The Design Proposal for the Revitalization of Areos Park in Peloponnese, Greece | a Palimpsest of History and Nature
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research presents a design proposal for the revitalization of Areos Park in Tripoli, Greece, based on the theoretical perspective of "urban palimpsest", ingeniously integrating historical, cultural and natural layers into the design concept, which is very interesting and innovative. However, as an academic paper, it has fundamental deficiencies in its structural organization. The overall framework and content of the article are more like a report on an architectural or landscape design project. Specific suggestions are as follows:
Firstly, throughout the entire text, no academic question that could guide the argumentation of the whole article is explicitly put forward. For instance, such a question could be: How can the DBR method be applied to integrate the theory of historical 'rewriting' with ecological restoration to address the neglected state of Greek urban parks? Or, through the case study of Areos Park, what design principles applicable to the revitalization of historical parks in small Greek cities can be distilled and promoted? Additionally, as an academic paper, its core deficiency lies in that the current focus is overly placed on "what design" and "how to design", while insufficient attention is paid to the exploration of "why this design has academic universal significance" and "what new knowledge or new theories have been generated in this process".
In the literature review and theories section, although two core concepts - "urban palimpsest" and "Design-Based Research (DBR)" - were proposed, the literature review on these two concepts was rather thin. It failed to delve into their application history, theoretical debates, and the shortcomings of existing research in the fields of landscape architecture or urban studies. Moreover, as an academic paper, it is necessary to clearly and explicitly define the academic gap that this paper aims to fill.
Regarding the research methodology section, the "analysis-design" process described in this paper is more like a standard and excellent design practice flow, lacking the "research" attribute emphasized by DBR. Moreover, the output of DBR should not merely be a design proposal; more importantly, it should be the "design principles" (Design Principles) summarized from this process. However, the current version of the manuscript fails to clearly distill and present these principles.
In the research results section, the current version of the manuscript treats the design scheme itself as the research outcome, reinforcing the attribute of this article as a project report rather than a research paper. As an academic paper, the research results should be the analysis and findings of the data. Here, "research data" can be sketches, models, feedback records, etc. from the design process, while "research findings" are the patterns, insights, or principles distilled from these data.
The research discussion section is more like a summary and defense of the design proposal, lacking critical reflection on the research process and results. Moreover, in the discussion section, there is no effective in-depth dialogue between the "findings" of this case and the literature mentioned in the introduction. Finally, the article claims that this project can serve as a "model" or "framework", but what exactly are the contents of this model or framework? Additionally, what knowledge beyond this specific case can be borrowed by other similar projects?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for a stronger academic framing and theoretical depth. These comments guided a significant restructuring of the manuscript to move from a descriptive report to a research-oriented paper.
Comment 1: Firstly, throughout the entire text, no academic question that could guide the argumentation of the whole article is explicitly put forward. For instance, such a question could be: How can the DBR method be applied to integrate the theory of historical 'rewriting' with ecological restoration to address the neglected state of Greek urban parks? Or, through the case study of Areos Park, what design principles applicable to the revitalization of historical parks in small Greek cities can be distilled and promoted? Additionally, as an academic paper, its core deficiency lies in that the current focus is overly placed on "what design" and "how to design", while insufficient attention is paid to the exploration of "why this design has academic universal significance" and "what new knowledge or new theories have been generated in this process".
To address the absence of a guiding academic question, the Introduction (p. 2) now explicitly states the three research questions that frame the study: balancing historical preservation with ecological and social needs, validating ecological performance metrics, and extracting transferable design principles. These questions now guide the argumentation across all sections and are referred to in the Conclusions and Discussion (pp. 27-28).
Comment 2: Regarding the research methodology section, the "analysis-design" process described in this paper is more like a standard and excellent design practice flow, lacking the "research" attribute emphasized by DBR. Moreover, the output of DBR should not merely be a design proposal; more importantly, it should be the "design principles" (Design Principles) summarized from this process. However, the current version of the manuscript fails to clearly distill and present these principles.
In the research results section, the current version of the manuscript treats the design scheme itself as the research outcome, reinforcing the attribute of this article as a project report rather than a research paper. As an academic paper, the research results should be the analysis and findings of the data. Here, "research data" can be sketches, models, feedback records, etc. from the design process, while "research findings" are the patterns, insights, or principles distilled from these data.
In the section of Materials and Methods(pp. 5-6), the DBR process is now detailed in terms of its four iterative cycles: problem identification, design concept development, synthesis and evaluation, and knowledge output. Figure 2 has been revised to include a visual representation of these iterations. This clarifies the research dimension of the method, rather than presenting it as a design process alone.
A new chapter is added, Lessons learned and strategies derived (pp. 24-37), which goes beyond presenting the design proposal and includes the extracted design principles (Figure 22) that capture the transferable insights from the process.
Comment 3: The research discussion section is more like a summary and defense of the design proposal, lacking critical reflection on the research process and results. Moreover, in the discussion section, there is no effective in-depth dialogue between the "findings" of this case and the literature mentioned in the introduction. Finally, the article claims that this project can serve as a "model" or "framework", but what exactly are the contents of this model or framework? Additionally, what knowledge beyond this specific case can be borrowed by other similar projects?
Conclusions and Discussion (pp. 27-28) have been rewritten to critically engage with the findings and to reflect on both the strengths and limitations of the process. This section also mentions that the proposed framework can serve as a model for similar parks in small cities and other comparable contexts.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The empirical foundation of the methodology needs to be strengthened
Issue: The paper employs the Design-Based Research (DBR) method but does not provide detailed information on the specific number of iterations in the research cycle or key milestones (e.g., the frequency of design-test-modify cycles). Additionally, there is a lack of quantitative analysis of stakeholder engagement levels (e.g., number of interviews conducted, survey response rates).
Recommendation: Supplement with research logs or flowcharts to clarify the roles and contributions of participants at each stage; add questionnaire survey or focus group data to quantify the impact of community feedback on design adjustments.
- Lack of quantification of ecological design indicators
Issue: While emphasizing biodiversity and native vegetation, the paper does not provide specific ecological indicators for species selection (e.g., native plant coverage rate, carbon sequestration capacity predictions).
Recommendation: Supplement with a LEAF (Local Ecological Affinity Index) scoring sheet or reference ecological monitoring data from similar projects (e.g., Copenhagen's Kilden Park).
- Insufficient depth in site condition analysis
Issue: Section 3.3 “Current Condition Analysis” only describes phenomena such as spatial fragmentation and aging facilities, without providing systematic assessment data (e.g., visitor flow distribution maps, ecological indicator testing reports, canopy coverage rates).
Recommendation: Add empirical data (e.g., use GIS heatmaps to illustrate pedestrian density, or soil sampling results to indicate degradation levels);
introduce standardized assessment tools (e.g., the URBAN Green Space Index) to quantify ecological health levels.
- Incomplete sustainability assessment dimensions
Issue: Lack of life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) or social impact assessment (SIA). For example, the initial investment and long-term maintenance costs of permeable paving have not been balanced.
Recommendation: Use tools such as the InVEST model to assess ecosystem service values, or reference the UNEP Sustainable Cities Indicator System to refine the assessment framework.
- Lack of comparative analysis with similar studies
Issue: The paper claims the scheme can serve as a “sustainable revitalization model” for other parks in Greece, but does not compare it with existing cases in Greece (e.g., the Megara Old Railway Station Linear Park, Thessaloniki Konstantinidis Stream Renovation). For example, the uniqueness of this scheme in balancing “historical preservation and ecological restoration” and its applicability to parks in medium-sized cities are not highlighted through comparative analysis to demonstrate its innovative value.
Recommendation: Supplement the analysis with key indicators from comparable cases (e.g., post-renovation usage rate increases) to clarify the theoretical and practical contributions of this study.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on strengthening empirical quantification. These recommendations guided several important enhancements.
Comment 1: The empirical foundation of the methodology needs to be strengthened
Issue: The paper employs the Design-Based Research (DBR) method but does not provide detailed information on the specific number of iterations in the research cycle or key milestones (e.g., the frequency of design-test-modify cycles). Additionally, there is a lack of quantitative analysis of stakeholder engagement levels (e.g., number of interviews conducted, survey response rates).
Recommendation: Supplement with research logs or flowcharts to clarify the roles and contributions of participants at each stage; add questionnaire survey or focus group data to quantify the impact of community feedback on design adjustments.
To clarify the DBR iterations, the Materials & Methods section (pp. 5–6) is enhanced, describing the process in more detail. A revised Figure 2 illustrates this iterative flow. A new section is added, 3.1.2. Interviews with the stakeholders as feedback for the design (pp. 11–12), and a new Table 1 (p.12) synthesizes stakeholder profiles and their main insights.
Comment 2: Lack of quantification of ecological design indicators
Issue: While emphasizing biodiversity and native vegetation, the paper does not provide specific ecological indicators for species selection (e.g., native plant coverage rate, carbon sequestration capacity predictions).
Recommendation: Supplement with a LEAF (Local Ecological Affinity Index) scoring sheet or reference ecological monitoring data from similar projects (e.g., Copenhagen's Kilden Park).
The quantification of ecological indicators has been added extensively in the new sections 3.1.3 Areos Park as the green core of the city (pp. 12-13) and 4.2.1 The environmental benefits of the trees (pp. 21-24). Using QGIS and the i-Tree Eco model, we provide measurable data on existing and future canopy coverage, NDVI, and LST, and show the urban cooling effect of the proposal and the projected gains in biodiversity, carbon storage, and pollutant removal (Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5). These indicators validate the ecological strategy and provide evidence-based planning tools.
Comment 3: Insufficient depth in site condition analysis
Issue: Section 3.3 “Current Condition Analysis” only describes phenomena such as spatial fragmentation and aging facilities, without providing systematic assessment data (e.g., visitor flow distribution maps, ecological indicator testing reports, canopy coverage rates).
Recommendation: Add empirical data (e.g., use GIS heatmaps to illustrate pedestrian density, or soil sampling results to indicate degradation levels); introduce standardized assessment tools (e.g., the URBAN Green Space Index) to quantify ecological health levels.
Chapter 3.3 Current situation analysis has been expanded. The section 3.1.1 In-situ analysis (pp. 8–9) now integrates empirical data, including a pedestrian flow map with the existing gathering spaces (Figure 9, p. 9), and the weaknesses of the existing design (Figure 9 and 10). Moreover, a new section 3.1.3 Areos Park as the green core of the city (pp. 12-13) has been added, with remote sensing analyses (Figure 12), to complement qualitative observations.
Comment 4: Incomplete sustainability assessment dimensions
Issue: Lack of life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) or social impact assessment (SIA). For example, the initial investment and long-term maintenance costs of permeable paving have not been balanced.
Recommendation: Use tools such as the InVEST model to assess ecosystem service values, or reference the UNEP Sustainable Cities Indicator System to refine the assessment framework.
A full life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) could not be conducted due to data limitations. However, the Conclusions and Discussion chapter includes a preliminary reflection on long-term maintenance.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper proposal presents a well-defined case study with a clearly articulated applied contribution that could offer substantial value for similar projects in other contexts. The interdisciplinary approach and the transversal integration of concepts are commendable. However, the literature review would benefit from a more robust development of the theoretical framework surrounding Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services.
If the proposed (re)design for the revitalization of Areos Park (Tripoli, Greece) is intended as a community-driven initiative/project, I think this dimension is not clearly reflected in the results section. In my view, if the revitalization is framed as a participatory process, the authors should provide details on the methods of community engagement (e.g., surveys, interviews) to substantiate this claim (it is a suggestion for the methodological and results sections). Incorporating the voices, perceptions, and values of diverse local stakeholders is essential not only for understanding the park’s current use, but also for evaluating its potential for long-term maintenance and its role as a space of resilience in the face of climate change.
A significant portion of the manuscript remains largely descriptive. I encourage the authors to strengthen the theoretical foundations and to present the results alongside a more critical and well-developed discussion (with a suggestion for a separated conclusions). This should move beyond the argument of the park’s relevance for landscape architects, architects, and urban planners, and instead emphasize its social value for the local community, including how this value could be implemented and measured.
Author Response
Comment: The paper proposal presents a well-defined case study with a clearly articulated applied contribution that could offer substantial value for similar projects in other contexts. The interdisciplinary approach and the transversal integration of concepts are commendable. However, the literature review would benefit from a more robust development of the theoretical framework surrounding Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services.
If the proposed (re)design for the revitalization of Areos Park (Tripoli, Greece) is intended as a community-driven initiative/project, I think this dimension is not clearly reflected in the results section. In my view, if the revitalization is framed as a participatory process, the authors should provide details on the methods of community engagement (e.g., surveys, interviews) to substantiate this claim (it is a suggestion for the methodological and results sections). Incorporating the voices, perceptions, and values of diverse local stakeholders is essential not only for understanding the park’s current use but also for evaluating its potential for long-term maintenance and its role as a space of resilience in the face of climate change.
A significant portion of the manuscript remains largely descriptive. I encourage the authors to strengthen the theoretical foundations and to present the results alongside a more critical and well-developed discussion (with a suggestion for a separate conclusion). This should move beyond the argument of the park’s relevance for landscape architects, architects, and urban planners, and instead emphasize its social value for the local community, including how this value could be implemented and measured.
We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the applied value and interdisciplinary strength of the paper. We also appreciate the comments regarding the theoretical depth on GI and ES, and the role of community participation. At this stage, the scope of the manuscript is intentionally applied, focusing on the design proposal and its methodological integration of DBR, rather than on a full theoretical expansion or a thorough participatory analysis.
Regarding participation, we clarify that the project relied mainly on stakeholder input—including municipal officials, technical staff, and regular park users—to inform the design priorities. Although this does not amount to a fully participatory process, it shows that the proposal responded to the local context and practical needs. We have, however, mentioned and clarified this scope in the introduction and discussion to avoid overstating the theoretical or participatory dimensions.
Furthermore, The new chapter is created to consolidate the findings of the DBR process into a practical framework of strategies that can guide similar urban park projects (Figure 22, p. 27). The final inputs and the validation of the stakeholders are given in Table 6, as well as the lessons learned and the limitations of the whole project, which can work as recommendations for future projects.
The manuscript now emphasizes that its main contribution lies in demonstrating an integrated, evidence-informed design process for a historically layered urban park, which may serve as a framework for similar contexts.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this version of the manuscript, the authors have provided a comprehensive and in-depth response to the previous round of review comments. It is clearly evident that the authors have made significant and fundamental improvements in the academic framework, research methodology, presentation of results, and depth of discussion of the paper, successfully transforming it into an "academic paper" with a relatively clear research question and rigorous research process. Nevertheless, there are still some minor details that can be further refined.
Regarding the research methods and results section, the visual presentation of Figure 22 (The integrated framework) is rich in content but somewhat complex. It is suggested that the authors consider simplifying the visual elements of this figure or provide a clearer explanation in the figure caption of the logical relationship between its three core pillars (Connectivity, Heritage-layered design, Ecological enhancement) and specific strategies, tools, and elements, to make it easier for readers to quickly understand.
Regarding the discussion section, the current version of the manuscript still lacks a deeper engagement with the literature mentioned in the introduction. For instance, while the theories and practices of Sitte, Golanda, and others are referenced in the introduction, in the discussion, apart from general mentions, there is no detailed elaboration on how the findings of this study validate, modify, supplement, or challenge these classic theories. Additionally, does the method of verifying the design effect through quantitative ecological indicators (NDVI, LST) in this study provide a new, quantifiable dimension to the "spatial comfort" that early theorist like Sitte focused on?
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for recognizing the improvements made to the manuscript. To address the remaining points:
Comment 1: Regarding the research methods and results section, the visual presentation of Figure 22 (The integrated framework) is rich in content but somewhat complex. It is suggested that the authors consider simplifying the visual elements of this figure or provide a clearer explanation in the figure caption of the logical relationship between its three core pillars (Connectivity, Heritage-layered design, Ecological enhancement) and specific strategies, tools, and elements, to make it easier for readers to quickly understand.
Figure 22 has been redeveloped in a clearer and more structured way. In addition, an explanation of the diagram was added in the text (pp. 27–28) and the figure caption now explicitly describes the logical link between the three project focuses (Connectivity, Heritage-Layered Design, and Ecological Enhancement & Climate Adaptation) and the associated strategies, tools, and spatial elements.
Comment 2: Regarding the discussion section, the current version of the manuscript still lacks a deeper engagement with the literature mentioned in the introduction. For instance, while the theories and practices of Sitte, Golanda, and others are referenced in the introduction, in the discussion, apart from general mentions, there is no detailed elaboration on how the findings of this study validate, modify, supplement, or challenge these classic theories. Additionally, does the method of verifying the design effect through quantitative ecological indicators (NDVI, LST) in this study provide a new, quantifiable dimension to the "spatial comfort" that early theorist like Sitte focused on?
In addition to the above comment, there has been significant increased in theoretical discussion in various places. In Section 4.2.1 (p. 22), a new paragraph was added that situates the study within traditional urban form theories (Sitte's spatial comfort, Golanda's cultural narratives) and current perspectives on GI and ES. In the Discussion and Conclusions (p. 29) two new paragraphs revisit these theories with the study's extension of these theories: Sitte's qualitatively about comfort with the scientific measurable ecological indicators of NDVI and LST, and Golanda's phenomenological approaches linked to the idea of the "heritage-layered design" pillar. These paragraphs therefore provided clarity on how the findings have both validated and extended traditional theories while noting the larger methodological contribution of DBR.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank the authors for their response. The revisions undertaken, together with the newly added sections and figures, undoubtedly add significant value to the contribution. Despite the explanation provided in the response, I remain of the view that the theoretical foundations are somewhat limited and could be further and more effectively developed. Nevertheless, should the editor decide so, I see no objection to the manuscript being published in its revised form. Congratulations on the contribution.
Author Response
We are grateful for the recognition of the improvements made and have carefully considered the remaining suggestions :
Comment: Despite the explanation provided in the response, I remain of the view that the theoretical foundations are somewhat limited and could be further and more effectively developed.
To enhance the theoretical foundation, as asked, we added the small subchapter 1.3 (From design traditions to resilient futures) in the Introduction chapter. In this new section of the text, we link classical traditions of design to contemporary debates connected to GI and ES, and articulate parks as both cultural products and resilience infrastructures. Additionally, in the Discussion and Conclusions section (p. 29), we added two paragraphs that explicitly link Sitte and Golanda's theories with ecological indicators and heritage-layered design, thus reaffirming the theoretical contribution of the framework and its potential wider applicability beyond Areos Park.
