Tool Used to Assess Co-Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Ecosystems for Human Wellbeing: Second Validation via Measurement Application

Reviewer 2

Reply

The overall structure of the manuscript is good, presenting decent results and discussions.

Thank you for this valuation.

However, major revisions are still required before the manuscript can be published.

(1) The introduction section of the manuscript needs to clarify the concept and connotation of Nbs, its possible benefits, especially those related to human perception and well-being.

The authors have revised and restructured the introduction following the recommendations of this reviewer. [See section “Nature-based Solutions: the power of Nature in urban spaces” and following.

(2) The selection criteria for the eight urban spaces need to be further clarified.

The authors consider that these criteria were already indicated. However, the text has been revised and redrafted for its clarification (first and second paragraph of section 2.1 Selection of places).

(3）It is recommended to explain the relationship between the indicators and NbS, and whether it reflects the co-benefits.

The authors understand that the indicators referred to by the reviewer are the degree of naturalisation and openness, as well as the percentages of green, blue, etc. (Table 2 and related text). If this is the case, the authors do not understand the recommendation to clarify the relationship, as these indicators are variables that themselves reflect the natural elements of the environments. The authors would also like to clarify that they do not reflect co-benefits, but that the former would be the cause of the latter.

(4）Whether the selection of five experts in the Delphi method is sufficient, whether there are differences of opinion among them, and how these differences were dealt with.

It would have been preferable to have had more experts, but due to time and response constraints of the experts, this was not possible. The differences of opinion among the experts were somewhat more pronounced in relation to the openness of the sites than in relation to naturalisation, and greater in sites 6 and 7. And as noted in the text, the average score of the 5 values was used as an indicator of the degree of naturalisation and openness of the sites analysed.

(5）Whether there are interferences in investigations conducted at different times and how to reduce these risks.

The study had to be conducted at different times because the different availability of the GEO, TEC and PSY groups. To minimize the differences that could be caused by carrying out the campaigns on different dates, the campaigns were carried out on sunny days without precipitation. The climatic conditions were similar (Temperature 15-20ºC; Radiation 200-400w/m2; Humidity 70%; Precipitation 0%; wind 0-4m/sec). A clarification is added in the text.

(6）It is recommended to add the relationship and impact of ecosystem regulation services on co-benefits in the discussion section.

The authors consider that NbS have a relationship and impact with cultural services in urban ecosystems, but they have not heard of and are not aware of their relationship with regulating services, so the reviewer's suggestion is added as future studies in the discussion.

(7）References are generally not supposed to appear in the conclusion section, which can be reflected in the discussion.

The only reference to conclusions has been integrated in the discussion section.

Reviewer 3

Reply

[0] The paper has significant language issues that must be further improved.

[General reply 1] The authors have revised the English of the manuscript and the final version of this has been sent to MDPI Author Services for professional language editing and layout editing (There is certify). The manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. MDPI uses experienced, native English-speaking editors. Full details of the editing service can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.

1. The Introduction section has problems with organization and structure. On one hand, there are too many paragraphs, making it overly fragmented. On the other hand, the content should focus closely on the research topic, introducing relevant background information. However, the first half contains too much detail about SDGs, urbanization, etc., which are not directly related to the study. Specifically, the description of the handbook in lines 121–132 is unrelated to this study. Additionally, this section lacks appropriate references. Overall, this part needs to be reorganized and undergo substantial, transformative revision. It is recommended to focus closely on the research topic. Perhaps 5–7 paragraphs would be reasonable (the exact number can be adjusted as needed, but the current number of paragraphs is excessive).

The authors have revised the Introduction to improve it following the recommendations of this reviewer: summarizing some paragraphs, restructuring, including subtitles to clarify the topics, etc.

INTRO: Lastly, the language in this section also requires significant improvement.

See [General reply 1] of this reviewer.

2. It is suggested to organize the content in lines 181–199 of the Methods section into a table.

? Solo Respuesta, NO CAMBIO en el texto.

The authors consider that it is clearer to present the description of the sites analysed (lines 181-199) as it has been done in the manuscript.

3. It is recommended to create a map of the study area.

[General reply 2] The authors, even though they wanted to, have not been allowed to add in their manuscript a map of the area of the evaluated places, because the authors do not have the city hall’s permission to make the identification of these spaces public. The city hall (the one that covers the selected spaces), has asked the authors to maintain the places anonymous. This is due to the worry to create expectancies in the citizens about an improvement of these spaces, being true that the results of the investigations will not implicate an improvement of the spaces. Nevertheless, it the reviewers and/or the editor consider that the location of the spaces is necessary, a brief note could be added in the text. Or, maybe, if they would like to know the location of the places, the authors could share that information with them, if they sign a document to commit to not make public these evaluated spaces, nor the municipality in which they are located.

4. In line 204 and Table 1, ensure the superscript formatting for square meters is correct.

Fixed-

5. Both the title and headers of Table 2 need revision.

Done-

6. In Table 3, do the headers 1–8 represent the eight study areas? This presentation may cause confusion. It is suggested to replace Table 1 with a pie chart and add a legend.

The table has been improved.

7. How can Section 2.3 be revised to improve readability? Could lines 283–313 be presented in table form?

Following the reviewer's recommendations, a new table (Table 4) has been elaborated with the characteristics of the measurement scales used to measure these 5 dimensions (previous lines 283-313).

8. Could a flowchart be created for Section 2.4?

Done.

9. The font in Table 7 seems inconsistent with the others.

Fixed-

10. Could subheadings be added to the Discussion section to make it more structured and focused on the theme? Further revision to improve clarity and organization is recommended.

The authors have revised and restructuring, including subtitles to clarify the topics, the Discussion in order to improve it following the recommendations of this reviewer.

11. The Conclusion section should also be further improved

Revised.

12. Please review and correct any errors in the references section.

The old reference [21] has been completed.

13. Comments on the Quality of English Language: There is a serious language problem and it must be improved.

See [General reply 1] of this reviewer.

Reviewer 4

Reply

This has the potential to make an important contribution to the corpus of studies on the psychosocial benefits of nature-based solutions in urban settings.

Thank you very much.

However, there are a number of issues that need to be resolved first.

[1] The manuscript needs to be revised by a native English speaker, as it is riddled with grammatical errors which make it hard to understand in places, especially by an audience whose first language is not English. This would enhance the international readership of this paper.

[General reply 1] The authors have revised the English of the manuscript and the final version of this has been sent to MDPI Author Services for professional language editing and layout editing (There is certify). The manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. MDPI uses experienced, native English-speaking editors. Full details of the editing service can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.

[2] The literature review is very scanty. There is a much larger body of work on the psychosocial benefits of nature-based solutions in urban settings which the authors need to read and cite. This will also help them to develop a more robust discussion and conclusions, by framing their results in the context of the results of other studies.

The authors have revised and restructured the Introduction and Discussion by expanding the content on the psychosocial benefits of nature-based solutions in urban settings.

[3] It would be helpful to have images (photos) of the 8 spaces where the experiment was conducted.

[General reply 2] The authors, even though they wanted to, have not been allowed to add in their manuscript a map of the area of the evaluated places, because the authors do not have the city hall’s permission to make the identification of these spaces public. The city hall (the one that covers the selected spaces), has asked the authors to maintain the places anonymous. This is due to the worry to create expectancies in the citizens about an improvement of these spaces, being true that the results of the investigations will not implicate an improvement of the spaces. Nevertheless, it the reviewers and/or the editor consider that the location of the spaces is necessary, a brief note could be added in the text. Or, maybe, if they would like to know the location of the places, the authors could share that information with them, if they sign a document to commit to not make public these evaluated spaces, nor the municipality in which they are located.

[4] A limitation of this study which needs to be stated more explicitly is that the experiment was conducted during the autumn/winter. Perceptions of openness and naturalness would be very different in the spring/summer.

The reviewer's suggestion has been included in the Discussion section.

[5] A key reference [21] is missing from the reference list.

The old reference [21] has been completed.

[1] Comments on the Quality of English Language:

The manuscript needs to be revised by a native English speaker, as it is riddled with grammatical errors which make it hard to understand in places, especially by an audience whose first language is not English. This would enhance the international readership of this paper.

See [General reply 1] of this reviewer.

Reviewer 5

Reply

General: The strength of this manuscript is a multidiciplinary approach in an area which is in need of this type of research.

Thank you very much

Specific

1) Introduction: Is rather long. The text may be shorter to come to the point and the specific aims of the research

The authors have revised the Introduction to improve it following the recommendations of this reviewer: summarizing some paragraphs, restructuring, including subtitles to clarify the topics, etc.

2) Materials and methods: 2.a) The specific character of this section is to provide sufficient information to repeat the research by an interested colleague. To this end the methods are insufficiently described.

The authors do not agree with the reviewer's assessment that ‘the methods are insufficiently described’ because the authors consider that the materials and methods have been described in a detailed (p. 4-8) and concrete manner. And the rest of the reviewers (1, 2, and 4) assess them positively, with only reviewer 3 suggesting the correction of some typos or slight reorganisation of the content of some paragraphs.

The only thing that may be missing is a map of the places evaluated, which is what we believe this reviewer is missing.

2.b). Add a map on the location of the research sites.

[General reply 2] The authors, even though they wanted to, have not been allowed to add in their manuscript a map of the area of the evaluated places, because the authors do not have the city hall’s permission to make the identification of these spaces public. The city hall (the one that covers the selected spaces), has asked the authors to maintain the places anonymous. This is due to the worry to create expectancies in the citizens about an improvement of these spaces, being true that the results of the investigations will not implicate an improvement of the spaces. Nevertheless, it the reviewers and/or the editor consider that the location of the spaces is necessary, a brief note could be added in the text. Or, maybe, if they would like to know the location of the places, the authors could share that information with them, if they sign a document to commit to not make public these evaluated spaces, nor the municipality in which they are located.

3) Discussion: The text provides a good summary of the findings and the limitations of the approach.

Thank you very much.

4) The "conclusions" might be integrated in the discussion.

It was initially proposed to integrate the conclusions into the discussion section, as suggested by the reviewer. However, this was discarded as the English and layout review suggested the authors put it as a separate section from the discussion.

3) Format

3.a. Abbreviations should be in full the first time they are used in the text (e.g. the formula on p. 7).

Done

3.b. Avoid typing errors (e.g. p 8., p. 9 and p.10)

[General reply 1] The authors have revised the English of the manuscript and the final version of this has been sent to MDPI Author Services for professional language editing and layout editing (There is certify). The manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. MDPI uses experienced, native English speaking editors. Full details of the editing service can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english..

4) Language: In general the text reads fluently and is clear. However a few minor remarks:

Thank you.

4.a) Do not use self-fabricated words.

There are only two terms that can be referred to: 1) ‘(dis)agree’ concept (page 7), which has been removed; and 2) ‘socio-environmental justice’, a term that the authors consider to better reflect the concept they are referring to (social justice for environmental issues) than those commonly used showing only one of its two components (‘social justice’ or ‘environmental justice’).

4.b) Adopt a neutral style. E.g. do not use the first perso (I,we) but the 3th one

[General reply 1] The authors have revised the English of the manuscript with neutral style criteria, and the final version of the manuscripts has been sent to MDPI Author Services for professional language editing.