Refined Wilding and Urban Forests: Conceptual Guidance for a More Significant Urban Green Space Type
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript reviews the conceptual development and functional evaluation of urban forests, with a particular focus on the introduction of the "Refined Wilding" framework as a guide for enhancing urban green space quality. The findings have potential implications for sustainable urban planning and biodiversity-oriented landscape design.However, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, major revision is required before this manuscript can be considered for publication.
1. Please standardize the reference format.
2. Lines 406–463: The formatting here is a bit confusing; I suggest the author use third-level subheadings.
3. The article lacks a research methodology section; the author should include a systematic explanation of the literature review method to ensure the reproducibility of the results.
4. Please add information on the time frame of literature selection, database sources, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
5. The text on the x-axis of Figure 3 is too small and difficult to read. Additionally, what were the selection criteria for the indicators shown in this figure? Simply stating that they were obtained through searches is insufficient.
6. What causes the inconsistency in the definition of "Urban Forest"? I suggest the author discuss this further, such as the potential influence of differing national policies.
7. The discussion on Future Directions is too vague; I recommend the author propose more actionable and prioritized research directions.
8. The conclusion section must be revised, as it does not address the core questions raised in the introduction.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, they have improved the manuscript.
Revisions are highlighted in blue.
1. Please standardize the reference format.
References are all numbered in text.
2. Lines 406–463: The formatting here is a bit confusing; I suggest the author use third-level subheadings.
Third level subheading and bolded headings are added.
3. The article lacks a research methodology section; the author should include a systematic explanation of the literature review method to ensure the reproducibility of the results.
A methodology section is added which better explains the literature review as four uses of search term results.
4. Please add information on the time frame of literature selection, database sources, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
The time from of the literature selection by date of publication is explained as non specified. The data sources and inclusion and exclusion criteria are also added.
5. The text on the x-axis of Figure 3 is too small and difficult to read. Additionally, what were the selection criteria for the indicators shown in this figure? Simply stating that they were obtained through searches is insufficient.
The size of the graph has been increased. The comments about figure 3 can be further addressed in typesetting with graph resolutions. It should be presented as a separate file.
6. What causes the inconsistency in the definition of "Urban Forest"? I suggest the author discuss this further, such as the potential influence of differing national policies.
The inconsistency in definition of urban forest is discussed in the discussion subsection. A reference that overviews different national policy is added. The conclusion also overviews different definitions, as answers to hypothesis and study questions.
7. The discussion on Future Directions is too vague; I recommend the author propose more actionable and prioritized research directions.
Future directions are formatted to implementation and guiding implementation subheadings. They are more specific, and connect to the findings and discussion.
8. The conclusion section must be revised, as it does not address the core questions raised in the introduction.
The conclusion addresses key findings and how they address key research questions and hypotheses. The hypotheses for the article are in introduction and methodology.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy detailed comments, critiques, and suggestions for revision are provided below:
Comments and Suggestions:
1. More explicitly discuss how "refined wilding" and "ESHR" offer a unique and valuable contribution beyond simply identifying existing quality measures. Provide concrete examples from the literature that illustrate this added value.
2. Provide a clear, detailed, and reproducible methodology for article selection, including the number of pages reviewed, specific inclusion/exclusion criteria, and how duplicates were handled.
3. Crucially, revise or remove the statement regarding "random selection by first displaying search results" if it implies a truly random sampling that was not performed, or clarify it as a qualitative approach, with a discussion of the associated limitations.
4. Detail the process of data extraction and how "quality measures" were identified and categorized from the reviewed articles.
5. Elaborate on the methodology for comparing the findings with the "refined wilding" concept.
6. Ensure that the conclusions are directly and supported by the evidence presented in the results section, avoiding overgeneralizations.
7. Provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the data presented in the tables and figures. Explain the significance of the trends observed in search results.
8. Integrate the limitations more thoroughly into the discussion and conclusions, acknowledging how they might influence the findings.
9. Make "Future Directions" more specific and actionable, directly linking them to the identified gaps and how the "refined wilding" concept can specifically guide these future endeavors.
Author Response
Revisions are highlighted in green. Thank you for your comments, they have improved proved the manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions:
1. More explicitly discuss how "refined wilding" and "ESHR" offer a unique and valuable contribution beyond simply identifying existing quality measures. Provide concrete examples from the literature that illustrate this added value.
Refined wilding has been included in a 1.2 subsection which is different to the 1.4 subsection. It introduces the concept, and initial novel ideas introduced with it. Future directions also bring novel ideas from refined wilding together with findings from the article.
2. Provide a clear, detailed, and reproducible methodology for article selection, including the number of pages reviewed, specific inclusion/exclusion criteria, and how duplicates were handled.
The methodology has been further explained as a four use of a literature search and review.
3. Crucially, revise or remove the statement regarding "random selection by first displaying search results" if it implies a truly random sampling that was not performed, or clarify it as a qualitative approach, with a discussion of the associated limitations.
This statement is revised, and the methodology better explained. As a literature review it is a qualitative method with findings presented quantitatively.
4. Detail the process of data extraction and how "quality measures" were identified and categorized from the reviewed articles.
The process of data extraction is added to literature review, and analysis of findings for each of the four uses or methods for organising the literature review.
5. Elaborate on the methodology for comparing the findings with the "refined wilding" concept.
The comparison with refined wilding is elaborated on in subsections 1.2, 1.4, written findings, and future directions.
6. Ensure that the conclusions are directly and supported by the evidence presented in the results section, avoiding over generalisation.
the conclusions now more directly address research questions and hypotheses. How refined wilding is relevant to urban forest definitions and metrics is in the last paragraphs of the conclusion.
7. Provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the data presented in the tables and figures. Explain the significance of the trends observed in search results.
Trends are not as identifiable from findings. There are some minor trends from definitional development and indicators of quality that are discussed with refined wilding relevance in 3.6.
8. Integrate the limitations more thoroughly into the discussion and conclusions, acknowledging how they might influence the findings.
The discussion and conclusion accurately state findings, without overstating, and provide recommendations and future directions. Limitations included in the limitations subsection, and in the literature review.
9. Make "Future Directions" more specific and actionable, directly linking them to the identified gaps and how the "refined wilding" concept can specifically guide these future directions.
Future directions are more specific to findings, and guide how refined wilding encourages specific defining, combined metrics, and recognises the value of advanced and different metrics.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
The revision seems properly addressed my recommendations. I have no further suggestions, and the paper can be considered for publishing.
With best regards
The reviewer
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSignificant improvements have been made in this revised manuscript. The authors have effectively addressed all the concerns raised in the previous round of reviews. The clarity and presentation have been greatly enhanced.
