Integrating Temporal Dimensions in Circularity of the Built Environment Analysis of Two Flemish Industrial Parks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents two industrial park case studies using design research methodology to investigate the cycles of land use in Belgium. Design research is a wider methodology than the one defined by the authors.

The applied methodology is attractive but the diachonic maps should offer clearer references to explain these changes. Qualitative results should be synthesized to address the complexity of the regenerative process of soil and land use, maybe a 3D matrix. No references to waste are found in the research.

The paper should be restructured to clearly show current conditions and their possible evolution towards a circular and sustainable future.

Specific comments

The chosen graphical way to show the different cycles is not clear for the reader (Fig. 1). Try another way to show them. Text in Fig. 1 is too small. The color palette does not help for understanding the issues. Axonometrics do not explain the changes in the soil composition. References of the different layers are not always readable.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

In response to your comments, we have carefully addressed each point raised and have detailed our revisions below. Furthermore we have made textual improvements to the complete first chapter: introduction, to 2.2: Qualitative design research, the complete third chapter: Results and discussion and minor textual alterations to the conclusion.

1. Design research is a wider methodology than the one defined by the authors. We agree with the reviewers’ argument that design research encompasses a broad range of methodologies. However, in this article, we apply a specific framework within design research to address the particular objectives of our study and context. We adjusted one sentence accordingly in Line 235-238 pg. 6-7. “Design research encompasses a broad range of methodologies to generate knowledge. In this paper we use design to explore and address the complex societal challenge of circular economy transition through envisioning and investigating past decisions and future possibilities [11, 41].”
2. The applied methodology is attractive but the diachronic maps should offer clearer references to explain these changes. - We have revised the drawings and specific zoom-ins reflecting soil changes over time were added. We also included an extra explanation on which data layers we obtained, in regards to the soil, from the data repository ‘Databank Ondergrond Vlaanderen’. You can find that alteration on page 7, line 254-256. “Additionally, underground context layers, such as soil composition, aquifers and their fluctuation over time, groundwater extraction data, and pollution information, were integrated.”
3. Qualitative results should be synthesized to address the complexity of the regenerative process of soil and land use, maybe a 3D matrix. – We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion of using a 3D matrix to better synthesize the qualitative results. While this approach would indeed be valuable for capturing the complexity of regenerative soil and land use processes, it goes beyond the scope of the current study and is considered an interesting avenue for future research. For this manuscript, we have made adjustments to the existing drawings to further clarify and visually communicate the processes occurring in the soil. For example in figure 7(p.11)  and figure 9 (p. 16) you can see a zoom-in on the biodiversity in a healthy soil, containing of mega, macro, meso and micro fauna and micro-organisms. Furthermore in figure 9 a scheme is drawn showing the ecosystem of the present pasture and shrub vegetation and the nutrient cycle necessary for organic substance to grow.
4. No references to waste are found in the research. - This observation is correct in the sense that we do not refer to traditional waste streams as is often done in circularity research. Instead, our study approaches circularity in the built environment by focusing on reducing resource extraction. This perspective on soil and development cycles addresses this focus, which aligns with the broader goal of minimizing environmental impact rather than solely managing waste.
5. The paper should be restructured to clearly show current conditions and their possible evolution towards a circular and sustainable future. - We have restructured the result section of the manuscript to more clearly present the current conditions and imagined future frameworks. The paper is grounded in both historical and archival research as well as an analysis of the present situation. It is through understanding past developments that we can derive valuable insights for future circular transitions. The diachronic map visually represents these temporal layers, showing the current conditions alongside their historical context.
6. The chosen graphical way to show the different cycles is not clear for the reader (Fig. 1). Try another way to show them. Text in Fig. 1 is too small. The color palette does not help for understanding the issues. - We have revised the image to improve readability and text clarity. We also provided an enhanced explanation to ensure the drawing is more comprehensible for the reader. The figure aims to illustrate the contrast between the short-term, anthropocentric resource cycles of the built environment and the long-term, regenerative cycles in natural systems, clearly differentiating between them. The color palette has been slightly adjusted, however we believe the current color palette supports easy cross-referencing between the visuals and the text.
7. Axonometrics do not explain the changes in the soil composition. References of the different layers are not always readable. - We have revised the drawings to include and clearly illustrate the changes in soil composition and have adjusted the font and font sizes within the drawings for better readability.

We believe that the revisions strengthen the clarity, focus, and overall contribution of the paper. We hope these changes address your concerns, and we look forward to your further feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the revision, the manuscript has shown significant improvement compared to the previous version, with a more rational structure. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed:

1. The numbering of sections in the manuscript remains inconsistent, with 3.3 incorrectly labeled and should be 3.4.

2. Although the manuscript has included additional literature after the revision, there is a lack of thorough analysis surrounding these references.

3. As the manuscript is not intended to be a theoretical or review article, it still suffers from a deficiency in quantitative research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

In response to your comments, we have carefully addressed each point raised and have detailed our revisions below. Furthermore we have made textual improvements to the complete first chapter: introduction, to 2.2: Qualitative design research, the complete third chapter: Results and discussion and minor textual alterations to the conclusion.

1. The numbering of sections in the manuscript remains inconsistent, with 3.3 incorrectly labeled and should be 3.4. Thank you, we have adjusted the numbering.
2. Although the manuscript has included additional literature after the revision, there is a lack of thorough analysis surrounding these references. Based on your feedback, we have significantly revised the manuscript to deepen the analysis of the cited literature, especially the complete first chapter.

For example:

• We have expanded each key reference to clearly outline its specific contribution to the field, making the relevance to our research objectives more explicit. For example, in Section 1.1 (p,2 line 48-69) the works of Frances Westley [1, 2] and Hahn [1] are critically discussed in relation to the need for a more socio-ecological approach to circularity beyond techno-centric solutions, illustrating the theoretical gap that this research addresses. This helps establish a clear link between the critiques of conventional approaches and the need for spatially sensitive, multi-scalar strategies in the built environment.
• In section 1.2 we streamlined the text better together with the alterations of figure 1.
• We refined the discussion in Section 1.3. Each reference is critically examined to highlight the conceptual differences in temporalities and how these perspectives influence our research approach. We further tied these theoretical arguments to our methodological use of diachronic mapping and visualizations, demonstrating how the incorporation of these perspectives enhances the understanding of spatio-temporal dynamics.

 These additions provide a more detailed critique of the cited literature, clearly linking it to the research’s theoretical framework and objectives.

1. As the manuscript is not intended to be a theoretical or review article, it still suffers from a deficiency in quantitative research. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment regarding the lack of quantitative research in the manuscript. However, the qualitative insights presented here contribute to advancing the discourse on sustainable circular practices. By focusing on site-specific case studies and contextual analyses, this research offers a critical approach to help understand socio-ecological dimensions of circularity. Qualitative methodologies help to capture the complex interactions between spatial development, stakeholder engagement, and the environmental implications of circular transformations. This approach can complement quantitative methods to provide a broader understanding of circularity transitions, thereby making it relevant for the readers of Sustainability.

We believe that the revisions strengthen the clarity, focus, and overall contribution of the paper. We hope these changes address your concerns, and we look forward to your further feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been reviewed, and the authors have made revisions. However, some issues still require attention:

• The scope of the paper should be clearly stated before Section 2 at the end of Section 1, as it is not sufficiently highlighted.
• The figures are not clear enough to illustrate the differences between the two scenarios: 'time is money' and 'time is life.'
• While data visualization and design research are valid methods for this study, it is possible to identify and quantify areas that have changed their use over time.
• Line 472: As recommended by author guidelines, please position Fig. 11 immediately after this paragraph.
• The excessive division of the text into subsections makes the paper difficult to read. Avoid increasing the text size for subsections, e. g.

3.1. Case 1: Kortrijk-Noord
3.1.1 Cyclic proto-industries (1777-1840)

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The scope of the paper should be clearly stated before Section 2 at the end of Section 1, as it is not sufficiently highlighted.

Respons 1: We clearly re-defined the scope at the end of Section 1, on lines 183-191, page 5. Additionally, we relocated part of the final paragraph from Section 1.3 to a new Subsection 2.3 in the Methods section for more clarity.

 The added text on pg. 5: “This research adopts visualizations as a research method to reconcile these seemingly contradictory notions of time by using diachronic mappings of the two sites. These mappings illustrate the historical stages of development and how these stages interact with underlying cycles of soil and business development. By uncovering hid-den socio-economic and ecological dynamics, this research proposes practical guide-lines for integrating these insights into future industrial park designs. Through this approach, the study aims to develop a more holistic, site-specific approach to circularity in industrial built environments, addressing both socio-economic and ecological time dimensions to guide a long-term transition toward a circular society.”

 Comment 2: The figures are not clear enough to illustrate the differences between the two scenarios: 'time is money' and 'time is life.'

Respons 2: We believe it's important to note that these are not two distinct scenarios, but rather a single evolution where the concept shifts from 'time is life' to 'time is money.' This gradual change reflects how societal values and economic systems have transitioned over time, and it is this shift that we aim to illustrate, however, knowing that we simplified it as in reality it is even more nuanced and intertwined. We added a gradient of color to the timeline underneath the picture, showing the gradual shift from “time is life” to “time is money”.

Comment 3: While data visualization and design research are valid methods for this study, it is possible to identify and quantify areas that have changed their use over time.

Respons 3: We agree that identifying areas that have changed their use over time is both possible and important. We believe we identified the land use changes over time in the article. We added an extra Table in the appendix (figure A1) to give an overview of these changes. And referred to it in line 354: “(Appendix A provides in Figure A1 a clear overview of these identified land use changes over time.)” 

 We acknowledge the value that quantitative methods bring, however for this study we chose to focus on qualitative research, as demonstrated through the visualizations and design-based approach. We for instance recognize that remote sensing techniques, such as those highlighted in (Zhu, Qiu et al. 2022) and (Ettehadi Osgouei, Sertel et al. 2022), would be suitable for more accurately quantifying specific land use changes. We have added an extra line in the conclusion for this, from line 770 until 772: “To enhance these insights, future studies could integrate quantitative methods, such as remote sensing, to more accurately quantify specific land use changes [77, 78].”

Sources:

Ettehadi Osgouei, P., E. Sertel and M. E. Kabadayı (2022). "Integrated usage of historical geospatial data and modern satellite images reveal long-term land use/cover changes in Bursa/Turkey, 1858–2020." Scientific Reports 12(1): 9077.

Zhu, Z., S. Qiu and S. Ye (2022). "Remote sensing of land change: A multifaceted perspective." Remote Sensing of Environment 282: 113266.

 Table 1: With an overview of the identified land use changes in relation to soil and businesses at the two cases.

 

	Haasrode		Kortrijk-Noord
	Impact on Soil	Type of Business	Impact on Soil	Type of Business
1777	Incorporating practices of resource reuse, such as reusing casks for beer maturation, the Norbertine abbey's agricultural activities were centered on self-sufficiency, incorporating farming, forestry, and brewing. Circular land management techniques, included crop rotation and alternating fields, promoted soil health and biodiversity. By cultivating diverse plant species and employing organic methods, the abbey supported natural nutrient cycling and maintained a balanced ecosystem.		Farmers with small-scale proto-industries processing flax into linen at home. They were in the first place farmers and used small plots for flax production for extra income. The cyclical process of flax farming (growth, bloom, rest, renewal) and crop rotation maintained soil fertility and supported a biodiverse ecosystem. They adopted a circular use of by-products (e.g. lineseed oil, fuel, animal feed).
1840	After the dissolution of the abbey, the fertile land was used for mixed farming and livestock management. Over time, agricultural intensification introduced synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, leading to soil degradation. The use of synthetic chemicals and heavier machinery caused soil compaction and reduced biodiversity, while the shift to monoculture practices further deteriorated soil health.		Shift from small-scale family production to centralized industrial manufacturing facilities in Northern France led to an industrial re-orientation in Kortrijk-Noord towards a specialization in flax processing, a well-known industry requiring little investment. At the same time the region had to deal with an agricultural crises. Introduction of chemical fertilizers increased agricultural production but led to a decline in soil biodiversity and fertility. Agricultural practices became more extractive.
1970	Soil sealing (lawns, concrete surfaces) decreased infiltration and biodiversity. Agricultural lands were replaced by monofunctional buildings and green spaces with limited ecological value.	Beginning of expropriation and transformation of agricultural land into Haasrode Industry Park. Modeled after American science parks. Focus global, knowledge-intensive R&D companies.	Soil sealing (asphalt, concrete) caused decline in soil health. Sealed surfaces prevent natural nutrient cycling, reducing biological activity and ecosystem vitality.	Industrial manufacturing park. Many businesses grew out of former flax-based family enterprises. Focus shifted gradually to large-scale production, logistics, and manufacturing.
1990	Extensive soil removal and sealing during new construction projects disrupted natural water infiltration and led to increased runoff. Contaminations from earlier activities (landfill) persisted.	Continued industrial development. Most office buildings are constructed. Financial incentives created favorable investment conditions.	An intensification of the industrial built environment and of sealed soil. Negligence and a less regulated environment in terms of pollution and water extraction.	Incremental expansion of local family businesses. Reorientation of businesses linked to the declining flax industry. Buildings are reused. Kortrijk-Noord forms industrial ecosystem (manufacturing, packaging, maintenance…)
2024	Soil and groundwater contamination remain significant issues. Limited rainwater infiltration due to legal restrictions. Contaminated sites pose future risks to drinking water quality.	Research and innovation campus. Increased focus on circularity and climate neutrality by local authorities. Multinational companies: “what’s in it for me?”	Groundwater depletion and soil contamination (e.g., manganese leak, nitrate pollution). Vulnerability to climate extremes (heavy rainfall, droughts), shallow unsaturated soil zones susceptible to pollution.	Regional industry park. A of businesses are here since 1970. Repair and adaptive reuse, frugality in family business, proto-circular practices! Confronted with opaque (European) rules and regulations.

 

 

Comment 4: Line 472: As recommended by author guidelines, please position Fig. 11 immediately after this paragraph.

 Respons 4: Thank you for pointing this out, this was a numbering error. By re-arranging the chapters through previous revision we forgot to rename figure 11 in this paragraph to figure 9, the figure that is placed within this sub-chapter.  

Comment 5: The excessive division of the text into subsections makes the paper difficult to read. Avoid increasing the text size for subsections, e. g.

3.1. Case 1: Kortrijk-Noord

3.1.1 Cyclic proto-industries (1777-1840)

Respons 5: We followed the formatting guidelines and subdivision structure provided by the template     required for Sustainability articles, including the specific fonts and styles associated with each section  level. Unfortunately, these formatting requirements are fixed, and we are unable to modify them.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding this manuscript, I don't have many comments.

Author Response

Thank you, we made some adjustments in regarding to additional comments by reviewer 1. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a time-dimensional circularity methodology applied to 2 Flemish industrial parks.

The literature does not refer to ecological economy as a mandatory reference for the concepts that the authors try to deal with. A graphical abstract could help to understand the paper´s structure. The information is not clearly organized. It looks like a presentation. The scope is not explicitly written. A time line should help to read diachronic events.

Figures are not readable because of font size..

Abstract: it doesn´t clearly show the scope. Results are not presented quantitatively.

Introduction: try to avoid textual citations. Synthesize the research gap and explain how this paper would fill it.

Methods: The methodology is not replicable because it is not explained.

Authors should explain Fig. 1´s purpose.

It´s supposed that Fig. 2 should show a diachronic perspective of sites.

Results

They are not presented clearly.

Conclusions

They are too scarce.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the incorporation of time dimension into architectural environment research, which represents a novel research perspective. However, the article fails to adequately articulate the research objectives and clarify the research approach. Unclear Research Objectives: It is unclear what the manuscript aims to achieve. Neither the title nor the content of the manuscript effectively conveys the research objectives. Clarifying the specific goals upfront would strengthen the paper significantly. Disorganized Numbering: The numbering system within the manuscript is confusing, hindering the reader's ability to follow the logical flow of information. Format Resembling a Report Rather Than a Research Paper: The content of the manuscript appears more like a research report than a scholarly paper. It lacks quantitative research methodologies and relevant environmental data to support the claims and findings. Incorporating these elements would elevate the paper to a more rigorous academic standard. Confusing Analysis Section and Unclear Figures: The analysis section of the manuscript suffers from structural disarray, and the figures provided are unclear, making it difficult to discern the author's intended message. Improving the clarity and organization of this section, along with enhancing the quality and clarity of figures, is essential. Shallow Discussion with Limited Value: The research discussion is not sufficiently in-depth, limiting its overall value and impact. A more thorough analysis and discussion of the findings, their implications, and limitations would significantly enhance the manuscript's contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf