Regenerative Streets: Pathways towards the Post-Automobile City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Comments:

 

1.   The paper is quite theoretical. It may reduce the interest level of reader.

2.   If the paper could have supported by the graphs or any tabular presentation of the study probably that will be better.

3.   The Limitations of the proposed study need to be discussed before the conclusion.

4.   Check the mathematical notation of the whole paper.

5.   Identified research gaps and contributions of the proposed study should be elaborated.

6.   What assumptions authors made during the simulation phase of this research work?

7.   Provide a critique on this aspect.

8.   Authors are suggested to update the introduction and the related work sections by including more of the recent publications in the work domain.

9.   Authors need to confirm that all acronyms are defined before being used for the first time.

10.                 Authors are suggested to proofread the manuscript after addressing all comments to avoid any typos, grammatical, and lingual mistakes and errors.

11.                 Conclusion is too long, try to make it more specific

 

 

 

Sentences are too long and complex, if possible try to keep it simple and short. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a thorough research paper, which could be improved by doing the following:

-The paper is too long and it can be made more concise;

-Sentence structure and grammar can be improved, especially with some run-on sentences;

-All external sources should be cited;

-The practical implications of the theoretical ideas should be emphasized;

-Each paragraph should attempt to relate to the main idea of its section and similarly- each section to the main idea of the paper.

-The abstract is a bit vague, it could be made more concrete.

I recommend that this article is accepted after the revisions mentioned above are made. Thank you

There are certain grammar and sentence structure issues which need to be addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

With rapid population growth, a million species at risk of extinction and looming global climate change, human sustainability requires a transition to a new culture of restoration, not just a focus on how to use natural resources more efficiently or reduce environmental impact. This essay explores in detail the role of the street in linking multifunctional spaces from a regenerative design perspective, and its impact on society and the environment, as an important lever for transformational change in cities. This is an interesting and thought-provoking perspective. As the urban economy grows rapidly, urbanization leads to the sprawl of urban land, traffic congestion and disruption of urban culture, and the city street becomes a showcase for steel, concrete and automobiles. Rather than perpetuating existing patterns of thinking, this essay goes beyond the principles of sustainable and circular design to actively promote harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural environment.

This is a very good manuscript.

 

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for his appreciation of the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper  is suggested to be submitted to another journal, such as a journal of sociology. It is not a research paper, since there is neither scientific method nor verification experiment. 

The main question addressed by this paper is the design of regenerative streets for the post-automotive city. Though it is important and interesting, the question maybe too general for this journal. In my opion, this is not one research topic in engeneering.

 

The English writing is good.

Author Response

The author respects the reviewer's opinion and thanks him/her for his/her time.

However, it seems that the reviewer is not aware that the paper has been submitted for a special issue of Sustainability dedicated to "Urban Design for Sustainable Built Environment". The call for paper makes explicit reference to the paradigm of Regenerative Sustainability questioning how this approach is addressed in Urban Design. Moreover, it reads: “this Special Issue calls for a range of papers that include but are not limited to empirical research studies, applied projects, novel reviews of existing literature, and reflexive articles. We encourage submissions from scholars and practitioners from the Global North and South operating in different sectors”.

The author was invited to present an article and the contents and disciplinary approach proposed was approved by the Academic Editors of the Journal.

In any case, the paper has been revised and edited in several parts. In particular:

• the text has been made more concise;
• the structure of the introduction and historical review sections have been reorganized;
• the study's limitations and contributions have been made more explicit;
• bibliographic sources have been checked and, in some cases, updated;
• two tables have been introduced to make the proposed classification of regenerative actions clearer;
• the English text has been fully proofread by a professional English-speaking translator.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear author,

The article is sound and clear in its structure as well as in its content. The resourses and more then well established and up to date.

Thow the research is coherent I would recommend drawings / shemes to follow all categories in subtitles 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3 ….

Also it is not quite clear how and from where, the three keys for classification of regenerative actions arose (subtitle 6.3). If those are based on previous research in 6.1 and 6.2 then it is necessary to see how, maybe a table or a small discussion that precedes it.

It would be good to know what are the adventages and limitations of the research for further investigations what would be potential paths for further research (one paragraoh in concluding remarks).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No more comments.

No more comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

All my comments have been addressed.

There is still room for improvement.