From Landscape Architecture to Nature-Based Solutions: A Strategic Approach to Fine Dust Mitigation in Urban School Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I have thoroughly reviewed your manuscript entitled: “From Landscape Architecture to Nature-based Solutions: A Strategic Approach to Fine Dust Mitigation in Urban School Forests”. I have made a number of comments that I believe should be addressed before considering publication:
Introduction
L29-67: I think it is important to strengthen this section, to highlight the importance of the topic, current problems, previous studies, the contribution of current research and also to which SDGs the research contributes and which would be the potential beneficiaries. It is necessary to include more bibliography in order to strengthen this section.
Research Framework
A section on materials and methods needs to be implemented on a mandatory basis. This section is of utmost importance for the replication of the study. Include it and divide it into sections depending on the objectives of the research.
L261: Table 1
Please correct the citation form used and base it on MDPI's previously established standards.
Discussion
I have made a thorough review of this section and have not been able to find any inclusion of bibliographies. It is important that comparisons with research are made in this section, in order to highlight the achievements of the study. In addition, in this section the authors should divide the section according to the objectives to make it easier to understand.
References
It is important to complete the information in the references, each manuscript must have: DOI, Number, Volume, Pages. If I use a page as a source, include the link and the date of access.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine the paper and enhance its quality. Below, we outline how we have addressed your suggestions:
Comment 1: Introduction
L29-67: I think it is important to strengthen this section, to highlight the importance of the topic, current problems, previous studies, the contribution of current research and also to which SDGs the research contributes and which would be the potential beneficiaries. It is necessary to include more bibliography in order to strengthen this section.
Respons 1: We have revised the Introduction to emphasize the importance of the research topic, highlight current problems, and clarify the contributions of this study. Specifically, we have:
- Expanded the discussion on the linkage between fine dust and climate change, supported by additional references (Section 1.1.).
- Incorporated recent studies to provide a stronger theoretical foundation about NbS and landscape architecture (Section 1.2.).
- Explicitly aligned the research with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 11, 13, and 15, highlighting the potential beneficiaries such as policymakers, urban planners, academic researchers, and local communities (Section 1.3.).
We have included several new references to strengthen the Introduction, ensuring it reflects the latest developments in the field and provides a robust foundation for the study.
Comment 2: Research Framework
A section on materials and methods needs to be implemented on a mandatory basis. This section is of utmost importance for the replication of the study. Include it and divide it into sections depending on the objectives of the research.
Respons 2: Thank you for your detailed feedback, which has been instrumental in improving our manuscript. Below, we address your comments regarding the inclusion of a "Materials and Methods" section:
- Addition of the "Materials and Methods" Section: In response to your suggestion, we have restructured the original "Research Framework" section into "Materials and Methods" to provide a clearer explanation of the study's design and methodology. This new section includes a comprehensive description of the data collection process and the methods used to develop and evaluate the proposed Nature-based Landscape Process (NLP) framework.
- Detailed Explanation of the Research Approach: We have elaborated on the systematic review conducted to synthesize the seven key steps of the NLP framework. This explanation, now included in 2.1 Research Design Overview and 2.2 Data Collection, outlines how peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, and best practices informed the framework's development.
- Removal of Figure 1: To improve the overall clarity and conciseness of the manuscript, Figure 1 was removed during the reorganization of the manuscript structure. The contents previously depicted in Figure 1 have been integrated into the textual explanations within the "Materials and Methods" section to ensure all relevant details are included.
Comment 3: L261: Table 1
Please correct the citation form used and base it on MDPI's previously established standards.
Respons 3: Thank you for your confirmation. I have revised the reference format. (L327)
Comment 4: Discussion
I have made a thorough review of this section and have not been able to find any inclusion of bibliographies. It is important that comparisons with research are made in this section, in order to highlight the achievements of the study. In addition, in this section the authors should divide the section according to the objectives to make it easier to understand.
Respons 4: Thank you for your constructive feedback. The Discussion section has been reorganized according to the objectives outlined in the study. Each subsection now directly addresses one of the key aspects of the research. This structure improves clarity and ensures that each objective is thoroughly examined. We have incorporated additional references to support the analysis and to compare our findings with existing research. Please refer to the ‘5. Discussion’ in the manuscript revised (L635-822).
Comment 5: References
It is important to complete the information in the references, each manuscript must have: DOI, Number, Volume, Pages. If I use a page as a source, include the link and the date of access.
Respons 5: Thank you for your detailed check. We have improved the format of the references. (L929-1144).
We sincerely appreciate your constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and depth of our manuscript. Should you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be happy to address them.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read this article with great interest. It is vital for creative and project-oriented disciplines to integrate scientific methods into their approaches to real-world problems, and I believe this research achieves that effectively. However, some specific revisions are necessary to enhance how the new knowledge produced by this article is communicated. Specifically:
-
Review whether the model in Figure 2 is effectively addressed. This entails discussing its scope dialectically to either generate a new diagram or validate the one proposed.
-
The discussion section does not engage with the reviewed literature, missing the opportunity to build on an excellent initial analysis. This aspect needs to be explored further to enhance the research's scope and foster a scientific dialogue with other sources.
-
It is recommended to adopt dialectical methods: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This approach is suggested primarily to improve clarity in how the proposal evolved, which clearly follows a dialectical logic of interaction between theory and practice, imagination and action, and methodological frameworks and theoretical results.
The suggested changes do not undermine the findings or methodological applications but rather focus on how the applied methodological strategy is presented and communicated to ensure it is replicable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine the paper and enhance its quality. Below, we outline how we have addressed your suggestions:
Comment 1: Review whether the model in Figure 2 is effectively addressed. This entails discussing its scope dialectically to either generate a new diagram or validate the one proposed.
Respons 1: Thank you for your comment. Following your suggestion, we added on more discussion of the result of this study. Please refer to the ‘5. Discussion’ in the manuscript revised (L635-822).
Comment 2: The discussion section does not engage with the reviewed literature, missing the opportunity to build on an excellent initial analysis. This aspect needs to be explored further to enhance the research's scope and foster a scientific dialogue with other sources.
It is recommended to adopt dialectical methods: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This approach is suggested primarily to improve clarity in how the proposal evolved, which clearly follows a dialectical logic of interaction between theory and practice, imagination and action, and methodological frameworks and theoretical results.
Respons 2: We appreciate your detailed feedback and suggestions for improving the Discussion section. We have integrated more citations and comparisons with existing studies to establish a stronger connection between our analysis and the broader body of research. This engagement emphasizes the novelty and contributions of our proposed NLP while situating it within the context of current academic and practical discourse.
Following your recommendation, we have adopted a thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure in the discussion. The analysis highlights the strengths and limitations of the traditional landscape architecture and NbS processes (thesis and antithesis) and demonstrates how the NLP integrates these elements to provide a more comprehensive solution (synthesis). This approach clarifies the evolution of the NLP framework and its interaction with theory and practice. (L635-822).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the integration of landscape architecture processes with Nature-based Solutions (NbS) to improve urban environments was explored, taking Dongmyeong Elementary School Fine Dust Mitigation Forest Project as a case study. Through the stages of the Nature-based Landscape Process (NLP) process highlights several key limitations and gaps that have not been adequately addressed in traditional landscape processes. However, the novelty of the study is absent. There are some major and minor flaws which need to be addressed by the authors.
Major comments:
1.There are many existing studies focus on the fine dust mitigation by forest. However, the research gaps and the importance of the study are not clear, especially the relation between the landscape and nature-based solutions.
2. The Figure 1. Research framework not described clearly. Case study is not an application of the Nature-based landscape process? By what method did the authors summarize the seven key steps of nature-based landscape processes?
3. The descriptions of "2.1 Landscape Architecture process" and "2.2 Nature-based Solution Process" section is redundant.
4. How the case study corresponds to the " Figure 2. Suggestion for the Nature-based Landscape Process NLP"?
5.The "4. Discussion" and "5. Results" section is redundant.
Minor comments:
1, Figure 6 lack of ordinate units. Table 2, some symbols are not clear.
2. The format for some reference is messy.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the manuscript. Below is a summary of the revisions made in response to your feedback:
Comment 1: There are many existing studies focus on the fine dust mitigation by forest. However, the research gaps and the importance of the study are not clear, especially the relation between the landscape and nature-based solutions.
Respons 1: Clarifying Research Gaps and Importance
We have revised the Introduction to better articulate the research gaps and the significance of integrating Nature-based Solutions (NbS) with landscape architecture(section 1.4). The revised sectionemphasizes the importance of this study in addressing the intertwined challenges of fine dust pollution and climate change(1.1.~1.3.). (L30-166).
Comment 2: The Figure 1. Research framework not described clearly. Case study is not an application of the Nature-based landscape process? By what method did the authors summarize the seven key steps of nature-based landscape processes?
Respons 2: Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which have provided valuable guidance for refining our manuscript. Below, we address your concerns regarding the explanation of the research framework and methodology:
- Clarification of the Seven Key Steps in the NLP Framework: In response to your question about how the seven key steps of the Nature-based Landscape Process (NLP) were summarized, we have provided a detailed explanation in 2.1 Research Design Overview and 2.2 Data Collection. Specifically, we clarified that these steps were synthesized through a systematic review of existing NbS principles and landscape architecture frameworks, using insights from peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, and practical case studies.
- Detailed Explanation of the Data Collection Process: The revised "Materials and Methods" section includes an expanded explanation of the data collection methods. This includes details on the design documents, field surveys, and meetings with stakeholders that informed the analysis of the fine dust reduction forest project. This ensures that the methodological foundation of the study is robust and transparent.
- Removal of Figure 1: To streamline the manuscript and avoid redundancy, Figure 1 was removed. The information it contained has been incorporated into the textual descriptions in the "Materials and Methods" section to ensure the clarity of the study's structure and methodology.
Comment 3: The descriptions of "2.1 Landscape Architecture process" and "2.2 Nature-based Solution Process" section is redundant.
Respons 3: Thank you for your comment. The part covers similar content, but the details are slightly different. We have supplemented the manuscript and rewritten it so that this part can be seen clearly. (L222-377).
Comment 4: How the case study corresponds to the " Figure 2. Suggestion for the Nature-based Landscape Process NLP"?
Respons 4: Thank you for your comment. The case study is inconsistent with Figure 2. Our paper is about the necessity and importance of NLP. Therefore, the case is to explain the case implemented with a general landscape process, and this case was reinterpreted by applying NLP. In other words, when analyzing the existing case with NLP, it is argued that the landscape process and NbS should be applied together through identified problems and limitations, that is, NLP should be applied. The discussion part has been rewritten so that this part can be well explained. (L635-822).
Comment 5: The "4. Discussion" and "5. Results" section is redundant.
Respons 5: Thank you for your comment. We accepted your comment and developed the discussion further in the manuscript (L635-840).
Minor comments 1: Figure 6 lack of ordinate units. Table 2, some symbols are not clear.
Minor Respons: Thank you for your comment. We corrected errors in some symbols and figures in Table 2. And, In case of Figure 6, we added units within the figure based on your comment.
We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has allowed us to improve both the conceptual clarity and practical relevance of the manuscript. If there are any remaining concerns or further suggestions, we would be more than happy to address them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary
This study, reported in the paper, aimed to assess the difference that landscape architecture could contribute to fine dust reduction in an urban environment. To do this the authors chose a primary school in Seoul, South Korea and planted an area of just over 80 m2 with dust absorbing plants and monitored changes in dust, temperature and humidity, having established a base line by recording these prior to the planting. The study found a small improvement in most of the parameters and based on this, proposed a Framework for Sustainable and Precise Landscape Processes.
Assessment
It is difficult to be positive about this study. By their own admission, the study failed (Section 4 Discussion):
· To define the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders.
· To establish the potential effects of environmental changes and mitigation measures.
· To consider the economic and environmental feasibilities of the scenarios.
· To conduct permit management and regulatory compliance reviews, resulting in an unsustainable plan.
· To reflect the opinions of the local community.
The area of vegetation studied was 82.6 m2, a miniscule area, at a staggering cost of US$108,300 or over $1300/m2. The selection of plants and their dust suppression qualities was a highlight of the paper. While the paper included a graph of change in dust suppression, before and after planting, no analysis was provided. The overall impact of the planting is shown by the following table based on the supplementary data supplied.
|
Prior to planting |
After planting |
Difference |
% |
|
|
PM10 |
31.89 |
35.26 |
3.37 |
10.57 |
|
PM2.5 |
20.65 |
23.21 |
2.56 |
12.41 |
|
Temperature |
16.23 |
16.37 |
0.14 |
0.85 |
|
Humidity |
60.81 |
58.33 |
-2.48 |
-4.08 |
Section 2 which describes the Nature-based Landscape Process has a great deal of repetition and is long-winded in the extreme. It does not need to be nearly 7 pages long. Substantial condensation of this section is suggested.
Although the abstract stated that the study derived a Framework for Sustainable and Precise Landscape Processes, this was not identified in the text.
A strength of the paper is its identification of suitable plants to reduce dust in the ambient environment, and also its focus on Nature Based Solutions. However, these are outweighed by its many deficiencies some of which are outlined above. The method followed was sound, well explained and included control measurements of the parameters. The study would be reproducible and the authors state that the data is available. The analysis of the changes that occurred was poor. It would be difficult to derive policy recommendations from the study and none were provided.
The authors stated no conflict of interest. The Figures and Tables are clear and adequate and it was useful to include a photograph of the planting and the adjacent Gymnasium. The English is quite satisfactory. All but two of the 58 references are post-2000 and most are from the past decade. Self-citation is not an issue.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine the paper and enhance its quality. Below, we outline how we have addressed your suggestions:
Comment 1: The area of vegetation studied was 82.6 m2, a miniscule area, at a staggering cost of US$108,300 or over $1300/m2. The selection of plants and their dust suppression qualities was a highlight of the paper. While the paper included a graph of change in dust suppression, before and after planting, no analysis was provided. The overall impact of the planting is shown by the following table based on the supplementary data supplied.
Respons 1: Thank you for your comments. Based on your comments, we have revised Figure 6 and added Table 3. According to the table you provided, the average fine dust level was shown for the entire period before and after planting. However, we decided that it was not appropriate to compare the overall fine dust average from 2019 to 2021. We analyzed how much the fine dust level decreased in the experimental group compared to the control group at a specific point in time. In the process, we tried to refer to the table method you provided as much as possible. The content analyzing the figure and table is written in the following lines 619-634; “As shown in Figure 6, ~ These results are shown in Table 3.”
Comment 2: Section 2 which describes the Nature-based Landscape Process has a great deal of repetition and is long-winded in the extreme. It does not need to be nearly 7 pages long. Substantial condensation of this section is suggested.
Respons 2: Thank you for your feedback. Based on your feedback, we have reduced the volume of the chapter by about 2 pages by excluding unnecessary parts. However, the main research direction of this study is to present the Nature-based Landscape Process (NLP). Therefore, rather than deleting the content unconditionally, we decided that the necessary content is important for the process in which the process is presented. Please consider that we have deleted unnecessary parts by reflecting your feedback as much as possible.
Comment 3: Abstact - Although the abstract stated that the study derived a Framework for Sustainable and Precise Landscape Processes, this was not identified in the text.
Respons 3: Abstract revision and clarifications in the main text
In response to your observation, we have revised the abstract to more accurately reflect the scope and contribution of our study. Specifically, the abstract now emphasizes the Nature-based Landscape Process (NLP) as a synthesis of the strengths and weaknesses of NbS and landscape architecture processes, rather than presenting a completely new framework. The revised abstract ensures alignment with the main text and avoids overstating the contributions of the study. Also, we have rewritten the abstract to adhere to the journal’s structured abstract guidelines(L 14-26).
The manuscript has been updated to clearly describe how the NLP was derived through a comprehensive analysis of NbS and landscape architecture processes. Relevant details have been incorporated in 1.4 Research Objectives and 2. Materials and Methods, ensuring transparency in the development of the NLP and its application in the case study.
Comment 4: A strength of the paper is its identification of suitable plants to reduce dust in the ambient environment, and also its focus on Nature Based Solutions. However, these are outweighed by its many deficiencies some of which are outlined above. The method followed was sound, well explained and included control measurements of the parameters. The study would be reproducible and the authors state that the data is available. The analysis of the changes that occurred was poor. It would be difficult to derive policy recommendations from the study and none were provided.
Respons 4: Thank you for your comments. We have presented an analysis of the changes in fine dust reduction after planting, and the time points when significant changes occurred. The additional analysis content is the same as what was presented in the process of modifying Figure 6 and adding Table 3 that you mentioned earlier.
We believe these changes address your concerns and enhance the consistency and clarity of the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our work.
We sincerely appreciate your constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and depth of our manuscript. Should you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be happy to address them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors.
Thank you very much for addressing each of my observations. I believe that the manuscript in its current state meets all the necessary scientific standards for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine the paper and enhance its quality.
Comment 1:
Thank you very much for addressing each of my observations. I believe that the manuscript in its current state meets all the necessary scientific standards for publication.
Respons 1:
We would like to thank you for the thoughtful guidance. We are really grateful for the detailed comments and excellent suggestions we have received and these made a much better paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been well revised, the research topics are more prominent, and the nature-based landscape processes have been presented in detail. However,
1. The discussion could be simplified appropriately.
2. The order of the graphs needs to be readjusted.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine the paper and enhance its quality.
Comment 1:
The manuscript has been well revised, the research topics are more prominent, and the nature-based landscape processes have been presented in detail. However,
- The discussion could be simplified appropriately.
Respons 1:
We would like to thank you for the thoughtful guidance. We are really grateful for the detailed comments and excellent suggestions we have received and these made a much better paper. We have tried to simplify the discussion appropriately. (L575-757).
Comment 2:
- The order of the graphs needs to be readjusted.
Respons 2:
Thank you for your comment. We readjusted the order of graphs, body, and table. If there is anything we missed, please let us know and we will revise it again. Thank you. (L562-574).
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised paper has included a new section, 2. Materials and methods, and has greatly expanded section 3. Nature-based Landscape Process. These two sections take nearly 10 pages and would benefit from reducing their detail. Figure 6 has been changed from a line graph to columns which is an improvement. Table 3 provides new analysis of the results which overcomes the lack of analysis in the original paper. Section 5, Discussion, is greatly expanded and two new sub-sections added, 5.2 and 5.3 which are worthwhile additions. The Conclusions has been shortened by removing the first two paragraphs which discussed the projects limitations and failures. These are discussed earlier.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine the paper and enhance its quality.
Comment 1:
The revised paper has included a new section, 2. Materials and methods, and has greatly expanded section 3. Nature-based Landscape Process. These two sections take nearly 10 pages and would benefit from reducing their detail. Figure 6 has been changed from a line graph to columns which is an improvement. Table 3 provides new analysis of the results which overcomes the lack of analysis in the original paper. Section 5, Discussion, is greatly expanded and two new sub-sections added, 5.2 and 5.3 which are worthwhile additions. The Conclusions has been shortened by removing the first two paragraphs which discussed the projects limitations and failures. These are discussed earlier.
Respons 1:
We would like to thank you for the thoughtful guidance. We have summarized the sentences in Section 3. Nature-based Landscape Process. (L221-370). We are really grateful for the detailed comments and excellent suggestions we have received and these made a much better paper.
