Identifying Circularity in Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely and relevant systematic review on the intersection of Nature-Based Solutions and the Circular Economy. The topic is of significant interest to the sustainability community. However, the manuscript requires revisions to enhance clarity and depth of analysis before it can be considered for publication.

1)Figure 1, reports not retrieved (n = 48), is unexpectedly high. Typically, "not retrieved" refers to articles that are inaccessible. For a modern database like Scopus, 48 out of 88 articles being inaccessible is unusual and requires explanation.

2)Table 1 is intended to be a central piece of the results. However, in the provided text, it is presented as an incomplete markdown table without headers or data for the columns. It is expected to see the main quantitative results of each paper.

3)Section 4, It lacks a critical synthesis of the limitations, trade-offs, and context-specific factors influencing the success of these NBS-CE integrations.

4)Section 4.1: The sentence "Simultaneously, recycling strategies manifest through the core objective... which inherently aligns with reuse principles" is slightly confusing.

5)There are numerous 2024 and 2025 articles citations. Please double-check that all these references are from published or officially accepted/in-press sources to avoid citing pre-prints.

Author Response

Notes for the reviewer are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper sustainability-3877792 titled " Identifying circularity in nature-based solutions: A systematic review " is a review article that analyzes 32 studies from the SCOPUS database to examine the literature on nature-based solutions in relation to the circular economy. The review includes research related to cultivated wetlands, green infrastructure, and land reclamation solutions.

As a review paper, its novelty lies in integrating relevant research on nature-based solutions and the circular economy. However, end of the Introduction is not adequate, as it simply describes the basic structure of research in scientific journals. Therefore, this section should be revised to clearly state the objectives of the study.

The methodology is described in a way that makes it difficult to replicate. Given that the authors cite Tranfield, David, David Denyer, Palminder Smart. «Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review». British Journal of Management 14, n.o 3 (2003): 207-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375, they should clearly describe the method used. It is particularly confusing that the authors, later in the text, state that Figure 1 shows an adapted methodology from reference 14. It is not clear which methodology the authors used, and on what basis was the representation in Figure 1 modified? This explanation is crucial, because according to those criteria, the authors selected only 32 papers from the initial set of 174 for analysis.

The Results of the study are presented in accordance with the instructions for writing review papers. However, Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 are modestly illustrated in the content of this review article. The analysis presented is so simple that it is not suitable for publication in a journal like Sustainability. To analyse the data and satisfy the research goal, it is strongly recommended that the author introduce the research model. Due to the different weights of each criterion, using a state-of-the-art analysis method (like PLS_SEM) enables the author to estimate complex models with many constructs, indicator variables, and structural paths. This is without distributional assumptions about the data.

The Discussion is not organized according to the results. The authors highlighted Distribution of publications by year (n = 32), Productivity by country (n=32), Main NBS identified in the reviewed articles and Circular economy strategies addressed in the reviewed NBS articles. It is necessary to supplement the Discussion in relation to the results presented by the authors themselves.

The Conclusions are presented as a response to the Discussion. It is highlighted that nature-based solutions handle ecological challenges such as water management or ecological restoration. Also, the circular economy provides a key framework through actual solutions that reflect, restore and improve natural processes. However, conclusions should be supplemented after expanding the Discussion, in accordance with authors own results.

Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 should be done according to the suggestions in the Detailed comments.

There is one Table in the paper that is well organized.

All the references (54) are adequate, but since the discussion ought to be expanded, additional relevant references should be added to support the analysis.

 

Detailed comments

1. At the end of the Abstract, the authors state “Furthermore, understanding their relationship will facilitate their integration into regulations for transitioning toward circularity in industries and cities”. I suggest that they supplement the Abstract with the contribution of the article.
2. Change the Keywords nature-based solutions and systematic review because they are contained in the title of the paper, for better visibility of your paper.
3. Please remove the text between lines 70-75 and present the objectives of the review article.
4. Please correct the Method of the paper so that other researchers can repeat it. You referred to reference 10, present what is the basis of your methodology. You can also display it graphically. It is particularly confusing that you state in Figure 1 an adapted methodology according to reference 14. Which reference was used, and on what basis was the representation in Figure 1 modified? It is important because according to those criteria, out of the original 174, you selected only 32 papers for analysis. List the software packages you used in your work.
5. The title of Figure 1 appears in lines 124–125. PRISMA systematic literature review methodology (adapted from Haddaway et al. [14]). Author’s own. It is assumed that the schematic approach was adapted by the authors, so you do not need to mention it.
6. Correct the quality of Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5, as mentioned in the general comments.
7. It is necessary to supplement the Discussion in relation to the results presented by the authors themselves: Distribution of publications by year (n = 32), Productivity by country (n=32), Main NBS identified in the reviewed articles and Circular economy strategies addressed in the reviewed NBS articles.
8. Complete the Conclusions in accordance with the expansion of the Discussion, respectively, in relation to your results from the segments Distribution of publications by year (n = 32), Productivity by country (n=32), Main NBS identified in the reviewed articles and Circular economy strategies addressed in the reviewed NBS articles.

Best regards,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Notes for the reviewer are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation indicating that the manuscript has been improved. Since no additional comments have been raised, we remain attentive to the continuation of the review process.