Green Infrastructure in the Urban Environment: A Systematic Quantitative Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper does just what the authors say it will: it sets out a results of a quantitative literature review to track the development of research concerning 'green infrastructure,' which reveals gaps in existing knowledge and opportunities for future research. As such, it is a modest but useful contribution to ongoing work in the field. The references list alone is likely to be of real value to people entering into this area of research.
There are a couple of points that could use some attention prior to publication.
There are two instances in which the authors suggest a kind of teleological or even determinist view of progress that is unnecessary, unwarranted, or both.
The first is in casting industrialization as representing "maturation" of the human species, as though the rise of capitalist economies and factory production are not only inevitable but also inevitably good. There are other possible ways to cast recent human history - say, as analogous to an algae bloom. The authors might do well simply to steer clear of the claim and its implications; simply assert that industrialism has happened and that, for better and for worse, we have inherited its legacy and need now to respond to it.
The second is in casting research in "green infrastructure" as being in "a state of infancy", which again assumes an inevitable and quite proper development toward maturity. This is not warranted by the available data, which could well be tracking the rise of a passing intellectual fad that will soon pass, going the way of the "population bomb" literature of the 1960s and 70s. If the authors wish to make the case for advancing research in one or another direction, they should do so on the merits of the research questions, not by tacit appeal to a vision of inevitable progress.
The discussion of location needs to be sorted out. The authors distinguish quite rightly between the location of the authors of papers and the location in which the journal is published, but it's difficult to track which is which in the fine grain of the discussion in several sections. The authors would do well to use different terms for each of these senses of location, and to use the consistently, so it is easier for the reader to follow which is which.
The formatting of Tables 1 and 2 could use some attention; as they appear in the review copy I downloaded, the rows are difficult to distinguish.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. We have attached responses to each of your comments and how we believe we have addressed each item
Kind regards,
Jackie.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors might put more focus on the role of green infrastructure in climate adaptation and resilience.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. We have attached a response to your comment and how we believe we have addressed the item.
Kind regards,
Jackie.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
the paper can be considered a statistical analysis of the works in the field of green infrastructure -
the authors should take into account to improve the methodology by integrating a citation index - relevance of the published work, not only PRISMA and cloud
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. We have attached responses to your comment and how we believe we have addressed the item.
Kind regards,
Jackie.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
