Assessment of Urban Green Space Based on Bio-Energy Landscape Connectivity: A Case Study on Tongzhou District in Beijing, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper develops an analysis useful to assess the urban green space in the case study area. The authors base the elaborations on land use data and environmental parameters. The Bio-Energy and its fluxes, landscape connectivity, as well as related Ecosystems Services are estimated using a novel approach, PANDORA model.

In my opinion, the paper is interesting and is also easy to read. However, it can be improved with reference to three aspects:

why do the authors adopt the illustrated methodology? Are there also other possible approaches? In this regard, clarifications are required; the issue examined in the article has multiple effects, of a social, cultural, environmental and economic nature. This opens up to the topic of multicriteria analysis, with respect to which I believe it is appropriate to give at least one reminder in the introductory part, which appears too brief; the bibliography is modest and must be integrated. In particular, I suggest integrating the bibliography with regard to the broad issue of multi-criteria evaluations. I suggest reading and considering for references:

Nesticò A., Sica F., The sustainability of urban renewal projects: a model for economic multi-criteria analysis. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 397-409, 2017, doi: 10.1108/JPIF-01-2017-0003. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.   

Nesticò A., Guarini M.R., Morano P., Sica F., An Economic Analysis Algorithm for Urban Forestry Projects. Sustainability 2019, 11(2):314; doi:10.3390/su11020314. MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an interesting case study, but this is currently its only merit. The discussions and conclusions are insufficiently developed and inappropriate for the international research audience of "Sustainability". Moreover, there are conceptual errors, the organization of the manuscript is incorrect and, most important, the level of the English language is not compatible with an international journal.

There are some conceptual errors. Abstract (line 12) and introduction (line 40) state that "Green space is one of the key components of urban ES". This is not correct. Green space is not a component of the urban ecosystem services, but of the urban green infrastructure, which provides urban ecosystem services.

The organization of the manuscript is not correct and hinders its readability. Lines 54-62 of the introduction refer to the study area; this does not belong to the introduction, but to the methods. It should be integrated with lines 68-72.

The discussion of the results is insufficient. The purposes of the discussions are (1) to show whether the results indicate that the scientific goals (lines 63-65) were achieved or not; (2) to compare the findings with those of similar studies (this is done only partially); to draw a take-home message for the international readers of "Sustainability", interested in the advancement of research. Currently, the discussion is suitable for the authorities of the Tongzhou District in Beijing. The discussion should be able to answer questions like: What lesson should learn a researcher from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil about the greening of his/her city? For someone not familiar with PANDORA, what does it mean that the "winners" are scenarios B and C?

The conclusions fail to deliver a clear take-home message for the international audience. They are more of a summary of the paper than real conclusions.

The authors should seek for the assistance of a native English speaker, especially for the use of articles (definite/indefinite) and capitalization. For example, the first line of the abstract (line 12): "Green space" instead of "the green space"; "Ecosystem Services" instead of "ecosystem services".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments were properly and fully addressed and, consequently, the research depth increased, and the manuscript addresses now a broader audience.