Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on the redevelopment of historic market squares in the Lesser Poland region of southern Poland, examining changes in biologically active green areas during the reconstruction process. Through quantitative analysis, it highlights how the phenomenon of 'concretisation' is reflected in spatial planning practices, and offers a preliminary discussion of relevant legal and regulatory frameworks. The study demonstrates a strong awareness of the problem and real-world relevance. However, several aspects still require improvement, as outlined below:

1) Presenting the information in lines 48–91 in the form of a table may enhance readability and allow for clearer categorization and comparison of the various functions of urban greenery.

2) Consider adding subheadings under the “Objective, Scope and Methodology” section to enhance clarity and logical flow.

3) Although the article refers to relevant legal provisions in lines 426–442, the analysis remains limited to their non-retroactive nature, without discussing their potential regulatory role in future projects. It is recommended to further clarify the binding force and implementation mechanisms of these provisions going forward.

4) While the discussion highlights the issue of 'concretisation', it falls short of offering specific design strategies or policy-oriented recommendations. Strengthening the practical relevance of the study through more forward-looking insights would be beneficial.

Author Response

First, the authors thank the reviewer for his substantive and insightful review. Addressing the reviewer's comments directly:

Ad 1. A tabular summary of the various functions of urban greenery is feasible, but a detailed examination of this aspect is not the primary goal of the research presented in the article – it merely provides background. Therefore, it seems that the bulleted format used is sufficient. Numerous references to scientific literature provide the reader with the opportunity to expand and supplement their knowledge in this area.

Ad 2. The structure of the text has been revised – relevant chapters have been added, improving the layout and readability of the entire text.

Ad 3-4. The conclusion section of the article has been appropriately supplemented, arguing that recently amended legal provisions will require greater attention to the comprehensive role of greenery in the redevelopment of urban public spaces, including market squares. It is also emphasized that urban spatial planning policies must take into account the individual characteristics and functions of the redesigned spaces, including historical conditions, compositional relationships, and their expected social and functional role.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks to the authors for submitting their manuscript to the Sustainability Journal. It is one of the best manuscripts I have read in a long time. It is extremely detailed and comprehensive, providing valuable insights into a highly relevant topic.

I have only two remarks:

Is 'remodel' the correct term, or would 'rethink', 'reconstruction' or 'rehabilitation' be more appropriate given that the analysed squares have traditions from old times?
An interesting aspect of the research would be to shed light on the role of EU tenders and large Polish construction companies.
Do EU tenders (funds) stimulate the negative transformation of market squares? Or are the results evidence of the ineffectiveness of controlling the use of EU funds?
Are there any interconnectedness between market square transformations and developers?

Author Response

First, the authors thank the reviewer for his substantive and insightful review. Addressing the reviewer's comments directly:

Ad 1. We agree that the transformation of urban market squares is a very complex process, each with its own unique scope and impact, depending on local spatial, functional, historical, and compositional conditions. In the authors' opinion, the term "remodeling" is most appropriate in this context, although certainly not ideal. It is worth noting that the contemporary reconstruction of market squares in Małopolska does not involve a faithful reconstruction of their historical form, much less function. It is always a process of adaptation to contemporary needs, with varying degrees of attention to historical themes. Similarly, the term "rehabilitation" is not entirely accurate in reference to the examples analyzed.

Ad 2. The process of remodeling the analyzed market squares could certainly have been financially supported by EU funds, especially in cases where the reconstruction was part of a municipal revitalization program. For formal and legal reasons, such activities are always preceded by public tenders – carried out by private entities, but at the initiative of local governments. Developers' involvement in contemporary market square redevelopment appears to be very limited – they initiate the construction of individual facilities with commercial service functions, without interfering with the market space itself. However, this aspect was not considered by the authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled “Tendencies in Green Surface Design in Contemporary Remodels of Market Squares: The Example of Lesser Poland” addresses the important and topical issue of changes in public spaces in the context of the revitalization of historic city squares. The authors accurately point to the disappearance of biologically active surfaces as a phenomenon that is important not only from the point of view of urban planning, but also in a broader social, environmental, and planning context—relating to the quality of life of residents, the resilience of cities to climate change, and the shaping of spatial identity. The advantage of the work is its focus on small and medium-sized cities, which are often overlooked in research, yet in their case the effects of transformation are particularly visible. The topic fits into the current discourse on sustainable development and counteracting the so-called “concrete jungle,” but despite many valuable conclusions, the article needs refinement in terms of methodology, data presentation, and editorial aspects.

Below, he points out the shortcomings and deficiencies in order to improve the content of the article:

1. Lack of precisely formulated objectives and research hypothesis. In the first chapter, the reader must have a clear understanding of what your research is about.

2. The article lacks even a brief description of how the analyses were conducted within GIS and CAD environments. It is not specified which tools were used, whether any topological validation of the data was performed, what type of data was applied (vector or raster), nor the resolution or accuracy of the source data.

3. The character of the fieldwork should be clarified – its scope, purpose, and the equipment used should be briefly but clearly described.

4. In lines 252–254, it would be advisable to include an illustrative diagram showing how the boundaries of the market squares were delineated. This would significantly help the reader understand the adopted method of spatial interpretation.

5. In the paragraph covering lines 262–276, the authors should refer to publicly available spatial datasets such as OpenStreetMap or, in the Polish context, the BDOT10k topographic database (including archival data accessible via geoportal.gov.pl). Comparing the biologically vital surfaces derived from these datasets with those calculated in the study would help assess the method's transferability to other regions in Poland, Europe, or beyond.

6. It is unclear how trees located in the studied squares were treated – they should be distinguished from other types of greenery (such as lawns), as they serve different functional and social purposes. It is recommended to report their reduction or increase separately.

7. In lines 338–342, the specific index being referenced is unclear. If a formula was introduced earlier in the text, it should be numbered and clearly cited at this point.

8. Due to the absence of well-defined research objectives and a clearly stated hypothesis, the discussion section remains rather general. It should be strengthened by explicitly referring to the study’s findings and outlining how these results could be applied in other regional or international contexts.

Author Response

First, the authors thank the reviewer for a substantive and insightful review. Addressing the reviewer's comments directly: Ad 1. The article's introduction outlines the primary purpose and scope of the research, as well as the research hypothesis. Ad 2-3. The description of the research method has been further detailed, focusing on the GIS/CAD tools used, the data used, and the scope and method of conducting the fieldwork. Ad 4. The authors believe that Figure 2, containing comparative diagrams for each of the analyzed markets, provides a good illustration of how these spaces were delineated. In each case, the outline of the analyzed market is shown in the diagrams with a red line, as described in the legend. Ad 5. The description of the research method has been further detailed in accordance with the reviewer's comments. Ad 6. The research method was assumed to be the only criterion illustrating trends in greenery management practices, namely the change in the size of the biologically active area—defined in the definitional sense based on Polish law. Therefore, trees were not included in the study, without diminishing their role as an integral component of urban greenery. We also agree that analyzing the changes in the number of trees within recently rebuilt market squares would be an interesting research topic. Ad 7. Numbering has been added to the formulas used and referenced in Figure 3. The incorrect numbering of the figures has also been corrected. Ad 8. The study covered all rebuilt market squares in the selected Polish region, demonstrating a clear trend towards a reduction in the biologically active area in these spaces during their most recent redevelopment. The article references similar studies conducted in other Polish regions (Lublin and Warmian-Masurian). At the same time, the authors emphasize the distinct specificity of Poland (and other countries in this region of Europe) – due to local cultural, climatic, historical, and economic conditions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You investigated 24 cities in Poland with town square regeneration projects 2009-2022  before & after development to examine project impact on green space / biologically vital areas. This is an interesting study that is highly relevant for Sustainability.  I have some comments, queries or suggestions for your consideration

8 | voivodeship meaning ?
17|confronted - triangulated?
Abstract doesn't articulate your findings
19| Bourbon Forest = Bois de Boulogne?
Just check that you have not  ignored benefits of green space on air pollution?
141| Good to see citation to Wang (2009) & explanation of its implications
166| the research problem is not defined & should emerge after literature analysis to identify a gap?
206 |Articulate logic for study focus on Lesser Poland - e.g. extent of urban regeneration activity
Figure 2 | Outstanding diagrams comparing impact of town square development schemes on green space
306| Table 2 consider including representative statistics e.g. mean change etc?
338| Should be Figure 3 not Fig.1?
413-444| Conclusion needs to be strengthened in terms of:

1) generalisability (international implications e.g. link back to Wang 2009)
2) conundrum/contention between anthropogenic capitalist intensification proclivities (aka focused on profit/vibrancy) & wider duty of care /responsibilities towards conservation, environment & heritage. 
3) Planning 'decisionism' or 'technocracy' that Habermas criticises because constitutive/vested interests surupticiously shape 'knowledge' & foist pre-determined development solutions rather than having authentic, emancipatory local dialogue.

Author Response

First, the authors thank the reviewer for a substantive and insightful review. Addressing the reviewer's comments directly:

Ad 1. A voivodeship is a valid territorial unit of the administrative division of Poland, corresponding to a region. In the study, the authors assumed this area as a defined area managed by the local government. For clarity, the word "voivodeship" has been removed from the abstract.

Ad 2. The abstract has been supplemented with information on the research results.

Ad 3. The authors refer to the Bois de Boulogne in Paris. An erroneous translation in the text has been corrected.

Ad 4. The role of greenery in protecting against air pollution is mentioned in the description of the climatic function in the introduction.

Ad 5. The authors recognize the importance of this publication for the research topic. It shows that even small enclaves of greenery can be significant for the creation and functioning of green systems in cities, provided their continuity and the necessary quality are maintained.

Ad 6. The introductory section of the article has been appropriately supplemented, in accordance with the reviewer's comment. The authors' research on the amount of green space in the redeveloped market squares of selected cities is intended to highlight current trends in sustainable development and the role of greenery in cities.

Ad 7. The description of the research scope has been appropriately supplemented, in accordance with the reviewer's comment. The selection of the Małopolska Voivodeship as the study area is supported by its high degree of urbanization, i.e., the relatively large number of medium-sized and small towns, a significant number of which have recently experienced the redevelopment of their market squares as their main public space.

Ad 8. The authors would like to thank the authors for the positive evaluation of their research work.

Ad 9. The data presented in Table 2 allow for further, rather extensive, analysis. In the authors' opinion, taking the arithmetic mean of the obtained quantitative data does not facilitate the clarity of the research results. Instead, a graphical interpretation was developed, presented in Figure 3. The graphs presented therein clearly illustrate the general trend in the development of green spaces in individual cities, while also taking into account the individual scale of this phenomenon.

Ad 10. The incorrect numbering of figures has been corrected.

Ad 11. The conclusion section of the article has been appropriately supplemented, in accordance with the reviewer's comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The date of the orthophotomap's creation is important, not the geoportal review date. Information should be provided about the time of measurement data acquisition, not the download date from the geoportal. If the images were compared, it means there are two different dates; this information should be indicated.

Author Response

Comment: The date of the orthophotomap's creation is important, not the geoportal review date. Information should be provided about the time of measurement data acquisition, not the download date from the geoportal. If the images were compared, it means there are two different dates; this information should be indicated.

Response: The authors fully agree with the reviewer's comment - appropriate information on the time of taking comparative satellite images has been supplemented in the description of the research methodology.