Urban Greenways: A Systematic Review and Typology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study has potential. However, there is a need to find a main focus in the paper. 

The concept of greenways needs a definition. It might be that the first sentence (line 28-31) was intended as a definition, but it seems that the definition in that case was combined with a description of common features of greenways (like connecting neighborhoods). It is important to use, or search for, a clear definition to be able to explore the concept. 

I can think of many reasons to do a review of greenways, but I woulden't choose to justify my review with the lack of previous reviews. It would be a useful guide for the reader and the authors if the need for this review could be expressed. 

In addition to the the need (or importance) of this review, there should be a research question that links the different parts of the study - and is answered in the conclusion. This question should also be used in the reading of the selected papers.

The choice of Boston as case study needs to be justified. The most obvious justification would be to explain how and in which context Boston is a site of seminal greenway projects. Is it in an North American context och another context? Is in the context of the period after the late 19th century or something else? Who could learn more from seminal projects in Boston? Who is it important for and why? Why is it important to include a case study of Boston in a review?

I think that this review can develop into an interesting paper - with revisions.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see responses to reviewer comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a fairly informative paper on urban greenways literature. I have two major points for the authors to consider for improving: 

I feel the case of Boston and the literature synthesis are disjoined. I suggest the authors put the case after the literature synthesis, and establish some intellectual dialogues between them, for example, through showing how the Boston case illuminates certain results, eg., thematic patterns, from the literature. In the current shape, they seem to be imposed together to make an article. Or an alternative thought: simply remove the Boston case study.  The literature synthesis is simply descriptive. I suggest the authors significantly expand and deepen the category of 'research themes', and make it the major part of this paper, which should be the most important contribution of this paper. Research themes identify what has been done, and what needs to be done--readers expect these from a literature synthesis. 

I hope these help, and look forward to the paper's improvement. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see responses to reviewer comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

The manuscript is in general well written concise and clear. It effectively communicates its message. 

The abstract adequately represents the manuscript.

The introduction clearly provides the rationale for the study.

The overall design of the study is adequate to address the goals. Methods, both data collection and data processing are suitable and appropriately described. Like the results.

The authors seem to have performed a good review of the pertinent literature.

Detailed description:

line 118 - improve the quality of the image 

line 284 - improve the quality of the image 

Addendum 1 need improved, we can´t read the last row of the first page.

 

Author Response

Please see responses to reviewer comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf