Dynamic Growth of “Pioneer Trees” as a Basis for Recreational Revitalization of Old Urban Landfills: A Case Study of Zgierz, Central Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper on a landfill in Poland has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of restoration of industrial landscapes, but it requires more work. In addition to the need to frame the case study within the wider context of other landscape restoration studies, there are a number of fundamental flaws that need to be addressed.

The abstract needs to be rewritten. It should be a short and clear summary of the aims, key methods, important findings and conclusions.

The introduction also needs to be reworked. It should clearly summarize the current state of the topic, address the limitations of current knowledge in this field, clearly explain why the study was necessary, and clearly define the aim of the study. Most importantly, the research question needs to be clear. This is currently not the case. Consequently it is not possible to evaluate whether the study design and methods are appropriate for the research question, and makes the paper very difficult to evaluate as a whole.

Before resubmission the authors are kindly asked to check it through carefully, since there are numerous errors and inconsistencies. For example, there are many typos, eg., in the abstract line 16 (asold), line 19 (anatural), line 20 (thisnature).

Line 58 – what are ‘missing areas’?

At one point you say the site was last used in 2014, but later you say activity ceased in 1995. This is confusing.

In line 120-122 you say satellite image analyses and remote sensing of the vegetation cover for the years 2005-2024, but in line 187 you say satellite images from 2004–2021. Again, the disparity in the dates is confusing.

The captions on the figures are illegible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

On the whole the English is OK but it would be a good idea for the revised manuscript to be seen by a native English speaker before resubmission to ensure that there are no errors.

Author Response

Comments 1:

This paper on a landfill in Poland has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of restoration of industrial landscapes, but it requires more work. In addition to the need to frame the case study within the wider context of other landscape restoration studies, there are a number of fundamental flaws that need to be addressed.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We improved the flaw of the paper in revised file

 

Comments 2:

The abstract needs to be rewritten. It should be a short and clear summary of the aims, key methods, important findings and conclusions.

Response 2: Thank you for your insight. We corrected the title and the abstract in the revised paper.

 

Comments 3:

The introduction also needs to be reworked. It should clearly summarize the current state of the topic, address the limitations of current knowledge in this field, clearly explain why the study was necessary, and clearly define the aim of the study. Most importantly, the research question needs to be clear. This is currently not the case. Consequently it is not possible to evaluate whether the study design and methods are appropriate for the research question, and makes the paper very difficult to evaluate as a whole.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. We agree. We corrected the introduction part, adding limitations, research questions, and clarifying the most important aspects.

 

Comments 4:

Before resubmission the authors are kindly asked to check it through carefully, since there are numerous errors and inconsistencies. For example, there are many typos, eg., in the abstract line 16 (asold), line 19 (anatural), line 20 (thisnature).

Response 4: Thank you for finding mistakes. We corrected typos in the whole text in the revised paper.

 

Comment 5:

Line 58 – what are ‘missing areas’?

Response 5: Thank you for the funding mistake in translation. We corrected the phase that is addressed to the degraded areas.

 

Comments 6:

At one point you say the site was last used in 2014, but later you say activity ceased in 1995. This is confusing.

Response 6: Thank you for finding discrepancies in the year period. We corrected the period of our research in the revised paper.

 

Comments 7:

In line 120-122 you say satellite image analyses and remote sensing of the vegetation cover for the years 2005-2024, but in line 187 you say satellite images from 2004–2021. Again, the disparity in the dates is confusing.

Response 7: Thank you for finding

discrepancies in dates. We apologize for the confusion. We corrected the period of our research in the revised paper.

 

Comments 8:

The captions on the figures are illegible.

Response 8: Thank you for your feedback. We proper illegibility of figures.

 

Comments 9:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

On the whole the English is OK but it would be a good idea for the revised manuscript to be seen by a native English speaker before resubmission to ensure that there are no errors.

Response 9: Thank you very much for the suggestions. We improve the quality of English to eliminate errors.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant issue in land use and management and falls well within the scope of Land. However, several aspects require substantial improvement before the paper can be considered for publication. The title should be shortened and made more concise. The abstract needs to better emphasize the importance of the work and explicitly highlight that it is a case study based primarily on a resident survey. The introduction should conclude with a clear statement of the research gap, hypothesis, or expected contribution. In the methodology, greater attention must be given to defining the spatial and temporal scope as well as justifying the sample size. Some figures require improved resolution, as parts of the text are currently difficult to read. The results and discussion sections should be revised to avoid redundancy, and figure captions should be made more descriptive. Finally, the English language in some parts of the manuscript requires polishing to improve clarity. Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting case study, but major revisions are needed to clarify the novelty, strengthen the introduction, improve data presentation, and refine the overall writing. Particular comments are indicated in the PDF attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

The manuscript addresses a relevant issue in land use and management and falls well within the scope of Land. However, several aspects require substantial improvement before the paper can be considered for publication. 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We improved the paper in the revised file.

 

Comments 2:

The title should be shortened and made more concise. The abstract needs to better emphasize the importance of the work and explicitly highlight that it is a case study based primarily on a resident survey. 

Response 2: Thank you for your insight. We corrected the abstract in the revised paper.

 

Comments 3:

The introduction should conclude with a clear statement of the research gap, hypothesis, or expected contribution. In the methodology, greater attention must be given to defining the spatial and temporal scope as well as justifying the sample size. 

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. We agree. We corrected the introduction part, adding limitations, hypotheses, and research questions, clarifying the most important aspects. We modified the methodology part, adding the missing information.

 

Comments 4:

Some figures require improved resolution, as parts of the text are currently difficult to read. The results and discussion sections should be revised to avoid redundancy, and figure captions should be made more descriptive. 

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. We have proper legibility of figures, results, and discussion sections.

 

Comments 5:

Finally, the English language in some parts of the manuscript requires polishing to improve clarity. Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting case study, but major revisions are needed to clarify the novelty, strengthen the introduction, improve data presentation, and refine the overall writing. Particular comments are indicated in the PDF attached.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your feedback. We improve the quality of English to eliminate errors in the revised paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of my comments, and the result is a much improved paper. Some issues remain however. It is important to return to the research questions in the conclusions and provide clear answers. In particular I don't think that the fourth one has been clearly answered (Can the presence of a river along a waste disposal site significantly limit revitalization processes and halt environmental transformation and improvement?).

Some of the new text is incorrect - for example, line 194 mentions coal mines, but the case study is a landfill site, not a coal mine ...

Line 198 - a "buzz bomb" is a colloquial name for the V-1 flying bomb, an early German cruise missile used in World War II ... I don't think the authors mean this, do they?

The image quality is still not very good.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from being revised by a native English speaker in order to improve readability.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The authors have addressed most of my comments, and the result is a much improved paper. Some issues remain however. It is important to return to the research questions in the conclusions and provide clear answers. In particular I don't think that the fourth one has been clearly answered (Can the presence of a river along a waste disposal site significantly limit revitalization processes and halt environmental transformation and improvement?).

 

Response 1:

The presence of the river along the landfill may significantly limit the revitalization processes, as it is a barrier that facilitates the erosion of the slopes due to the activity of beavers (Castor fiber), as confirmed by our observations. The river itself, by undermining the waste material from the destroyed slopes, intensifies the spread of pollutants into the environment.

Unfortunately, the presence of the Bzura River has been negatively impacting the landfill for years, disturbing the stored materials. The river is located very close to the slopes, which flush out pollutants. This was confirmed by Remote Sensing studies and the Góralczyk team. Therefore, revitalizing the river through ecological structures such as bypasses and fascines could halt this process and prevent pollutants from entering the river and the Baltic Sea. In the future, consideration should be given to relocating the riverbed a few meters away from the landfill slopes. It could prevent landfill escarpment from being washed away and allow the waste collected and protected by vegetation and soil to escape.

 

We emphasized these issues more in the discussion and conclusions sections.

 

 

Comments 2:

Some of the new text is incorrect - for example, line 194 mentions coal mines, but the case study is a landfill site, not a coal mine ...

 

Response 2:

Thank you for your insight. We agree and we correct the mistake. The vocabulary has been corrected in the revised paper.

 

 

 

Comments 3:

Line 198 - a "buzz bomb" is a colloquial name for the V-1 flying bomb, an early German cruise missile used in World War II ... I don't think the authors mean this, do they?

 

Response 3:

Thanks for the feedback. We mean "ecological bombs". We have clarified the text in the linguistic proofreading.

The vocabulary has been standardized and corrected in the revised paper.

 

Comments 4:

The image quality is still not very good.

Response 4:

Thank you for your comments. We have improved the graphic quality of the illustrations.

 

Comments 5:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The manuscript would benefit from being revised by a native English speaker in order to improve readability.

Response 5:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The English has been reviewed and improved in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and text flow by an expert language reviewer (native-speaker from the United States, certificate in supplementary zip file).

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'm pleased to see how the co-authors took the time to address each of the revision's observations and comments. The document is noticeably better structured, and I have no additional comments. For some reason, I wasn't able to view the new, unedited, revised version—but I was able to spot the positive changes.

Author Response

Comments 1:

I'm pleased to see how the co-authors took the time to address each of the revision's observations and comments. The document is noticeably better structured, and I have no additional comments. For some reason, I wasn't able to view the new, unedited, revised version—but I was able to spot the positive changes.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We put the corrected, unedited paper in an attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript entitled "Reflection on the dynamic growth of Betula pendula (Roth), Acer negundo (L.), and Salix caprea (L.) trees as a foundation for the recreational revitalization of old urban landfills. A case study of Zgierz (Central Poland)," I have the following suggestions and observations:

The objective of the work is poorly related to its development; that is, it is written as a long-term goal and not as an objective of the work carried out.

From my point of view, what is missing is the articulation of the fieldwork with the results of the surveys, and finally, one or more models that support the fieldwork with the responses of the people living nearby. The question is, how much does the proposed model coincide with the needs of the population?

Something I'm not clear about is why other components haven't been monitored during this entire period of vegetation cover monitoring. I know this isn't the objective of the work, but a more comprehensive model could be developed that includes soil variables and other organism groups such as birds and insects to determine whether the area actually meets the proposed restoration minimums.

With these few recommendations, I hope to contribute to improving the work, and I leave the decision to accept or reject the work to the Editor-in-Chief's discretion.

Regards

Author Response

Comment 1: “After reviewing the manuscript entitled "Reflection on the dynamic growth of Betula pendula (Roth), Acer negundo (L.), and Salix caprea (L.) trees as a foundation for the recreational revitalization of old urban landfills. A case study of Zgierz (...) I have the following suggestions. The objective of the work is poorly related to its development; that is, it is written as a long-term goal and not as an objective of the work carried out.”

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We improved these issues in the revised paper.

 

Comment 2: “From my point of view, what is missing is the articulation of the fieldwork with the results of the surveys, and finally, one or more models that support the fieldwork with the responses of the people living nearby. The question is, how much does the proposed model coincide with the needs of the population?”

Response 2: Thank you very much for your feedback. We improve the fieldwork during the framework description for the future model to be developed for the population in the revised paper.

 

Comment 3: “Something I'm not clear about is why other components haven't been monitored during this entire period of vegetation cover monitoring. I know this isn't the objective of the work, but a more comprehensive model could be developed that includes soil variables and other organism groups such as birds and insects to determine whether the area actually meets the proposed restoration minimums.”

Response 3: Thank you very much for your feedback. We modified our developed model in the revised paper and clarified the selected factors methodology more deeply. We do not monitor organism groups like birds or insects. This is due to the issue being a topic of a joint landfill’s contamination and health task of the authors' current collaboration with local authorities (Norway Grants). However, we think this issue is relevant and should be a basis for future interdisciplinary research, recruiting specialists from ecology, environmental protection, or zoology/ biology disciplines.

 

Comment 4. “With these few recommendations, I hope to contribute to improving the work, and I leave the decision to accept or reject the work to the Editor-in-Chief's discretion”.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your opinion and decision. We improved the paper according to the reviewers' and editor's suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the development of promising species (Betula pendula, Acer negundo, and Salix caprea) for the restoration of degraded soils from landfill use in the city of Zgierz, Poland. This promotes biodiversity and human well-being. Through ecological management, improvements in water quality are observed through biofiltration.  improving the ecological quality of urban environments and therefore the well-being of local communities by promoting recreational and educational spaces.

Finally, active community participation not only improves the quality of the final project but can also facilitate obtaining financial resources or support from local authorities, as a project that enjoys the support of the population tends to attract more attention and funding. Therefore, the community plays a crucial role in transforming degraded spaces into successful and sustainable recreational areas.

Through the identification of community needs and preferences, increasing the sense of belonging, which improves project sustainability and facilitates the investment of resources by generating inclusive projects.

The work has a balance between the topics covered: biodiversity, ecological management, revitalization of environments, and recreation in urban environments, so I consider it to be a good, balanced, inclusive work.

Author Response

Comment 1: “This paper analyzes the development of promising species (Betula pendula, Acer negundo, and Salix caprea) for the restoration of degraded soils from landfill use in the city of Zgierz, Poland. This promotes biodiversity and human well-being. Through ecological management, improvements in water quality are observed through biofiltration. improving the ecological quality of urban environments and therefore the well-being of local communities by promoting recreational and educational spaces.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your insight.

 

Comments 2: “Finally, active community participation not only improves the quality of the final project but can also facilitate obtaining financial resources or support from local authorities, as a project that enjoys the support of the population tends to attract more attention and funding. Therefore, the community plays a crucial role in transforming degraded spaces into successful and sustainable recreational areas. Through the identification of community needs and preferences, increasing the sense of belonging, which improves project sustainability and facilitates the investment of resources by generating inclusive projects. The work has a balance between the topics covered: biodiversity, ecological management, revitalization of environments, and recreation in urban environments, so I consider it to be a good, balanced, inclusive work.”

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and for finding out the quality of multi-mixed interdisciplinary research that we present in our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a potentially interesting paper, but it requires further elaboration in some sections and a lot more care in its presentation. In addition to improvements to the English language, there are a number of issues that need to be fixed:

Line 57 - using the topography and color of the terrain due to toxic impacts - what does this mean?

Line 73 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth

Figure 1 - is poor quality

Line 120 - supporting the remote sensing from 2002 - what does this mean?

Line 127 - Betula pendula - this should be in italics

Figure 2 - stet 5 - should be step 5

Line 136 - result 2 - do you mean class 1?

Line 144 - Class 1 ... class 5 - are these different to the classes you mentions in lines 135-136? I am confused ...

Line 147 - describe your survey methodology in more detail. How did you select participants? What did the survey consist of - a list of questions?

Line 165 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth

Line 171 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth

Table 1 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth

Line 272 - respondents over 50 - do you mean over 40?

Line 285 - respondents over 50 - do you mean over 40?

Line 327 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth

Line 356 - Berberis thungergii (L.) - there is no such thing

Line 360 -  Pahysandra terminalis - should be Pachysandra

Line 407 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth

Line 414 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth

Conclusions - these need to be developed more. What is the significance of this study? What has been learnt that could be applied elsewhere in the world?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be revised by a native English speaker to improve its legibility, as there are many grammatical errors.

Author Response

Comments 1: “This is a potentially interesting paper, but it requires further elaboration in some sections and a lot more care in its presentation.”

Response 1: Thank you very much for your feedback and valuable comments.

 

Comments 2: “In addition to improvements to the English language, there are a number of issues that need to be fixed: Line 57 - using the topography and color of the terrain due to toxic impacts - what does this mean?”

Response 2: Thank you very much for your feedback. This sentence has not been appropriately captured by us. We improve the Language style for better understanding the issue in the revised paper.

 

 

Comments 3: “Line 73 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth”

Response 3: We have improved in the revised text.

 

Comments 4: “Figure 1 - is poor quality”

Response 4: Thank you for your insight. We improve the quality of the figure and its arrangement.

 

Comments 5: “Line 120 - supporting the remote sensing from 2002 - what does this mean?”

Response 5: Remote sensing methods were supported by scanning on-site. There is a mistake. The LiDAR was done in 2022 at the Boruta landfill site. We improved its description in the revised paper.

 

Comments 6: “Line 127 - Betula pendula - this should be in italics”

Response 6: We correct italics.

 

Comments 7: “Figure 2 - stet 5 - should be step 5”

Response 7: We correct the word spellings in the illustration.

 

Comments 8: “Line 136 - result 2 - do you mean class 1?”

Response 8: Yes, we mean class 1. We improve the clarification.

 

Comments 9: “Line 144 - Class 1 ... class 5 - are these different to the classes you mentions in lines 135-136? I am confused ...”

Response 9: According to the field work and methodology of the source No. 37 (Boruta landfill site report by MGGP Aero), we synthesize some important elements of the given method. According to this source of remote analysis on the given site, as a result of our collaboration with local authorities and the company, we claim that the classes and their numbers are the same in the paper.

 

Comments 10: “Line 147 - describe your survey methodology in more detail”

Response 10: Thank you very much for your insight. However, we think that the methodology of remote sensing is the basis of different disciplines, and it is described in detail in source No.37 (final report of the site that is available on the website as listed). It needs deeper information from the MGGP Aero company research, and we think it may be the basis for future joint research in the remote sensing field.

 

Comments 11: “How did you select participants? What did the survey consist of - a list of questions?”

Response 11: We put the information of a survey (online with QR code) in trees near the Boruta landfill site and in the surrounding area (multiple- and single-family houses estate). We added this missing information to our paper. The survey is a questionnaire survey and consists of a list of questions with one or multiple choices. We present this issue in the corrected paper more deeply.

 

Comments 12: “Line 165 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth”

Response 12: We modified the word spelling in the revised text.

 

Comments 13: “Line 171 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth”

 

Response 13: We modified the word spelling in the revised text.

 

Comments 14: “Table 1 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth”

Response 14: We corrected in the revised paper.

 

Comments 15: “Line 272 - respondents over 50 - do you mean over 40?”

Response 15: Yes. There is a mistake. We corrected in the revised paper.

 

Comments 16: “Line 285 - respondents over 50 - do you mean over 40?”

Response 16: Yes. We correct to "over 40"  in the revised paper.

 

Comments 17: “Line 327 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth”

Response 17: Correct. We modified the meaning in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 18: “Line 356 - Berberis thungergii (L.) - there is no such thing”

Response 18: We agree. We change the meaning in the revised text: Berberis thunbergii ( DC.)

 

Comments 19: “Line 360 - Pahysandra terminalis - should be Pachysandra”

Response 19: Yes. We agree and correct in a revised paper.

 

Comments 20: “Line 407 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth”

Response 20: Yes, we agree. We corrected the word spelling in a revised paper.

 

Comments 21: “Line 414 - Betula pendula Ruth - should be Roth”

Response 21: Yes, we agree. We corrected the word spelling in the revised paper.

 

Comments 22: “Conclusions - these need to be developed more. What is the significance of this study? What has been learnt that could be applied elsewhere in the world?”

Response 22: Thank you very much for your feedback. We developed our conclusions and the significance and applicability of our study in the revised paper.

 

Comments 23: “Comments on the Quality of English Language. The paper needs to be revised by a native English speaker to improve its legibility, as there are many grammatical errors”.

Response 23: We added one more co-author (No.5) of our paper, who is an English native speaker. She helped us with English style and grammar in the revised text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has been improved and the suggestions made have been incorporated, so, subject to the editor-in-chief's discretion, I believe the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carried out some of the corrections I suggested. However, despite their claim that the manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker the paper is still riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, some of them newly introduced, and as a result it does not make sense. I do not think it is worth spending any more time on this paper if the authors are not prepared to take the advice of the reviewers. They should learn from this and take more care with future papers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is not good enough.