Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article discusses spatial and infrastructural solutions related to the rationalization of water management. The article's substantive content is consistent with the Land Journal's profile, but there are a few elements that could be improved. The introduction introduces the issues discussed and provides a brief background to the research. It would be worthwhile to supplement the initial section of the chapter, focusing on the topic chosen by the authors, which is currently widely discussed and subject to increasingly detailed guidelines in local and international law and recommendations, with references to legal regulations. Global agendas indicate a number of strategies related to water resources management that should be addressed here. The placement of the description of the research field (repeated numbering of chapters 1.2 and 1.2 - L 96 - 227) in the introduction is also unclear. This section should be included in the chapter devoted to materials and methods. This section of the text should also be reworded to be more specific and shorter. The materials and methods should be expanded with a clearly presented procedure flowchart (perhaps also in graphical form) and reworded, taking into account the current chapters 1.2 and 1.2. In general, the chapter numbering throughout the article should be reviewed and improved. The discussion is described in great detail, yet the results and conclusions are very concise. It would be worth considering whether some of the discussion does not refer to the results. In this type of research, the conclusions should be more specific and include targeted recommendations related to the results and discussions contained in the text. It would also be worthwhile to improve the graphic quality of the figures. Figures 2 and 3 have illegible sections of the descriptions within the graphics.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their timely and supportive review. We provide a detailed response, elaborating our best efforts to address their remarks. As part of the revision process we have read and copyedited the entire manuscript in order to improve its fluency and readability.

 

comment: This article discusses spatial and infrastructural solutions related to the rationalization of water management. The article's  substantive content is consistent with the Land Journal's profile, but there are a few elements that could be improved. The introduction introduces the issues discussed and provides a brief background to the research.

response: We thank the reviewer for his supportive interpretation of the manuscript, which we also consider suitable for publication within this special issue of Land.

 

comment: It would be worthwhile to supplement the initial section of the chapter, focusing on the topic chosen by the authors, which is currently widely discussed and subject to increasingly detailed guidelines in local and international law and recommendations, with references to legal regulations. Global agendas indicate a number of strategies related to water resources management that should be addressed here.

response: We have elaborated on this topic and improved the referencing to relevant material. However, we note that the paper is not focused on the legal and regulation aspects of NbS, but instead wishes to present a case study of a hybrid NbS in a Mediterranean climate, with specific focus on its hydro-physical and hydro-chemical aspects (runoff and water quality) and some insights into its societal and ecological benefits (education etc.)

 

comment: The placement of the description of the research field (repeated numbering of chapters 1.2 and 1.2 - L 96 - 227) in the introduction is also unclear. This section should be included in the chapter devoted to materials and methods. This section of the text should also be reworded to be more specific and shorter.

response: We have revised and reorganized these sections, and also fixed the numbering issue.

 

comment: The materials and methods should be expanded with a clearly presented procedure flowchart (perhaps also in graphical form) and reworded, taking into account the current chapters 1.2 and 1.2. In general, the chapter numbering throughout the article should be reviewed and improved.

response: we have improved this section in order to clarify its reasoning and make it easier to follow.

 

comment: The discussion is described in great detail, yet the results and conclusions are very concise. It would be worth considering whether some of the discussion does not refer to the results. In this type of research, the conclusions should be more specific and include targeted recommendations related to the results and discussions contained in the text.

response: We reviewed the text and improved its organization for better clarity and reading fluency. Please note that although the results section is rather compact, it contains substantial information in graphic form.

 

comment: It would also be worthwhile to improve the graphic quality of the figures. Figures 2 and 3 have illegible sections of the descriptions within the graphics.

response: the figures were split into separate figures to improve their readability, and the font size was increased.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognized as strategies to mitigate these challenges by integrating hydrological, ecological, and social functions into urban environments. This manuscript is dealing a pilot area, Gazelle Valley Park (GVP) located in Jerusalem established in 2015 and presented as an example of the management of an open area urban catchment within the framework of NbS. The GVP case study presented is novel and the experimental data set is very valuable. This should provide new insight for managing urban catchments, mainly in Mediterranean areas.

In general, the manuscript is well organized and it can be accepted for publication after minor revisions. Thus, several improvements and adjustments are recommended. Below some comments are provided, which may help to prepare the final version.

 

Main concerns:

1) The article mostly consists of general statements regarding nature-based solutions in urban environments. In addition, field experimental results and laboratory analysis are presented for a limited period of time. Within the experimental part, some inconsistencies have been detected between the material and methods and the results section please see more detailed comments below. Therefore, it is recommended to more thoroughly describe sampling sites and sampling number at each site.

2) Instead of concluding too generally, conclusions should be specific and well-supported by experimental results. Please, again, avoid vague statements and focus on the most important points from your work. Please, take into account the main results for the specific case study. 

3) Legend of Figure 3 b appears in two different languages. English language is adequate, No need for a second language.

Other comments:

1) Lines 3 and 40. In my opinion “an analog for our future planet” here and all over the text seems rather pretentious. Again, the case study presented has a local interest. NbS have been applied in the last years and are currently being applied worldwide. So, it is recommended not to exaggerate the importance of the study.

2) It is strongly recommended to revise the manuscript following the instructions for authors and guidelines provided by “Land”. Authors should be aware that:

• The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.
• Upper case should be avoided in all the key words, except for the first keyword.
• Tables and Figures should be in bold, as for example Table 1, Figure 1, etc.
• , etc.

3) Lines 224-227. This sentence seems to premature here. It rather belongs to concluding remarks.

4) Line 23. A reference to Figure 1 is recommended for the sake of clarity.

5) Line 149. Is it section 1.3?

6) Line 229. Is it 2.1? Please, check the numeration of all the subsections in the material and methods section.

Also, please, check the numeration of the results section.

7) Lines 256 to 270. Which sites have been sampled? How many samples per site have been collected?

Please, be aware that Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 present data sets collected at different sites. This is no consistent with the lack of information provided in the material and methods section, regarding sites and samples per site.

Moreover, samples have been taken on the same dates at the different sites? Indeed sites only can be compared if the same number of samples in the same dates have been collected.

8) Line 307. Also sampling and analysis of wastewater have not been addressed in the material and methods section.

9) Lines 337 to 341. The results here are not sufficiently stated. By the way, what means labile fraction and soluble fraction in this context? In the material and methods section analysis of two different fractions of the water samples have not been described.

10) Only a relatively small number of references are from the last five years.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is correct. However, a number of typos and other mistakes should be corrected. To mention only a few examples:

• Line 33. Are you meaning “the role of sedimentation”?
• Lines 216-21. The erm “Large-scale” appears two times in a sentence. Please, avoid repetitions.
• Lines 230-236. This paragraph contains sentences in present and in past tenses. Please, here and all oer the text, be consistent.
• Line 230. “gaug-es”.
• Line 232. “He-brew”.
• ……..
• Line 257. “sa-linity”.
• Line 264. “ele-ment”.
• Line 274. Please, pay attention to the first parentheses.
• …………
• Line 501. “activism´s”
• …….. etc., etc.

 

 

Author Response

comment: Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognized as strategies to mitigate these challenges by integrating hydrological, ecological, and social functions into urban environments. This manuscript is dealing a pilot area, Gazelle Valley Park (GVP) located in Jerusalem established in 2015 and presented as an example of the management of an open area urban catchment within the framework of NbS. The GVP case study presented is novel and the experimental data set is very valuable. This should provide new insight for managing urban catchments, mainly in Mediterranean areas.

In general, the manuscript is well organized and it can be accepted for publication after minor revisions. Thus, several improvements and adjustments are recommended. Below some comments are provided, which may help to prepare the final version.

response: We thank the reviewer for their timely review and supportive notion of the manuscript. We have made our best efforts to address their comments and improve the manuscript.

 

comment: 1) The article mostly consists of general statements regarding nature-based solutions in urban environments. In addition, field experimental results and laboratory analysis are presented for a limited period of time. Within the experimental part, some inconsistencies have been detected between the material and methods and the results section please see more detailed comments below. Therefore, it is recommended to more thoroughly describe sampling sites and sampling number at each site.

response: we have revised the methodology section to improve its readability. We hope this is now clarified. 

 

comment: Instead of concluding too generally, conclusions should be specific and well-supported by experimental results. Please, again, avoid vague statements and focus on the most important points from your work. Please, take into account the main results for the specific case study. 

response: We have revised the conclusions in order to provide a more robust and informative take-home message from the paper.

 

comment: Legend of Figure 3 b appears in two different languages. English language is adequate, No need for a second language.

response: we have revised this figure accordingly.

 

Additional comments:

comment: Lines 3 and 40. In my opinion “an analog for our future planet” here and all over the text seems rather pretentious. Again, the case study presented has a local interest. NbS have been applied in the last years and are currently being applied worldwide. So, it is recommended not to exaggerate the importance of the study.

response: This was revised - we are referring to the possibility of investigating such systems under prolonged drought conditions.

comment: It is strongly recommended to revise the manuscript following the instructions for authors and guidelines provided by “Land”. Authors should be aware that:

• The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.
• Upper case should be avoided in all the key words, except for the first keyword.
• Tables and Figures should be in bold, as for example Table 1, Figure 1, etc.
• , etc.

response: We fixed this in accordance with your comments.

 

comment: Lines 224-227. This sentence seems to premature here. It rather belongs to concluding remarks.

response: this line was removed during the revision process.

 

comment: Line 23. A reference to Figure 1 is recommended for the sake of clarity.

response: fixed

 

comment: Line 149. Is it section 1.3?

response: fixed

 

comment: Line 229. Is it 2.1? Please, check the numeration of all the subsections in the material and methods section.

response: fixed

 

comment: Also, please, check the numeration of the results section.

response: fixed

 

comment: Lines 256 to 270. Which sites have been sampled? How many samples per site have been collected?

Please, be aware that Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 present data sets collected at different sites. This is no consistent with the lack of information provided in the material and methods section, regarding sites and samples per site.

Moreover, samples have been taken on the same dates at the different sites? Indeed sites only can be compared if the same number of samples in the same dates have been collected.

Line 307. Also sampling and analysis of wastewater have not been addressed in the material and methods section.

response: The methodology section was revised to clarify this. We have sampled several sites along the hydrological system of GVP, as well as inflowing water, and the reclaimed wastewater provided to the park. All sampling took place within the park. 

 

comment: Lines 337 to 341. The results here are not sufficiently stated. By the way, what means labile fraction and soluble fraction in this context? In the material and methods section analysis of two different fractions of the water samples have not been described.

response: The methodology section was revised to clarify this.

 

comment: Only a relatively small number of references are from the last five years.

response: We have revised the text and included additional references.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

response: we have reviewed and copy-edited the entire manuscript to ensure its language quality and improve its clarity.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made every effort to improve the article, and in its current form, it is significantly better prepared. However, there are still a few elements that could be addressed. The introduction has been supplemented with references to global legal regulations, and part of the description of the research area has been moved to the materials and methods chapter, which I consider valuable for the quality of the article. However, I believe that the section related to the immediate methodological and geographical context described between L108 - 127 should also be included there. The discussion still seems a bit too extensive, but the introduction of recommendations in the conclusions clearly specifies the possible benefits of the study. The figures are much clearer after the changes.

Author Response

comment: The authors have made every effort to improve the article, and in its current form, it is significantly better prepared. However, there are still a few elements that could be addressed.

response: We appreciate the helpful suggestions and the positive feedback provided by the reviewer.

 

comment: The introduction has been supplemented with references to global legal regulations, and part of the description of the research area has been moved to the materials and methods chapter, which I consider valuable for the quality of the article.

response: We are happy to hear the reviewer supports these changes.

 

comment: However, I believe that the section related to the immediate methodological and geographical context described between L108 - 127 should also be included there. 

response: We understand the reviewer's contemplation regarding the best location for this text segment, however we feel that it provides the reader with some of the basic background necessary to understand the physiography and history of the park, on which we establish the following description of the methodology section. Nevertheless, as part of copy-editing of the manuscript we have somewhat trimmed this section and partially rephrased it for improved clarity and fluency.

 

comment: The discussion still seems a bit too extensive, but the introduction of recommendations in the conclusions clearly specifies the possible benefits of the study.

response: We have read the entire manuscript and reduced the discussion where we felt it is possible.

 

comment: The figures are much clearer after the changes.

response: We appreciate the reviewer's support, and happy to hear that our corrections were found to improve the readability of the figures.