Riverscape Nature-Based Solutions and River Restoration: Common Points and Differences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research an important and valuable contribution to the scientific discourse on interventions in river environments. In the face of the growing emphasis on sustainable development and adaptation to climate change, the authors take up the crucial challenge of systematizing and distinguishing between two often confused but fundamentally different concepts: river restoration and Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in the context of riverscape. The paper is distinguished by the clarity of argumentation, in-depth theoretical analysis and apt use of case studies, making it a valuable resource for the scientific community and practitioners.
This article will be of interest to readers of Sustainability.
Below are two recommendations that should be added to the article:
Greater standardization of data presentation in case studies: While the case studies are a strength, their presentation in terms of the detail of quantitative data is uneven. The authors themselves admit that in the case of Lyon Confluence there is a lack of analytical assessment of ecological enhancement and regular monitoring. Alternatively, a clearer indication that the lack of data is a feature of the project itself would be helpful.
Clarity of the definition of “synthetic ecosystems”: In section 2.2, the category of “synthetic ecosystems” (type 3 NbS) could be somewhat further developed to further clarify how they differ from traditional engineering efforts, especially in the context of “designed items”.
Author Response
General Comment:
This research an important and valuable contribution to the scientific discourse on interventions in river environments. In the face of the growing emphasis on sustainable development and adaptation to climate change, the authors take up the crucial challenge of systematizing and distinguishing between two often confused but fundamentally different concepts: river restoration and Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in the context of riverscape. The paper is distinguished by the clarity of argumentation, in-depth theoretical analysis and apt use of case studies, making it a valuable resource for the scientific community and practitioners.
This article will be of interest to readers of Sustainability.
Response to General Comment:
We thank Reviewer #1 for the positive evaluation and for sharing the idea that it is important and necessary to systematically distinguish the two concepts of NbS and ecosystem restoration, which indeed are often conflated.
Comment 1:
Greater standardization of data presentation in case studies: While the case studies are a strength, their presentation in terms of the detail of quantitative data is uneven. The authors themselves admit that in the case of Lyon Confluence there is a lack of analytical assessment of ecological enhancement and regular monitoring. Alternatively, a clearer indication that the lack of data is a feature of the project itself would be helpful.
Comment 2:
Clarity of the definition of “synthetic ecosystems”: In section 2.2, the category of “synthetic ecosystems” (type 3 NbS) could be somewhat further developed to further clarify how they differ from traditional engineering efforts, especially in the context of “designed items”.
Response to Comments 1 and 2:
Please find in attachment the manuscript in the tracked changes version in which amendments are reported in blue.
Concerning Reviewer #1 first issue, we maintain the description of the Lyon Confluence example including our analysis of lacking quantitatively and scientifically assessment of ecological outcomes (subsection 4.2); following Reviewer #1 suggestion we added at the beginning of section 4 an introduction indicating that the absence of relevant and quantitatively assessed ecosystem restoration is a feature of the project itself (see in the tracked changes manuscript lines 258-274 including Table 1).
Concerning Reviewer #1 second issue, we further developed the concept of synthetic ecosystems better explaining where they are created and the novelty element with respect to natural and restored ecosystems. We also provided a further example (see lines 144-156).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript should be revised as follows.
(1) In the abstract, the necessity and significance of the manuscript on the riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration is not stated and needs to be added.
(2) In the introduction, there is no introduction to the fact that the riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration are easily confused, have problems that are difficult to differentiate, or are currently confusing, thus highlighting the need for the manuscript.
(3) The order of “2. Differences...” and “3. Common points...” is suggested to be adjusted to talk about the common points first consistently and then the order of “2. Common points...” and “3 Differences...”. It is suggested to increase the number of figures and tables in the whole text, so as to enhance persuasiveness and readability.
(4) In “4. Exemplification through case studies”, there is no detailed introduction of the basic situation of the example, and there is no list of relevant parameters, charts, etc., which needs to be added.
(5) In “5.1. Criticalities and scale problems”, there is the introduction to monitoring and scale problems, it is suggested to amend it to “5.1. Monitoring and scale problems”.
(6) In “5.2. Effectiveness assessment”, figure 1 should be Figure 1.
(7) In “5.3. Concluding remarks”, the conclusions are unclear. The similarities and differences between the riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration need to be clearly stated, as well as the significance, and future directions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
General Comment: The manuscript should be revised as follows.
Response to General Comment: Please find in attachment the manuscript in the tracked changes version in which amendments are reported in blue. English revisions and rephrasing are reported as well.
Comment 1: In the abstract, the necessity and significance of the manuscript on the riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration is not stated and needs to be added.
Response to Comment 1: We thank Reviewer #2 for the constructive suggestion. We added in the abstract that the two concept are often confused, but they are indeed not identical (see line 2 of the manuscript version “tracked changes” where you find amendments reported in blue). Within the abstract at lines 6-11 it is explained why it is important to understand the differences and overlapping of the two concept and we also state that this paper provides such analysis.
Comment 2: In the introduction, there is no introduction to the fact that the riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration are easily confused, have problems that are difficult to differentiate, or are currently confusing, thus highlighting the need for the manuscript.
Response to Comment 2: We thank Reviewer #2 for the constructive suggestion. In the introduction we added a part clearly reporting the issue raised by Reviewer #2 (see lines 47-51 of the tracked changes version). Lines 84-88 also state that our paper analyse different objectives of riverscape NbS and river restoration because depending on such different objectives riverscape NbS and river restoration have different criticalities and different benchmark to assess their effectiveness.
Comment 3: The order of “2. Differences...” and “3. Common points...” is suggested to be adjusted to talk about the common points first consistently and then the order of “2. Common points...” and “3 Differences...”. It is suggested to increase the number of figures and tables in the whole text, so as to enhance persuasiveness and readability.
Response to Comment 3: We maintained the order “2. Differences..” first and “3. Common points..” second because we are convinced that is more functional this way: the “Common points” section lays the foundations to answer the question when an intervention can be considered both a riverscape NbS and a river restoration. This question and relative answer are in the “Common points” section and they can be discussed only after an examination of both differences and similarities. We also think that common points are better understandable after the explanation of differences.
Concerning the issue of increasing the number of figures and tables, we thank Reviewer #2 for the useful suggestion that we implemented as follows:
- at the beginning of section 4, we added a table summarizing relevant elements of the three case studies;
- within subsection 5.2 we added a figure illustrating the procedure and output of the self-assessment tool for the evaluation of IUCN Global Standards for NbS.
Comment 4: In “4. Exemplification through case studies”, there is no detailed introduction of the basic situation of the example, and there is no list of relevant parameters, charts, etc., which needs to be added.
Response to Comment 4: We disagree with Reviewer #2 statement “there is no detailed introduction of the basic situation of the example”. Actually for each case study the first two paragraphs introduce both the situation before intervention and in what consisted the intervention. Then, for each case study, a part is devoted to the outcome of the intervention with particular attention to quantitative measurement of results. Providing further lists of relevant parameters, charts, etc. is outside the scope of our contribution. We better introduce the case studies with a general introduction at the beginning of section 4 (also including a summary table, see previous answer). In this introduction, we also answer the issue raised by Reviewer #2, by adding the following statement (just after the table): “In the following, the case studies are presented in a complete but synthetic way, since the objective is not to analyse and evaluate in depth the case studies, but rather we aim at classifying the interventions as river restoration or riverscape NbS or both, we also aim at motivating this classification, and we pay particular attention to quantitative measurement of outcomes.”
Comment 5: In “5.1. Criticalities and scale problems”, there is the introduction to monitoring and scale problems, it is suggested to amend it to “5.1. Monitoring and scale problems”.
Response to Comment 5: Done
Comment 6: In “5.2. Effectiveness assessment”, figure 1 should be Figure 1.
Response to Comment 6: Done
Comment 7: In “5.3. Concluding remarks”, the conclusions are unclear. The similarities and differences between the riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration need to be clearly stated, as well as the significance, and future directions.
Response to Comment 7: We completely rewrite the conclusions, that in the current version are extended and clearer as suggested by Reviewer #2. Moreover, in order to give the conclusion greater relevance we structured it in a section, rather than in a subsection of concluding remarks in the discussion section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study systematically analyzed the similarities and differences between riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration, which is somewhat novel. However, the study still has the following shortcomings:
1. It is suggested that the research significance and value of this paper be further clarified in the introduction and discussion sections.
2. It is recommended to adjust the structure of the paper. On the basis of analyzing the differences and similarities between nature-based river landscape solutions and river restoration, the criteria proposed by this paper for distinguishing the two should be supplemented.
3. It is suggested that a conclusion section be added to the paper to summarize the main research findings of this paper, increasing the readability and academic value of the paper.
4. It is recommended to add some figures and tables to facilitate readers' reading and understanding.
Author Response
General Comment: This study systematically analyzed the similarities and differences between riverscape nature-based solutions and river restoration, which is somewhat novel. However, the study still has the following shortcomings:
Response to General Comment: Please find in attachment the manuscript in the tracked changes version in which amendments are reported in blue. English revisions and rephrasing are reported as well.
Comment 1: It is suggested that the research significance and value of this paper be further clarified in the introduction and discussion sections.
Response to Comment 1: Reviewer #3 is right. We added in the abstract that the two concept of NbS end ecosystem restoration are often confused, but they are indeed not identical (see line 2 of the manuscript version “tracked changes” where you find amendments reported in blue). Within the abstract at lines 6-11 it is explained why it is important to understand the differences and overlapping of the two concept and we also state that this paper provides such analysis.
In the introduction we added a part (lines 47-51) clearly reporting that the two concept are frequently conflated, but they cannot be assumed identical; in the statement we also explain why it is important to make a distinction. Lines 84-88 also state that our paper analyse different objectives of riverscape NbS and river restoration because depending on such different objectives riverscape NbS and river restoration have different criticalities and different benchmark to assess their effectiveness.
The current version also gives more relevance to the research significance and value of the paper in the conclusions.
Comment 2: It is recommended to adjust the structure of the paper. On the basis of analyzing the differences and similarities between nature-based river landscape solutions and river restoration, the criteria proposed by this paper for distinguishing the two should be supplemented.
Response to Comment 2: We slightly adjusted the structure of the paper: the section “2. Differences…” and the section “3. Common points…” maintain their structure, but we moved to the beginning of section 4 an extended version of last paragraph of section 3. This change better illustrates the criteria proposed for distinguishing riverscape NbS and river restoration thanks to a direct, improved introduction of the case studies; this is also supplemented by a table. The structure of the paper is also changed by replacing the subsection “4.3 Concluding remarks” with the section “5. Conclusion”; this new section is wider and more significant with respect to previous version.
Comment 3: It is suggested that a conclusion section be added to the paper to summarize the main research findings of this paper, increasing the readability and academic value of the paper.
Response to Comment 3: We completely rewrite the conclusions, that in the current version are extended and clearer. Moreover, following Reviewer #3 suggestion, in order to give the conclusion greater relevance we structured it in a section, rather than in a subsection of concluding remarks in the discussion section.
Comment 4: It is recommended to add some figures and tables to facilitate readers' reading and understanding.
Response to Comment 4: We thank Reviewer #3 for this useful suggestion. At the beginning of section 4, we added a table summarizing relevant elements of the three case studies. Within subsection 5.2 we added a figure illustrating the procedure and output of the self-assessment tool for the evaluation of IUCN Global Standards for NbS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe issues raised in the first round of review have been thoroughly revised by the author team. There are no other problems.
