Climate Proofing Cities by Navigating Nature-Based Solutions in a Multi-Scale, Social–Ecological Urban Planning Context: A Case Study of Flood Protection in the City of Gothenburg, Sweden

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposed an approach for navigating NBS-oriented flooding adaptation strategies, by quantifying the ecosystem service of water run-off mitigation at three nested biophysical scales, under four climate change scenarios. This article has certain research significance, but there are still shortcomings.

Introduction: The content of the first to fourth paragraphs should be simplified, highlighting the key points. It is recommended that the content should not exceed two paragraphs. There is relatively little content related to flood disasters, which seems to be inconsistent with the theme. It is suggested to simplify the content of the theoretical background section and adding it to the introduction.

Theoretical background: It is suggested to add this section to the introduction.

Case study background: The study area feels unclear, it is recommended to simplify this section and highlight the main content. It is recommended to have no more than 2 figures, and the figure title should be brief and clear.

Materials and Methods: This part of the content feels unclear. It is suggested to separate the material and method content. The materials and data used in the article should indicate their sources. Key methods used in the article should be listed. A flowchart can help to better understand this article. It is recommended to add a flowchart.

Results: The results of the article are too few to support the paper. It is recommended to add other related research results, and more results can be extracted from the materials and methods section.

Discussion: It is recommended to have a detailed discussion mainly around the research results, and other related issues can be briefly discussed.

Overall, the content organization of this article needs to be improved, the methods used are not novel enough, and the innovation points are not prominent enough. It is hoped that a major revision will be carried out to improve the quality of the article.

Author Response

This article proposed an approach for navigating NBS-oriented flooding adaptation strategies, by quantifying the ecosystem service of water run-off mitigation at three nested biophysical scales, under four climate change scenarios. This article has certain research significance, but there are still shortcomings.

Introduction: The content of the first to fourth paragraphs should be simplified, highlighting the key points. It is recommended that the content should not exceed two paragraphs. There is relatively little content related to flood disasters, which seems to be inconsistent with the theme. It is suggested to simplify the content of the theoretical background section and add it to the introduction.

Answer: Thanks for the good comments! We have now substantially shortened the introduction, as well as added some minor text parts as suggested by the two other reviewers. We have now sub-headed the background as we think the structure is clearer and parts 1.1.1. and 1.1.2. are important for introducing the readers to the specific issues dealt with in this paper.

We have now added a passage dealing with flood risks/disasters; see lines 87-92.

Theoretical background: It is suggested to add this section to the introduction. 

Answer: We have now added it as a subsection of the Introduction.

Case study background: The study area feels unclear, it is recommended to simplify this section and highlight the main content. It is recommended to have no more than 2 figures, and the figure title should be brief and clear.

Answer: Agree. We have now substantially shortened the case study background as well as removed two figures. We have also remade Figure 1, making it more informative. 

Materials and Methods: This part of the content feels unclear. It is suggested to separate the material and method content. The materials and data used in the article should indicate their sources. Key methods used in the article should be listed. A flowchart can help to better understand this article. It is recommended to add a flowchart.

Answer: Thanks, point taken! We have now simplified this section, removing information and also figures, and have instead located them to the result section, as suggested later on in this review. That was a good suggestion that has improved clarity. Also, we have added a new Figure 3, representing a flowchart of the methodological process. 

Results: The results of the article are too few to support the paper. It is recommended to add other related research results, and more results can be extracted from the materials and methods section.

Answer: Please, see the answer to the above query. We have enlarged the result section and moved both figures and 3 tables from the Material and Methods section to results. 

Discussion: It is recommended to have a detailed discussion mainly around the research results, and other related issues can be briefly discussed.

Answer: We have now improved the discussion; see e.g., lines 395-401; 431-437. Also, we have improved the conclusion section as well, reiteration the key objectives of the paper; see e.g., lines 495-502.

Overall, the content organization of this article needs to be improved, the methods used are not novel enough, and the innovation points are not prominent enough. It is hoped that a major revision will be carried out to improve the quality of the article.

Thanks a lot for the constructive comments. They have substantially improved the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript entitled “Climate proofing cities by navigating nature-based solutions in a multi-scale, social-ecological urban planning context: A case study of flood protection in the City of Gothenburg, Sweden”. The manuscript uses the case of Gothenburg to investigate the barriers to the implementation of NBs into urban planning frameworks for flood adaptation, in particular mitigating water run-off. The authors use four climate change scenarios and three nested biophysical scales. Addressing a very important topic, the manuscript was a joy to read and I believe it is extremely well suited to the readership of MDPI Land journal. Overall, I find the submission is well-structured. However, it suffers poor quality figures (poor in terms of resolution and readability) and from several minor errors which should be addressed. These include.

The opening sentences of the introduction discuss urban green space for mitigating urban carbon emissions. These seem a little out of place, as the sentence before talks about regulating climate and the sentence after adaptation. Suggestion: In line 49, Start the new paragraph with “Additionally” to better link the sentences.

Line 101? Floods have become more frequent and severe over the past decades. Does this statement relate to global, regional national, or local occurrences? Please clarify, slightly.

Line 173? Does Gothenburg have mangroves? Please adjust this sentence to make it more specific to Gothenburg.

Figure 1 is a good example of a terrible map. Improve the resolution, it is currently too pixel. Please what does the color mean? Please add at least a scale and north arrow.

How has the population and urbanized area of Gothenburg developed in recent decades? Compact/ sprawl?

Figures 2 and 3  also need to be improved in terms of resolution

Please outline the current and planned land-use shares in the case study area.

Please provide some references and locations where the InVEST toolbox has been used successfully before. Who was it developed by?

Improve resolution Figure 5

Figure 9. The resolution is so bad it is impossible to read the map.

Line 439-440 rephrase.

Line 515: U.S =  the United States, please write out.

 

Line 542: “Big” date

Make these small changes and it will be a great manuscript. Have a wonderful 2024

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fair. Very minor changes need to be made.

Author Response

Review of the manuscript entitled “Climate proofing cities by navigating nature-based solutions in a multi-scale, social-ecological urban planning context: A case study of flood protection in the City of Gothenburg, Sweden”. The manuscript uses the case of Gothenburg to investigate the barriers to the implementation of NBs into urban planning frameworks for flood adaptation, in particular mitigating water run-off. The authors use four climate change scenarios and three nested biophysical scales. Addressing a very important topic, the manuscript was a joy to read and I believe it is extremely well suited to the readership of MDPI Land journal. Overall, I find the submission is well-structured. However, it suffers poor quality figures (poor in terms of resolution and readability) and from several minor errors which should be addressed. These include.

Thanks a lot for the good comments and that you find the paper a joy to read and to be well structured! We have now, thanks to some other reviewers, improved the structure even further.

The opening sentences of the introduction discuss urban green space for mitigating urban carbon emissions. These seem a little out of place, as the sentence before talks about regulating climate and the sentence after adaptation. Suggestion: In line 49, Start the new paragraph with “Additionally” to better link the sentences.

Thanks, point taken; we have now changed this (see line 49).

Line 101? Floods have become more frequent and severe over the past decades. Does this statement relate to global, regional national, or local occurrences? Please clarify, slightly.

Answer: It relates to the global level. We have now made this clear, see line 94. We have also elaborated a bit further about flood risks, see e.g., lines 87-93.

Line 173? Does Gothenburg have mangroves? Please adjust this sentence to make it more specific to Gothenburg.

Answer: Good point. We have now removed the mangroves association.

Figure 1 is a good example of a terrible map. Improve the resolution, it is currently too pixel. Please what does the color mean? Please add at least a scale and north arrow.

Answer: Agree. We have now remade Figure 1. We have also submitted a new batch of high-resolution figures in a more readable format. 

How has the population and urbanized area of Gothenburg developed in recent decades? Compact/ sprawl?

Answer: the city is promoting densification and restricting urban sprawl. We have now added this information, see line 153.

Figures 2 and 3  also need to be improved in terms of resolution

Answer: We have improved the resolution of all figures. Figure 3 is removed completely and replaced by a flow chart describing the case-study process.

Please outline the current and planned land-use shares in the case study area.

Answer: We have outlined this on line 189-190. However, we see no point in presenting this in more detail, as we think it is beside the objective of the paper, i.e., presenting the usability of ready-to-use modeling. 

Please provide some references and locations where the InVEST toolbox has been used successfully before. Who was it developed by?

Answer: We have now added this on lines 77-80, and 227-231. 

Improve resolution Figure 5

Answer: As stated above, all figures are now in high-resolution and of a more readable format.

Figure 9. The resolution is so bad it is impossible to read the map.

Answer: See above.

Line 439-440 rephrase.

Answer: Point taken. We have removed this sentence, and instead added: "The key objective of this paper has been to roughly estimate the ecosystem service of water runoff mitigation through a simplified, cost-effective, and user-friendly modeling approach." See lines 395-397.

Line 515: U.S =  the United States, please write out.

Answer: Done, see line 483.

Line 542: “Big” date

Answer: Done, see line 516.

Make these small changes and it will be a great manuscript. Have a wonderful 2024.

Thank you a lot for taking the time to review and improve this paper!!!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is titled “Climate proofing cities by navigating nature-based solutions in a multi-scale, social-ecological urban planning context: A case study of flood protection in the City of Gothenburg, Sweden.” The authors proposed to quantify runoff mitigation ecosystem services under four climate change scenarios for different urban areas in Sweden. The article is interesting, but in my opinion it requires significant improvement.

- the summary requires improvement, it should indicate the purpose of the work, methods, research area and mainly the results.

- the introduction is correct

- the purpose of the paper was not clearly defined

- section 2 needs improvement, the authors do not provide specific examples of what nature-based solutions are, in fact they only provide general definitions used in

 - methodology needs improvement. I propose to present the methodology in the form of a diagram and describe step by step what was included in the model, what elements are taken into account, dependent variables and independent variables

- conclusions require improvement. Apart from the presentation of maps, there is no reference to specific examples showing what increasing the retention capacity of the area involves.

- Fig. 1 - a map with the location of the research area, it is best to present the outline of Europe, Sweden and only the locations of Gothenburg and other areas covered by the analysis. The map does not contain basic attributes: linear scale, main reference points, geographical coordinates, legend. The authors use names such as The Göta River the North Sea, Mölndalsån, Säveån, but these names are not on any of the maps. The research area should be presented in a way that is clear and easily identifiable to readers outside Sweden.

- figs 2, 3 and 4 require improvement, they do not add anything new, and the catchment boundary can be presented on a common map

- units accepted for surface runoff from a given area are expressed per m2, not per ha. The adopted method greatly simplifies the amount of water that is runoff. On this basis, you can design specific actions that will contribute to delaying surface runoff (determine the percentage of sealed surface in the form of roofs, sidewalks and biologically active surfaces such as lawns, rain gardens and others)

- conclusions require improvement, they must be adequate to the results obtained. The conclusions do not cite the literature; some phrases should be included in the discussion

 

Technical notes:

 - adapt the article to the magazine's requirements

- use a unified list of literature, e.g. lines 610, 654

- provide the source of access to the quoted materials, e.g. line 615, 635, 636, 658, 671, 672, 673 and many others

- correct captions under figures

​

 

Author Response

The article is titled “Climate proofing cities by navigating nature-based solutions in a multi-scale, social-ecological urban planning context: A case study of flood protection in the City of Gothenburg, Sweden.” The authors proposed to quantify runoff mitigation ecosystem services under four climate change scenarios for different urban areas in Sweden. The article is interesting, but in my opinion it requires significant improvement.

• the summary requires improvement, it should indicate the purpose of the work, methods, research area and mainly the results

Answer: Thanks, we have now made the purpose of the paper more clear in the abstract, see lines 25-27, now reading: "The purpose is to roughly estimate the ecosystem service of water run-off mitigation through simplified, cost-effective, and user-friendly modelling at three nested biophysical scales, under four climate change scenarios."

- the introduction is correct

- the purpose of the paper was not clearly defined

Answers: See above.

- section 2 needs improvement, the authors do not provide specific examples of what nature-based solutions are, in fact they only provide general definitions used in

Answers: Thanks, point taken. We have now made this more explicit, see lines 113-118, reading: NBS include strategies like green roofs and urban parks to enhance urban sustainability, while practices like riparian buffer zones and agroforestry focus on restoring ecosystems and promoting sustainable agriculture. Additionally, approaches such as constructed wetlands and living shorelines exemplify how nature-based solutions can mitigate environmental challenges by utilizing natural processes for water treatment and coastal protection.  

 - methodology needs improvement. I propose to present the methodology in the form of a diagram and describe step by step what was included in the model, what elements are taken into account, dependent variables and independent variables

Answer: Thanks, point taken! We have now simplified this section, removed information and also figures, and instead located them in the result section. Also, we have added a new Figure 3, representing a flowchart of the methodological process. 

conclusions require improvement. Apart from the presentation of maps, there is no reference to specific examples showing what increasing the retention capacity of the area involves.

Answer: Conclusions have now been improved, see e.g., lines 495-502. We have now added more info about retention capacity, see lines 398-399, 431-437.

Fig. 1 - a map with the location of the research area, it is best to present the outline of Europe, Sweden and only the locations of Gothenburg and other areas covered by the analysis. The map does not contain basic attributes: linear scale, main reference points, geographical coordinates, legend. The authors use names such as The Göta River the North Sea, Mölndalsån, Säveån, but these names are not on any of the maps. The research area should be presented in a way that is clear and easily identifiable to readers outside Sweden.

Answer: We have now remade Figure 1.

figs 2, 3 and 4 require improvement, they do not add anything new, and the catchment boundary can be presented on a common map

Answer: We have improved the resolution of all figures. We have also removed Figures 3 and 4 in the previous version of the manuscript.

units accepted for surface runoff from a given area are expressed per m2, not per ha. The adopted method greatly simplifies the amount of water that is runoff. On this basis, you can design specific actions that will contribute to delaying surface runoff (determine the percentage of sealed surface in the form of roofs, sidewalks and biologically active surfaces such as lawns, rain gardens and others)

Answer: Thanks for pointing this out. We will, however, stick with hectares as it is used at other places in the paper. Good point concerning water run-off techniques; we have now added the following text part at lines 431-437, reading: "The employed modeling approach simplifies the estimation of runoff water, but urban planners could enhance runoff potential through various design strategies. These include features like green roofs, bioswales, and biologically active surfaces such as lawns, rain gardens, and wetlands, which can effectively delay surface runoff. Therefore, the modeling exercise also offers planners a cost-effective analytical tool to assess potential investments in strategically planned urban design interventions essential for building resilience in new developments." 

- conclusions require improvement, they must be adequate to the results obtained. The conclusions do not cite the literature; some phrases should be included in the discussion

Answer: We have sharpened up the conclusion section, making it more stringent to the objectives of the paper, see lines 495-502, reading: "The study demonstrates the effectiveness of a straightforward, readily applicable, and cost-effective modeling approach in illustrating the impact of planned local urban development projects on water runoff mitigation. The findings highlight the potential ex-acerbating effects of such projects at larger spatial scales. Furthermore, in the context of project decisions, the modeling exercise provides planners with a valuable tool to evaluate potential investments in strategically planned urban design interventions. It can also help determine whether a region, such as the Gothenburg area, is progressing in a climate-resilient direction." It now also better alludes to the added discussion part at lines 395-402. 

Technical notes:

 - adapt the article to the magazine's requirements

- use a unified list of literature, e.g. lines 610, 654

- provide the source of access to the quoted materials, e.g. line 615, 635, 636, 658, 671, 672, 673 and many others

• correct captions under figures

Answer: We have now dealt with all technical issues. Thanks again for reviewing the paper, good suggestions, and for helping us improve the paper! 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been revised according to the suggestions, but there are still some formatting issues. It is recommended to carefully check and make revisions.

Author Response

Thanks! Based on the reviewer's comments about formatting issues, which are not specified, I think this better could be handled at the page proof stage. It is very hard for us to guess what formatting issues there are.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have mostly improved the article. The purpose of the work should be stated not only in the summary, but also in the introduction. The structure of section 4 is still questionable, some subsections are too short, others are long. The figures are of poor quality. I leave the decisions to the managing editor

Author Response

Regarding the abstract: We have omitted the italicized line in the following sentence because it is repeated twice in the last version of the manuscript: The purpose is to roughly estimate the ecosystem service of water runoff mitigation through simplified, cost-effective, and user-friendly modeling at three nested biophysical scales, under four climate change scenarios.

We have now also added the purpose of the paper in the introduction (lines 61-62).

Concerning the quality of figures: All figures in the previous version have also been uploaded as a zip file with high-resolution images in both jpg and pdf formats. They can be enlarged in the final version of the paper when it is published. We believe that determining the preferable sizes of the figures is primarily an issue for the journal's production editor and typesetter to handle.

Concerning part 4; this is what we have in terms of material and methods. Maybe, the subheadings with short information in some and longer in some others, give this impression. We could drop the subheadings, but think they help readers to understand what issues are dealt with. Hence, we keep them as it is.