 24 and 44; likewise for "scenario" on line 28.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for her/his suggestions. We made all the corrections suggested, including those corrections to tenses and forms.
Point 2: On line 43, "are" should be "is".
Response 2: Corrected as suggested.
Point 3: On line 57, "have" should be "has".
Response 3: Corrected as suggested.
Point 4: In section 2.6 (line 249 ff), has FreshWater Watch published a handbook or guide for volunteers? It should be cited on line 252.
Response 4: We provide additional references that describe the FreshWater Watch methodology and a link to the online training and guide to volunteers
https://freshwaterwatch.thewaterhub.org/content/freshwater-watch-how-guide
Point 5: Lines 349-350 are incomplete: there seems to be some missing text?
Response 5: This sentence was correct to be complete (missing the verb)
Point 6: On lines 369-372, the usual forms of the nutrients are "nitrate-nitrogen" and "phosphate-phosphorus".
Response 6: Corrected as suggested.
Point 7: On line 380, "referred" is mis-spelled.
Response 7: Corrected as suggested.
Point 8: On line 384, "are" should be "is".
Response 8: Corrected as suggested.
Point 9: On line 434, a reference to river naturalization would seem to be required.
Response 9: We included an additional reference as suggested.
Reference 118. Fox, G.A.; Purvis, R.A. & Penn, C.J. Streambanks: A net source of sediment and phosphorus to streams and rivers. J. Environ. Manage. 2016, 181, 602–614
Point 10: Line 447 is incomplete--some text seems to be missing.
Response 10: Corrected (missing the verb)
Point 11: On line 482, it would seem that a reference is required to the Venice Lagoon case.
Response 11: We revised this section to be more clear, including a reference related to ongoing and past projects to reduce nutrient pollution challenges in Venice Lagoon.
Point 12: On lines 515-517, insert "of" between "transport" and "phosphorus"; "particulate" probably should be "particulates".
Response 12: Corrected as suggested.
Point 13: On line 525, replace the date with the reference number..."[107]"?
Response 13: We corrected this error.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After the modification, I recommend publishing in the submitted version.
