Reflecting on Green Infrastructure and Spatial Planning in Africa: The Complexities, Perceptions, and Way Forward

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper "Reflecting on Green Infrastructure and spatial planning in Africa: The complexities, perceptions and way forward" addresses an important topic not just for Africa. The perception of many countries - yet - on green infrastructure is poor and duplicitous. 

Considering the diversity of studies included in this paper,  the results provide various perspectives on this subject.

In general, the work is well structured, the results support the conclusions - but I have a few small observations:

- the structure of the work may mislead the reader: I recommend structuring this work following the main chapters of a research paper: introduction, research methods, results and conclusions;

- Table 1. Selected studies and methodologies informing this research. - please rearrange the table;

- review the work in terms of presentation: tables, arrangement of figures and titles in the page, punctuation, etc.

A very interesting and complex work, a topical subject - but it requires a restructuring so that the methods, results and conclusions can be easily perceived and obvious.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments. It has been addressed and included with track changes in the revised manuscript.

The revisions included:

1) Renaming of headings according to proposed format

2) Re-arrangement of Table 1 to fit paper layout

3) Revision of Figure/Table numbers 

4) More descriptive background included on the (South) African context and cultural/social context that influence the perceptions on Green Infrastructure

5) Description of safety and cultural issues (line 468)

6) Better correlation between findings and conclusions

7) Summary/conclusion section added at the end of the paper

8) Minor language/grammar revised

Thank you for your time and willingness to consider this research. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Specific comments

1.       For foreign readers  it would  be important to know more about the specific characteristics of South African cities and villagies. If the typical social and cultural urban and rural features and their spatial distribution are not described there are not enough background for author’s meta analysis. For example  “safety and culture as primary denominators” (lines 468-469) should be depict:  findings from the part (4) don’t entitle to conclusions from the part (7.2.).

2.       More detailed recommendations for the thematically structured issues should be given in the part of (7).

3.       The part (7) has a role of the article conclusions but without enough synthesis. It would be need to add an overall summary with general conclusions to coherence achieving.

4.       The South African contribution to academic discourse should be defined clearly by (for example) the identification of perception factors regarding the proximity and compensation principles or social, economic and ecological benefits of GI in the South African conditions.

5.       There are some terms in the lines 509-511 that were not discussed earlier. It should be improved.

6.       There are some errors in the numbering: in the line 101 – the correct number is 5 instead of 4; in the line 320 – the correct table number is 4.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments. It has been addressed and included with track changes in the revised manuscript.

The revisions included:

1) Renaming of headings according to proposed format

2) Re-arrangement of Table 1 to fit paper layout

3) Revision of Figure/Table numbers 

4) More descriptive background included on the (South) African context and cultural/social context that influence the perceptions on Green Infrastructure

5) Description of safety and cultural issues (line 468)

6) Better correlation between findings and conclusions

7) Summary/conclusion section added at the end of the paper

8) Minor language/grammar revised

Thank you for your time and willingness to consider this research. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc