Urban Resilience and Residential Greenery—The Evidence from Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have some comments on a paper titled “Urban resilience and residential greenery – the evidence from Poland”. Although the paper topic is interesting, and this paper has a potential to contribute to the literature, some minor revisions are required to strengthen the paper’s content.

1. Because NDVI is a key metric to measure, you should elaborate on the method section, such as how you measure NDVI, how we know the results of NDVI is valid/applicable to use, and so on.

2. Next, you should include/supplement the limitation section in the updated version. This is an important point and you should address it. 

3. You should also elaborate/highlight your work's contribution to the literature and practices in the Discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article tackles an exciting topic about Poland's change in green areas during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary goal of this research is to provide insight into residential green areas in Wroclaw, Poland, in terms of knowledge, investment, trends, and associated challenges during lockdown and pandemic spread. I consider this manuscript is well structured and well-written. I have some issues that need to be revised for a better version of this manuscript. 

1- The abstract needs minor modifications, mentioning an abbreviation such as NDVI that is unfamiliar to all readerships. Is it the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)? Sentences describing the present research's main findings should be added rather than showing the results. Extending the sentence on Page 1, Lines 31–21, offers how Wrocław can utilize urban resilience. 

2- The discussion is well written, describing the main findings and linking the present results to previous studies. However, I would prefer to address the limitations of this research. These limitations will open future directions of research that are missing in the conclusion section. 

3- In the discussion section, I recommend adding sentences about your deductive argument about how the results will affect sustainability and its goals. 

4- Conclusion, please check my comment on the previous point. 

5- I have a significant issue related to the impact of COVID-19 on the suggested resilience approach. I can recognize this impact on the literature review; however, the results tackle only the ordinary cases of cities. Reflecting tor linking COVID-19 to results is highly recommended. 

I noticed that the recommendation liked the previous studies. But, not the case with COVID-19. I would also recommend linking your results with recent studies that tackle what should today's cities should be after the pandemic. Here, I can suggest the following articles that might help in such linking:

https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-05-2021-0133     

https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1780074

https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610303

Best,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf