A Study on Plant Selection for Low-Carbon Rain Gardens Based on an AHP-TOPSIS Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled "A study on plant selection for low-carbon rain gardens based on AHP-TOPSIS model" presents a valuable contribution to the field of sponge city planning and low-carbon rain garden design. The proposed methodology and evaluation index system provide a practical tool for selecting suitable plant species based on multi-objective criteria. With the suggested improvements and additional considerations, this paper can potentially be a valuable resource for urban planners, landscape architects, and researchers in sustainable urban development.

and I would like to provide the following comments:

1. The introduction provides a comprehensive background on the importance of sponge cities, low-impact development measures, and rain gardens. It effectively justifies the need for the study.
2. The methodology section is well-structured and clearly explains the AHP and TOPSIS methods used for plant selection.
3. The comprehensive evaluation index system includes relevant economic, ecological, and environmental adaptability factors.
4. The analysis of the AHP results is thorough and provides valuable insights into the relative importance of different factors for tree, shrub, and herbaceous plant selection.
5. The use of expert opinions and local market data in assigning weights and scores is a strength of the study.
6. The TOPSIS evaluation results provide a ranked list of suitable plant species for rain gardens, which is useful for practical applications.
7. The discussion section could benefit from further elaboration on the implications of the study findings for sponge city planning and implementation.
8. The influence of local climatic conditions on plant selection could be discussed in more detail.
9. The study's limitations, such as the subjectivity involved in weight assignment and the potential for biases in expert opinions, should be acknowledged.
10. The potential for incorporating additional factors, such as biodiversity considerations or aesthetic values, in the evaluation index system could be explored.
11. The study could benefit from a comparison with other plant selection methods or case studies from different regions, to highlight the strengths and limitations of the proposed approach.
12. The conclusion section effectively summarizes the key findings and suggests future research directions, such as plant physiological ecology experiments and screening of native wetland plants.
13. The supplementary materials provided, including expert scoring tables and additional data, enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study.
14. The references cited are relevant and up-to-date, demonstrating a thorough review of the literature.
15. The paper is well-written and structured, with clear and concise language. However, some minor language editing may be required to improve readability further.
16. The tables are poorly presented.

The English language needs minor editing. No need for professional editing. Just read the manuscript carefully to improve.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

REVIEW OF THE WORK:

"A study on plant selection for low-carbon rain gardens based on AHP-TOPSIS model" The manuscript "A study on plant selection for low-carbon rain gardens based on AHP-TOPSIS model" is well structured, written and has contributions for publication in the journal Sustainability.

34 literature titles were used (of which 20 were published in the last 5 years).

The contribution of the work is expressed in the following:

- Scope of the research in order to define the problematic issue.

- Critical review of the analyzed existing indicators.

- Equal representation of different views.

- Defined a significant number of factors that were analyzed.

- The perceived shortcomings of the proposed solution are pointed out.

The paper has potential and can be accepted after the following MINOR corrections:

Dear authors, thank you for sharing your paper "A study on plant selection for low-carbon rain gardens based on AHP-TOPSIS model". I think your approach showed high potential.

Let me start with some general comments that would improve the quality of the work:

1. Line 62: Based on what the screening indexes (referred to) are defined.

2. Lines 76-77: State professional opinion. Need to cite the source on which the position is based?

3. Line 104: On what basis are the evaluation indicators defined?

4. You have chosen nine experts. How many experts is sufficient for the validity of the application of expert opinion during expert decision-making and the formation of opinions?

5. How were the results averaged?

6. Line 153: It is not entirely clear what you based the view stated in ② on?

7. How did you reduce the influence of subjectivity during the application of the AHP method?

8. Line 256-258: The presented sentences indicate the fact that in the previous analysis of the work, the possible improvement of the work was pointed out. It is necessary to analyze the above or remove it from the work and include the results based on which the direction was given.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf