High-Performance Landscapes: Re-Thinking Design and Management Choices to Enhance Ecological Benefits in Urban Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article asks “How can real-world urban landscapes be designed to provide benefits across multiple environmental and social outcomes? This is a topic of interest to a wide range of readers, and relevant to urban planners, landscape architects, and other types of practitioners.

The authors evaluate performance of 40 small research plots (ranging from 105-325 square feet) at two sites in Fort Worth, Texas planted with different plant designs and palettes, after one year. The manuscript is well-organized and well-written, and I believe merits publication. However, a number of improvements need to be made first.

To start with, the manuscript presents very little systematic literature review. Who has done similar studies before, and what have they found? What theories, especially related to landscape ecology but also visual preference, relate to the study? What specific “gaps in past research and practice” (line 84) exist? Some general background is provided in the Introduction, but such questions should be more specifically addressed in a Background section or elsewhere.

The small scale of the landscapes in question needs to be made clear from the start. Phrases such as “urban environments,” “urban landscapes,” and “designed landscapes,” in addition to references to “urban sustainability,” imply a broad scale. Indeed, that’s why I agreed to review this manuscript. But the test plots are very small. In addition, the experimental design includes only low plants. Trees are not part of the design, nor large shrubs. Building form, surface materials, and hydrology do not enter into the picture. Yet all of these are important parts of "urban landscape design." So it would be best if the article referred to “small-scale planted landscapes” throughout and in the title, since “urban landscapes” is seriously misleading. 

The authors seem to be aiming at a holistic approach, but then limiting themselves to a limited design palette and a limited number of variables for practical reasons. These limitations should be made clear, along with the fact that real-world sustainable design of such sites would include trees, shrubs, and onsite drainage. For example, many jurisdictions these days are mandating that trees be planted in parking lot endcaps and other small strips for shading and climate adaptation purposes. Ok, trees would take decades to mature, so wouldn’t fit this study design. But the authors need to mention  the limitations of their approach and put it more firmly into the big picture.

The phrase “urban wildlife” comes up occasionally, but the study appears to have focused only on pollinators, not the many other possible kinds of wildlife. Again, the language should be more precise and reflect that.

The method includes many relatively sophisticated quantitative metrics. I am not a quantitative person myself, so will leave review of those to others. However, it is not clear to me why these are needed, rather than fairly simple descriptive statistics. In the Results and Discussion, I would suggest additional discussion of any assumptions or circumstances that may affect model results. For example, fuel-powered equipment use during maintenance may be strongly affected by specific species chosen or specific maintence routines. Hearing about the tradeoffs around these choices would be far more useful to practitioners than model numbers, which of course will be highly influenced by those details. 

I suggest that the Discussion and Conclusion be revised to more clearly state findings in ways that would be useful to practitioners, and to clarify the scale at which this study is and isn’t useful. As it is, key findings don't jump out for busy readers.

Overall this is a solid and potentially very useful manuscript, reflecting extensive work by a team with diverse specialties. But it needs careful reframing to deal with the above points and to spell out overall implications.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The interesting and well-written article.
It focuses on a perhaps somewhat neglected but important part of urban vegetation and its role and perception by the inhabitants.

The structure fully meets the requirements for a scientific article. Balanced chapters focused on their results presented in detail.

Comments:

1. It is necessary to add information on the respondents on whose answers the presented analysis is made.

a) How many fully completed questionnaires were obtained/used?
b) What was the structure of the respondents - in terms of age structure, gender and especially "role (expertise)": ecologist, landscape architect, visitor to the site, resident (permanently living in the immediate area).

2. In the chap. Results I miss any interpretation of the results. Each observed variable is statistically evaluated, and the results are briefly summarized. Still, there is no information on what can be concluded from/ to what practical use such findings can be further used.

A lot of information is then provided by chap. Discussion, but in the Results, the leading information should be given. The text needs to be restructured.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your answers.