Making Green Heritage Schools Work: Nature-Based Solutions and Historical Preservation When Infrastructure Fails
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall an interesting article. I would suggest that the case studies are introduced before the findings. This can be easily done by moving 3.2 and 3.3 to before 3.1. It would also be helpful to include more images/plans of before and after if possible.
The period covered overlaps with the global pandemic. It would be good to make clear if this had an equal impact on both projects (of which the timings are slightly different).
Over 40 previous studies were covered in the introduction, it would be good to give some indication in the discussion section if the findings of this article align with or contradict any of those previous studies.
These and some further minor comments are covered in the attached mark-up.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: "I would suggest that the case studies are introduced before the findings. This can be easily done by moving 3.2 and 3.3 to before 3.1."
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment to introduce each case before the comparison therefore, we have swapped the sections' order starting on pg. 4 ln. 169.
Comment 2: "Include more images/plans of before and after if possible"
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment thefore we have included one more image of the Medone School yard previous to the intervention (Figure 4 on pg. 11 ln. 451).
Comment 3: "The period covered overlaps with the global pandemic. It would be good to make clear if this had an equal impact on both projects (of which the timings are slightly different)."
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment to discuss the impact of the Covid pandemic on each project therefore we have added a paragraph with this discussion starting on p. 7 ln. 326. (fourth paragraph).
Comment 4: "Over 40 previous studies were covered in the introduction, it would be good to give some indication in the discussion section if the findings of this article align with or contradict any of those previous studies."
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have added a new paragraph with this indication in the Discussion section (pg. 8 ln. 386 fifth paragraph) and connected our discussions on NBS and heritage; and on community participation to the previous literature more explicity (respectively on pg. 8 ln 498 sixth paragraph and pg. 9 ln. 422 third paragraph).
Comment 5: "These and some further minor comments are covered in the attached mark-up."
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have addressed all this minor comments in the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssustainability-3107906-peer-review-v1
Review of: Making Green Heritage Schools Work: Nature-based solutions and historical preservation when infrastructure fails
The introduction to the paper is very well developed and the issue under discussion is well set up This is very refreshing when compared to many other papers I have read for MDPi Sustainabilty.
The Methodology needs considerable improvement.
There needs to be a map of BA that shows the location of the schools. Missing is also an annotated aerial /satellite view of each school in its neighbourhood context. Ideally a pre and post intervention image that shows the changes
Are these two schools the only schools in the BRP ‘collective’ If so, say so. If not, why were the chosen for investigation. Make that clear in the Methodology section.
Assertions in Lines 136-140 need references
Lines 145 ff how were these stakeholders chosen? This needs to be in the methodology. Also, how was informed consent sought?
Results
Line 170 ff you mention delay and shifting plans. This hangs there without any explanation/context. You need to background/contextualise this better. If this is a lead in to a discussion later in the paper, the say “As will be discussed in more depth later in the paper…” As It stands it’s confusing.
Discussion
Th discussion section is not well developed at all and reads very rushed. This section needs to tie in with the literature cited in the introduction and needs to demonstrate how this paper contributes to the academic discourse. This is totally lacking
Author Response
COMMENT 1: "The Methodology needs considerable improvement. There needs to be a map of BA that shows the location of the schools. Missing is also an annotated aerial /satellite view of each school in its neighbourhood context. Ideally a pre and post intervention image that shows the changes."
RESPONSE 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have added three maps/aerial views (Figures 1,2,3) and an image of the Medone schoolyard's conditions previous to our intervention. The first figure can be found on pg. 10 ln. 480.
COMMENT 2: "Are these two schools the only schools in the BRP ‘collective’ If so, say so. If not, why were the chosen for investigation. Make that clear in the Methodology section."
RESPONSE 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have explained the selection criteria for the two cases on pg. 3 ln. 142 (sixth paragraph). Additionally, we have provided an overview of the current full extent of the project and participating schools in the concluding section pg. 8 ln. 400 (sixth paragraph).
COMMENT 3: "Assertions in Lines 136-140 need references"
RESPONSE 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore have added a reference regarding the Green Schools Programme pg. 3 ln 145 (sixth paragraph) and the sources for our secondary data evidence in the previous paragraph.
COMMENT 4: "Lines 145 ff how were these stakeholders chosen? This needs to be in the methodology. Also, how was informed consent sought?"
RESPONSE 4: Thank you for pointing out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have explained our participant selection and ethical research practice including informed consent pg. 4 ln. 156 (first paragraph).
COMMENT 5: "Line 170 ff you mention delay and shifting plans. This hangs there without any explanation/context. You need to background/contextualise this better."
RESPONSE 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have swapped the order of the section to introduce each case study first and then carry out the comparative analysis.
COMMENT 6: "The discussion section is not well developed at all and reads very rushed. This section needs to tie in with the literature cited in the introduction and needs to demonstrate how this paper contributes to the academic discourse. This is totally lacking".
RESPONSE 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have added a new paragraph with this indication in the Discussion section (pg. 8 ln. 386 fifth paragraph) and connected our discussions on NBS and heritage; and on community participation to the previous literature more explicity (respectively on pg. 8 ln 498 sixth paragraph and pg. 9 ln. 422 third paragraph).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors are to be congratulated on their thorough revision.
I have no further concerns
