Refined Wilding for Functional Biodiversity in Urban Landscapes: A Verification and Contextualisation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study introduces the concept of "refined wilding" as a means to achieve functional biodiversity in urban green space systems (UGS), with an emphasis on its potential to enhance sustainability and ecological connectivity across green, blue, and grey spaces in urban environments. The research is innovative, presenting a new dimension of functional biodiversity. However, there is room for improvement in constructing the theoretical framework and clarifying the concept.

 

The concept of "refined wilding" is intriguing, yet the theoretical framework remains somewhat unclear. I recommend that the authors elaborate on how “refined wilding” differs from conventional biodiversity, ecological sensitivity (ESHR), and functional biodiversity. For example, how does refined wilding differ from design approaches in agricultural or forest rewilding? Additionally, more references could be provided to better explain the unique contributions of functional biodiversity and refined wilding.

 

To increase the impact of this study, I suggest the authors connect the research to the popular topic of nature-based solutions in the first section with 1-2 sentences. The following papers could be referenced: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172219; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.038.

 

The study uses grounded theory methodology (GTM) to validate the feasibility of refined wilding; however, the application of GTM in this research lacks sufficient detail. I suggest expanding on the specific steps taken in applying GTM, particularly how this methodology led to conclusions regarding refined wilding. Additionally, clearly explaining the literature review, data filtering, and classification procedures would improve the reproducibility of the study.

 

While the authors provide a broad literature review, the discussion is somewhat dispersed and lacks in-depth analysis of core research findings. For instance, when discussing the functional biodiversity of urban green spaces, it would be beneficial to reference representative empirical studies that inform refined wilding design. In addition, for the relationship between UGS, functional biodiversity, and health, the authors could synthesize main conclusions from prior research more closely related to this study.

 

The paper explores various aspects of refined wilding but provides limited practical recommendations for its implementation. For example, the potential for refined wilding design in grey spaces is mentioned, yet practical steps are not specified. I suggest adding concrete implementation strategies in the discussion section, outlining specific design methods for refined wilding across green, blue, and grey urban spaces. Including case studies or examples from urban planning would also enhance the practical relevance of the study.

 

To clearly illustrate how refined wilding might be implemented in different types of urban green spaces, I recommend adding visual elements, such as diagrams or models. For instance, spatial distribution maps or conceptual framework diagrams for refined wilding in green, grey, and blue spaces would help readers better understand its role and function in urban landscapes.

 

The language in the paper is occasionally verbose; I recommend simplifying and condensing some parts. For example, certain sections repeat similar content, such as definitions of refined wilding and functional biodiversity. Merging and condensing similar content throughout would improve readability and logical flow.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (revision highlighted in blue)

Comment 1

This study introduces the concept of "refined wilding" as a means to achieve functional biodiversity in urban green space systems (UGS), with an emphasis on its potential to enhance sustainability and ecological connectivity across green, blue, and grey spaces in urban environments. The research is innovative, presenting a new dimension of functional biodiversity. However, there is room for improvement in constructing the theoretical framework and clarifying the concept.

Thank you for the accurate explanation. After results there is a clearer explanation of refined wilding and functional biodiversity and the term wild refined. It should clarify the concept.

The concept of "refined wilding" is intriguing, yet the theoretical framework remains somewhat unclear. I recommend that the authors elaborate on how “refined wilding” differs from conventional biodiversity, ecological sensitivity (ESHR), and functional biodiversity. For example, how does refined wilding differ from design approaches in agricultural or forest rewilding? Additionally, more references could be provided to better explain the unique contributions of functional biodiversity and refined wilding.

to address this comment I have added to the manuscript with an explanation of how ESHR is also a substantiating concept for functional biodiversity, and have referred to some definitions of biodiversity for an urban landscape. There is reference to ESHR aligned design which is in publication Vogt 2019 and is for agricultural landscapes. It is different to refined wilding design as urban landscapes provide a different definition to ESHR and functional biodiversity for this type of landscape. Agricultural wilding and wild productive systems and how they are different to wild refined is also explained in the revised manuscript.

To increase the impact of this study, I suggest the authors connect the research to the popular topic of nature-based solutions in the first section with 1-2 sentences. The following papers could be referenced: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172219; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.038.

Thank you for the suggestion. I have added sentences and citations to work about renaturing and have explained how refined wilding and functional biodiversity contribute to this term.

The study uses grounded theory methodology (GTM) to validate the feasibility of refined wilding; however, the application of GTM in this research lacks sufficient detail. I suggest expanding on the specific steps taken in applying GTM, particularly how this methodology led to conclusions regarding refined wilding. Additionally, clearly explaining the literature review, data filtering, and classification procedures would improve the reproducibility of the study.

thank you for the suggestion.

I have added sentences that further explain GTM and the role of literature review for verification and therefore why the methodology is selected to provide conclusions about refined wilding.

A subheading for data filtering and classification procedures has been added to the methods section. It further explains the role of the conceptual framework for sorting and classifying results.

While the authors provide a broad literature review, the discussion is somewhat dispersed and lacks in-depth analysis of core research findings. For instance, when discussing the functional biodiversity of urban green spaces, it would be beneficial to reference representative empirical studies that inform refined wilding design. In addition, for the relationship between UGS, functional biodiversity, and health, the authors could synthesize main conclusions from prior research more closely related to this study.

Thank you for the suggestion. The discussion has been reformatted. Refined wilding and functional biodiversity is explained first with empirical examples, as summarised in tables providing an overview definition and example of how refined wilding to achieve functional biodiversity can reach an advanced function. There are also recommendations included in this subheading.

The discussion provides summative explanations.

The paper explores various aspects of refined wilding but provides limited practical recommendations for its implementation. For example, the potential for refined wilding design in grey spaces is mentioned, yet practical steps are not specified. I suggest adding concrete implementation strategies in the discussion section, outlining specific design methods for refined wilding across green, blue, and grey urban spaces. Including case studies or examples from urban planning would also enhance the practical relevance of the study.

to address this comment I provide some example studies where green spaces are recommended as integrated to grey spaces. It is for high density cities. 

To clearly illustrate how refined wilding might be implemented in different types of urban green spaces, I recommend adding visual elements, such as diagrams or models. For instance, spatial distribution maps or conceptual framework diagrams for refined wilding in green, grey, and blue spaces would help readers better understand its role and function in urban landscapes.

This is a good suggestion. For this round of revisions it hasn’t been possible and mightn’t be essential. 

The language in the paper is occasionally verbose; I recommend simplifying and condensing some parts. For example, certain sections repeat similar content, such as definitions of refined wilding and functional biodiversity. Merging and condensing similar content throughout would improve readability and logical flow.

The article has been simplified by language use and the reformatting has also led to further simplification.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the submitted review paper is a very complex endeavor for a specific theme of refined wilding. the paper has a compound structure and is following a rigorous methodology. usually structured interviews are using other search engines besides google scholar (WoS, Scopus etc.), but it is triangulating several methods so that the result is scientifically sound.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

comment 1

The submitted review paper is a very complex endeavor for a specific theme of refined wilding. the paper has a compound structure and is following a rigorous methodology. usually structured interviews are using other search engines besides google scholar (WoS, Scopus etc.), but it is triangulating several methods so that the result is scientifically sound.

thank you for your comments. It is a complex article to write.
This article is only intended as a literature review component of a seven step classic grounded theory process. The substantial concepts for functional biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, ESHR and agricultural wilding are result of interviews and fieldwork. It is not thought of as necessary for this article but could be for further study and publication, as a further verification of the concept with first hand empirical study. The googlescholar search engine could be complemented with a scopus or WoS search engine as well however the results from googlescholar are considered sufficient for a verification.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I regret to say that, in its current form, the article is entirely unclear. It is an extremely lengthy (and overly long) article that discusses urban open spaces, ranging from gardens near homes to parks and urban nature areas. It is well-known that these spaces are threatened by human development, yet at the same time, they are crucial for the sustainability of the planet as well as for human well-being. It is also widely acknowledged that proper planning of these spaces, with connectivity between them, can greatly benefit sustainability, wildlife, and human life while balancing various needs.

In light of this, the purpose of this article is unclear, the research question (if there is one) is not apparent, and the article’s contribution is not evident. Even literature review articles aim to reach a conclusion derived from a well-formulated research question, whose answer is not self-evident. In this article, which contains an overwhelming number of words and tables, it seems that all the research conducted by the author is presented as-is, without prioritization or any effort to lead us, the readers, to an understanding beyond the vast collection of details provided.

Therefore, my recommendation is to reject the article.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

comment 1

regret to say that, in its current form, the article is entirely unclear. It is an extremely lengthy (and overly long) article that discusses urban open spaces, ranging from gardens near homes to parks and urban nature areas. It is well-known that these spaces are threatened by human development, yet at the same time, they are crucial for the sustainability of the planet as well as for human well-being. It is also widely acknowledged that proper planning of these spaces, with connectivity between them, can greatly benefit sustainability, wildlife, and human life while balancing various needs.

The article has been simplified by revisions and reformatting some subsections. The reason for the concept and theory being introduced and defined for the urban landscape is to address these crucial needs for proper planning and a balanced outcome. The concept and theory introduce a framework to organise most advanced findings, and encourage a comprehensive. The article recognises existing and extensive knowledge sets, and explains how the concept and term complement and could improve sustainability outcomes for urban landscapes.

In light of this, the purpose of this article is unclear, the research question (if there is one) is not apparent, and the article’s contribution is not evident. Even literature review articles aim to reach a conclusion derived from a well-formulated research question, whose answer is not self-evident. In this article, which contains an overwhelming number of words and tables, it seems that all the research conducted by the author is presented as-is, without prioritization or any effort to lead us, the readers, to an understanding beyond the vast collection of details provided.

the research question is in the methodology, as to whether refined wilding and functional biodiversity can be verified for urban landscape relevance. The GTM provides method for verification. GTM is a process of categorising words, and meanings. The conclusion provides definition and suggested use, with new terms, wild refined urban spaces and how refined wilding and functional biodiversity can guide responsive action to local urban landscape needs. Action by strategies, visions, goals and design. The tables progress to analysis and organising using the conceptual frame. The GTM categorising is also now presented in graphs. The GTM as a process is now better explained which should help a reader understand the research question and what the article is intending to achieve.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my issues have been well addressed, thank you!