A Novel Integrated Design Methodology for Nature-Based Solutions and Soil and Water Bioengineering Interventions: The Tardio&Mickovski Methodology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
you submitted a very interesting article that is highly relevant for practise. I have the following questions / suggestions:
Equation 1: How do you measure / calculate: Kwood and Kclimate?
Equation 2: It seems to be an experimental equation. How big was the dataset for calibration?
Discussion and conclusions: That chapter is very short and a bit week. It would be great to compare the advantages and disadvantages of your methodology with other approaches.
Best regards
Your reviewer
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
We really appreciate your remarks and suggestions. Please, find below our answers to your questions and remarks:
Equation 1: How do you measure / calculate: Kwood and Kclimate?
Response 1:Addressed. New lines have been added in Section 2.1 in order to explain the coefficients calculations and refer the reader to more detailed explanation and selection of these parameters.
Kclimate: this parameter is calculated according to Leicester et al. (2003). Firstly, a formula is selected according to the number of dry months in the intervention area. After that, climatological information is utilised into the selected formula (e.g., mean annual precipitation value, number of dry months along the year, mean annual temperature). The necessary information is obtained from regional statistics and/or meteorological stations near the intervention area.
Kwood: this parameter is calculated according to the tree species natural durability value. Given the diameters used in soil and water bioengineering works, corewood values are more adequate for this step of the methodology calculations (this hypothesis has also been validated throughout the case study analysis outcomes). Particularly, Kcorewood is determined from the Kheartwood value of the utilized tree species in the bioengineering structures. Some lines have been added in order to clarify the coefficient calculation.
Equation 2: It seems to be an experimental equation. How big was the dataset for calibration?
Response 2: The equation was obtained from field tests at five sitesin eastern and southern Australia (covering a wide set of climate types) over the period of 1968-2004 giving a test period of 35 years. A detailed explanation of the field work and data collection can be found in Wang et al. (2007). Atotal of 77 used commercial tree species were chosen for the testing.
Different regression lines were obtained for the different durability classes. Finally, the proposed model was parameterized as indicated in the manuscript, Leicester et al. (2003) and Wang et al. (2007).
According to our experience and the case study validation section, the model has been proven to be efficient for analyzing tree logs deterioration processes of SWB works.
Discussion and conclusions: That chapter is very short and a bit week. It would be great to compare the advantages and disadvantages of your methodology with other approaches.
Response 3: Addressed. New paragraphs have added in order to reinforce the discussion and conclusions section. New lines including the novelaspects covered by the proposed methodology have also been added. The discussion and conclusion sections have been rearranged in order to clarify the manuscript contents.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the manuscript: A novel integrated design methodology for nature based solutions and soil and water bioengineering interventions: the Tardio&Mickovski methodology
General comments: The manuscript is well written in English and reports a methodology for designing Nature Based Solutions (NBS) and Soil and Water Bioengineering (SWB) works which includes the main particularities of this type of interventions. The dynamic nature of NBS/SWB works, their most important changes and possible critical scenarios. The introduction, methods and results are well documented and the manuscript can be published in present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We really appreciate your remarks.
Sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is aimed at proposing a design methodology for Nature Based Solution (NBS) and Soil Water Bioengineering (SWB) works.
For the definition of the effectiveness of the proposed method, the importance of parameters such as the increase in biodiversity, the evolution of resilience and the verification of the sustainability of the installations is highlighted.
The core of the work is based on the adaptive management of information, an essential process for a truly effective methodology.
The abstract lacks a few details, in particular hints on the methods of analysis and investigations carried out.
There is a low percentage of current bibliographical references (last 5 years); this should be supplemented by analysing more current work.
The manuscript appears to be scientifically sound and the experimental design and methodology applied is, however, not set out very clearly.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, but should be supplemented with more experimental information.
The paper is syntactically and grammatically correct.
Minimal revision is required, with regard to bibliographical references, experimental design, proposed methodology, better exposition of conclusions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We really appreciate your remarks and suggestions. Please, find below our answers to your questions and remarks:
The abstract lacks a few details, in particular hints on the methods of analysis and investigations carried out.
Response 1: Addressed. New lines have been added into the abstract.
There is a low percentage of current bibliographical references (last 5 years); this should be supplemented by analysing more current work.
Response 2:This has now been addressed with new current references been added to the list. We note that the theory behind our approach is of older date but has not been applied in the context of NbS or similar topics.
The manuscript appears to be scientifically sound and the experimental design and methodology applied is, however, not set out very clearly.
Response 4:We have now addressed this with adding new paragraphs and clarifications in Sections 2 and 3, in order to explain the methodology calculations.
Additionally, we revised and re-arranged the discussion and conclusion sections in order to clarify the manuscript contents.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, but should be supplemented with more experimental information.
Response 5:We tried to address this comment by adding new experimental information and new references.
The paper is syntactically and grammatically correct.
Minimal revision is required, with regard to bibliographical references, experimental design, proposed methodology, better exposition of conclusions.
Response 6: Addressed. New references have been added.
New lies and paragraphs regarding the experimental design and the methodology have been added.
New paragraphs in the ‘Discussion and conclusions’ sections of the manuscript have been added.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper discusses the methodology for designing based on the Nature Based Solutions (NBS) and Soil and Water Bioengineering (SWB) assumptions. The scope is well related to the sustainable environmental geotechnics and it can be of interest to the geotechnical and engineering community.
In my opinion the manuscript is very interesting and almost well explained. The work has a review nature, the arrangement of the paragraphs is logical, although, Dear Authors, it requires a few modifications before it can be accepted for publication. Particular attention is needed at the following:
(1) First of all, you should consider changing the qualification of the manuscript from an article to a review. The chapters 2 and 3 definitely meet the criteria of a "review", in which the authors present their own ideas and discuss them against the background of an extensive literature review.
(2) Figures 1 and 2:
Incorrect Figures description. You should write the main title at first (a short explanatory title), then the description of the subsections (a) …; (b) …. etc.
(3) Figures 2 and 4:
The poorly visible inscriptions on the drawing. Please enlarge the font.
(4) Figure 4:
No reference in the text to Figure 4.
(5) Page 4, line 166:
It should be: “[31,44,45,46,47].”
(6) Page 11, line 405:
It should be: “The results obtained are presented in the Table 3.”
(7) Tables 3, 4 and 5:
– Incorrectly formulated a title of the table. Part of the information should be presented as a legend under the table.
– Please rearrange the table. These inscriptions: "Maximum allowable stress" and "Calculated stress" should be written 1 time through 2 columns (the columns #5 and #6). The "=" sign is not needed at all.
(8) Paragraph 4:
The discussion was above in Sections 2 and 3. Paragraph 4 is the place for summary and conclusions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We really appreciate your remarks and suggestions. Please, find below our answers to your questions and remarks:
(1) First of all, you should consider changing the qualification of the manuscript from an article to a review. The chapters 2 and 3 definitely meet the criteria of a "review", in which the authors present their own ideas and discuss them against the background of an extensive literature review.
Response 1: Thank you for your remark and proposal. We were aware that articulating and integrating existing methods and design protocols in a new design methodology called for an extensive review of the existing works and proposals. Furthermore, for proposing this new methodology we also needed to justify existing gaps and limitations related to SWB works design protocols. In any case, in the manuscript a new integrated design methodology is presented and, therefore, we consider that classifying the paper as article is consistent with both the contents and the scope of the manuscript.
(2) Figures 1 and 2:
Incorrect Figures description. You should write the main title at first (a short explanatory title), then the description of the subsections (a) …; (b) …. etc.
Response 2:Addressed. Figure captions have been changed. We will work with the typesetters to ensure all figures/tables/captions are legible in the published format.
(3) Figures 2 and 4:
The poorly visible inscriptions on the drawing. Please enlarge the font.
Response 3:Addressed. Figures quality and size have been changed according to the reviewer’s remarks. Figures text fonts have been enlarged.We will work with the typesetters to ensure all figures/tables/inscriptions are legible in the published format.
(4) Figure 4:
No reference in the text to Figure 4.
Response 4:Addressed. A reference to Figure 4 has been added into the text.
(5) Page 4, line 166:
It should be: “[31,44,45,46,47].”
Response 5:Addressed.
(6) Page 11, line 405:
It should be: “The results obtained are presented in the Table 3.”
Response 6:Addressed.
(7) Tables 3, 4 and 5:
– Incorrectly formulated a title of the table. Part of the information should be presented as a legend under the table.
Response 7: Addressed.
– Please rearrange the table. These inscriptions: "Maximum allowable stress" and "Calculated stress" should be written 1 time through 2 columns (the columns #5 and #6). The "=" sign is not needed at all.
Response 8:Addressed. Tables 3, 4 and 5 have been reorganized.
(8) Paragraph 4:
The discussion was above in Sections 2 and 3. Paragraph 4 is the place for summary and conclusions.
Response 9:a rearrangement of the discussion and conclusions sections has been made in order to improve the structure and legibility of the manuscript.
Thank you
Sincerely,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
I thank the Authors for take account of all my comments and suggestions. No further comments. In my opinion the paper at present form is complete and I recommend it for publication in Sustainability.
