Representative versus Natural Values of Public Open Spaces—A Landscape Approach (Szczecin Case Study)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      The title of the article

I  have two comments about the title:

1)     I am afraid that the use of the term “representativeness” in the title of the article may be misleading. The authors themselves state that it has two meanings (representative and representational), and it seems that they focus more on one (“representativeness versus natural..”).

2)     The only POS analyzed in the article are squares. Therefore, there is no reason to use the general term.

I would suggest rethinking the title. More precise, and referring to the city under analysis (Szczecin case study?), would be desirable.

2.      The structure of the article.

The article is too long and there are unnecessary repetitions in it. It seems that the section 1.1 (context of the study) partially can be included in the literature review (chapter 2) and partially in section 3.1.

I would also suggest to consider  moving the section 1.2 (Research Scope and Objectives) to Chapter 3. (Materials and Methods). It seems premature to present the purpose and general method of the study before describing the problems relevant to embedding the proposed research in the literature

3.      The aim of the article

The aim of the research is presented in a somewhat complicated way, probably resulting from the double meaning of the term "representative". I must admit that I do not really follow the authors’ reasoning. Perhaps it should be more strongly reflected in the method of research.

4.      The research methods:

Overall, the criteria used for assessment are well described. However, I do not understand why, for some of the criteria, the authors did not provide an "instruction manual" , as is the case of "natural layer" assessment.

5.      Results

They are described in a highly inaccessible manner. Extensive descriptions with listing the names of the squares analyzed makes it difficult to focus on the essence of the matter. Instead of descriptions I suggest considering a combination of maps (showing distribution of the studied objects; assessment results marked with different colors or marks ), tables and short summaries, of course, wherever possible

6.      Conclusions

I almost regret that the problem of “representativeness versus natural…”, announced in the title of the article, was not identified in the surveyed sites. This is an interesting and difficult landscape architecture issue to solve. But this is good news for the city of Szczecin and its residents.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you for your positive opinions and critical remarks that helped to improve a manuscript. We have tried to take into consideration all comments to the extent possible.

Point 1.: The title of the article

I  have two comments about the title:

1)     I am afraid that the use of the term “representativeness” in the title of the article may be misleading. The authors themselves state that it has two meanings (representative and representational), and it seems that they focus more on one (“representativeness versus natural.”).

2)     The only POS analyzed in the article are squares. Therefore, there is no reason to use the general term.

I would suggest rethinking the title. More precise, and referring to the city under analysis (Szczecin case study?), would be desirable.

Response 1.:

All comments have been taken into account. The suggested changes were made, except the POS term. We are using POS term for the surveyed objects, because although squares dominate in our study, they do not exhaust the whole list, which also includes two garden squares (No. 1 and 14) and one commons (No. 8). In translation, the terms “garden square” and “commons” were lost and appeared simply as “squares”, which error has been corrected throughout the text.

Point 2.: The structure of the article.

The article is too long and there are unnecessary repetitions in it. It seems that the section 1.1 (context of the study) partially can be included in the literature review (chapter 2) and partially in section 3.1.

I would also suggest to consider  moving the section 1.2 (Research Scope and Objectives) to Chapter 3. (Materials and Methods). It seems premature to present the purpose and general method of the study before describing the problems relevant to embedding the proposed research in the literature.

Response 2.:

For greater coherence and better legibility of the research description, the structure of the article was modified, corresponding to the suggested changes. Also the text has been shorted and repetitions removed. Shortenings were made especially in the subsection: “Context of the study” and in chapter “Results”. The framework of the study was presented more clearly in the modified diagram – Figure 1.

Point 3.: The aim of the article.

The aim of the research is presented in a somewhat complicated way, probably resulting from the double meaning of the term "representative". I must admit that I do not really follow the authors’ reasoning. Perhaps it should be more strongly reflected in the method of research.

Response 3.:

The subsection 2.1. ”Research scope and objectives” was modified within the structure of the whole text.  Besides the term “representational” was exchanged for “representative”. The meaning of the term was clearly explained in mentioned subsection: “Representative means related to representing someone or something, intended for such a function, and also splendid and grandeur. And in the latter meaning it is used in this paper.”

Point 4.: The research methods:

Overall, the criteria used for assessment are well described. However, I do not understand why, for some of the criteria, the authors did not provide an "instruction manual" , as is the case of "natural layer" assessment.

Response 4.:

For better legibility the description of the method has been revised and restructured. In general, the differences arising from the description of the various criteria for evaluating sites are due to the fact that they belong to two groups of research methods: qualitative and quantitative. Therefore, the quantitative ones have quantitative ways of evaluation, which the reviewer called " instruction manual". And the qualitative criteria, which are used to characterize the semantic or aesthetic layers of the landscape use more descriptive characteristics.

Point 5.:   Results

They are described in a highly inaccessible manner. Extensive descriptions with listing the names of the squares analyzed makes it difficult to focus on the essence of the matter. Instead of descriptions I suggest considering a combination of maps (showing distribution of the studied objects; assessment results marked with different colors or marks), tables and short summaries, of course, wherever possible

Response 5.:

The suggested changes were made. The extensive descriptions with listing the names of the squares analyzed have been abbreviated and the full names of objects have been replaced by numbers. The assessment results in the tables have been color-coded for easier understanding. Also the maps summarizing the results and showing the distribution of the studied objects have been added. Assessed POS’s have been marked with three different colors on the maps.

Point 6.:   Conclusions

I almost regret that the problem of “representativeness versus natural…”, announced in the title of the article, was not identified in the surveyed sites. This is an interesting and difficult landscape architecture issue to solve. But this is good news for the city of Szczecin and its residents.

Response 6.:

Thank you, we too were positively surprised by the relatively positive results in terms of the naturalness of the surveyed objects. The fact, that the originally assumed contradiction of features regarding downtown POSs did not necessary to occur, may give us optimism about the future of cities.

Due to the need for major revisions, changes resulting from responses to all reviews and other technical and substantive corrections have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function as we were using MS Word, such that any changes could be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting topic. The article may gain in scientific significance if it is shortened and given more focus on the various parts. The article now mainly consists of a multitude of analytical material from many aspects and layers, covering a large number of POS sites. Can't there be a focus on a few POS-sites, which are treated in more detail as a kind of case studies and where the methodology is also better explained? Much literature is mentioned to bring out the meaning and many aspects of public open spaces. But the treatment of the literature is not critical, even though there are divergent , even contractionary, approaches. Here too, more focus seems necessary. Sometimes references are made to Polish editions in the bibliography. That's not handy. The idea is that certain literature on morphology and typology is lacking, especially the approaches of Muratori, Cannigia, Rossi, Castex/Panerai.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you for your positive opinions and critical remarks that helped to improve the article. We have tried to take into consideration all comments to the extent possible.

As suggested, we shortened the article and concentrated the information. The main changes took place in the chapters 2.2. The Context of the Case Study and 4. Results. Repetitions were removed and attention was focused on the main research problem. Shortening the results of the research certainly affects the greater readability of the results obtained. It does not seem advisable to extend the study with new threads that do not relate to the adopted objectives of the study and preparation of the article. The study included 16 POS objects indicated in the document: Standards of maintenance, protection and development of green areas of the city of Szczecin (Standardy utrzymania, ochrony i rozwoju terenów zieleni miasta Szczecina) (Kubus, M.; Nowak, G.; Urzykowski, P.; Łysko, A. Polish Dendrological Society, Szczecin, 2020, pp. 1 -178.

(http://cdn.um.szczecin.pl/httpfiles/zarzarzenie_140_21.pdf) and 2 POS have been added as control sample.

The methodology has been simplified and clarified more precisely in the chapter 3. Research Methods. We focused on a landscape approach methodology, not a strictly urban one.

In the bibliography, we incorrectly provided Polish titles in the case of 2 original English books plus to 7 papers, which were published both in Polish and English version. Polish editions of books have been replaced by English ones and Polish titles of papers have been also replaced by English, because these papers are edited in English/Polish-language journals.  

Due to the need for major revisions, changes resulting from responses to all reviews and other technical and substantive corrections have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function as we were using MS Word, such that any changes could be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper examines an interesting topic. However, the quality of the paper is unfortunately not high, and thus I have many concerns that should be considered.

More specifically:

·       The abstract does not make a smooth insert to the scope of the paper.

·       Several mistakes are found throughout the manuscript (e.g. “The representativeness of POS is related to representativeness”, etc.).

·       The manuscript lacks a proper introduction. Instead, the manuscript starts with the context of the study.

·       The quality of the embedded figures is very low.

·       A table summarising the values of the criteria described in Section 3.3 is needed.

·       The quality of the written language is poor, making the manuscript difficult to understand. Thus,

·       The methodology should be explicitly described. The different layers described in the methodological section make reference to tables illustrating the results.

·       A figure illustrating the structure of the proposed methodological approach is recommended.

·       Authors, in practice, propose a composite indicator combining individual indicators (layers), which include many parameters. However, the individual indicators are not normalized, thus making a severe conceptual mistake (e.g. in the “current role of POS as the main representative”, parameters in a different scale (0-1, 0-2) are aggregated).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you for your positive opinions and critical remarks that helped to improve the article. We have tried to take into consideration all comments to the extent possible.

Point 1.:

• The abstract does not make a smooth insert to the scope of the paper.
• Several mistakes are found throughout the manuscript (e.g.” The representativeness of POS is related to representativeness” , etc.).
• The manuscript lacks a proper introduction. Instead, the manuscript starts with the context of the study.

Response 1.:

The structure of the article has been modified, corresponding to the suggested changes. The indicated mistakes have been corrected. Also the text has been shorted and repetitions removed. Changing were made especially in the chapters: 1. “Introduction – Research Perspective on Public Realm in Urbanscape” 3. “Research methods” and 4. “Results”, also in subsections: 2.2.“Context of the study” and 4.4. “Interpretation of obtained results”. The framework of the study was presented more clearly in a modified diagram – Figure 1.

Point 2.:

• The quality of the embedded figures is very low.

Response 2.:

The quality of the figures has been checked. The probable cause of the impression of low figure quality is quality deterioration in the PDF or WORD file generating process. Original high-quality figures and high-resolution photos to be included in the manuscript were sent to the publisher (MDPI) in a separate file.

Point 3.:

• A table summarising the value of the criteria described in Section 3.3 is needed.
• The methodology should be explicitly described. The different layers described in the methodological section make reference to tables illustrating the results.
• A figure illustrating the structure of the proposed methodological approach is recommended.

Response 3.:

For better legibility the methodology has been revised and described in a more precise way. From Chapter 3. "Research Methods" references to tables located in the chapter 4. “Results” have been removed, as recommended. The criteria are presented in a more unified way. In a proposed landscape approach, the analysis and evaluation of the studied POS's is divided into separate layers of landscape perception: semiotic, spatial, functional location and natural, which are evaluated in different ways: qualitative - for the first two and quantitative - for the next. This methodological approach was summarized in a scheme – Figure 1. For easier readability the assessment results in the tables have been color-coded. Also the maps summarizing the results and showing the distribution of the studied objects have been added. Analysed POS’s have been marked with three different colors on the maps.

Point 4.:

• The quality of the written language is poor, making the manuscript difficult to understand.

Response 4.:

The text of the manuscript has undergone linguistic correction. Also the terms “ representational” and “representative” have been unified and replaced by term “representative”, to make the manuscript more coherent in meaning.

Point 5.:

• Authors, in practice propose a composite indicator combining individual indicators (layers), which include many parameters. However, the individual indicators are not normalized, thus making a severe conceptual mistake (e.g. in the “current role of POS as the main representative”, parameters in a different scale (0-1,0-2) are aggregated.

Response 5.:

The methodology has been revised and described in a more precise way. A detailed distribution and characteristics of the parameters (criteria) is included in the description of the methodology. Parameters have been sorted out and the scale of parameters has been standardized, where they were incorrectly assigned, especially in section 3. Research Methods and subsection 4.2. Contemporary functional and spatial aspects in Table 3. Current role of POS as the main representative spaces.

Due to the need for major revisions, changes resulting from responses to all reviews and other technical and substantive corrections have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function as we were using MS Word, such that any changes could be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I very much appreciate the way my comments were taken into account. I also have no objection to the current version of the article. However, I still think that if qualitative criteria are used, it is possible to provide a way / rules for awarding 0-1-2. But I also accept the expert assessment approach.

With best wishes

R.1

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you very much for accepting our manuscript, we are very pleased. We also thank you again for all the positive feedback and critical comments. We want to emphasize how much they helped us to improve our paper.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article about this interesting subject has certainly improved compared to the first version. I still wonder if the presupposition of representativeness is not presented in a way that is too self-evident.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (round 2)

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you very much for accepting our manuscript, we are really pleased. We also thank you again for all the positive feedback and critical comments. We want to emphasize how much they helped us to improve our paper.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I really appreciate the authors' hard work in addressing my comments. Although the revised version of the manuscript is much better, I am afraid that further improvement is needed to meet the high standards of the Sustainability Journal. More specifically, many parts of the text are difficult to understand, either because of incorrect use of words or because of logical leaps. For example, the authors state in the revised abstract, "To integrate our methodology, a landscape approach was used." To integrate where? Thus, an additional effort to improve writing quality is highly suggested.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments (round 2)

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you for your positive feedback and critical remarks that helped to improve our manuscript. All comments have been taken into consideration to the extent possible. The suggested changes were made. We have improved writing quality, words that we used incorrectly have been replaced. We also expanded threads, where logical leaps have occurred. The manuscript has been checked by a native English-speaking colleague.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx