Concept of the Development and Rehabilitation of Green Infrastructure for Territorial Communities of Ukraine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a well-structured and relevant study on developing green infrastructure within Ukrainian territorial communities. The topic is timely, especially given Ukraine's ongoing decentralization reforms and environmental challenges. The manuscript clearly identifies key problems—such as natural afforestation, windbreak degradation, and land use conflicts—and proposes a practical land reallotment methodology to address them. The case study of Petrivska Territorial Community is appropriately chosen and effectively illustrates the application of the method, with quantifiable outcomes (e.g., 1,084,352 m² increase in green area). However, the paper could be strengthened by a more critical discussion of the limitations of the proposed method, particularly regarding land market variability and stakeholder participation. Here if some suggestions:

1. The terminology is inconsistent in places (e.g., “realiotment” vs. “reallotment”). The language could be improved for better fluency and readability.
2. The methodology section is complex and may be difficult for non-specialist readers to follow. Consider simplifying or illustrating the formulas.
3. The impact of warfare on green infrastructure is mentioned but not sufficiently discussed.
4. The figures (e.g., maps) lack professional cartographic elements such as scale bars and north arrows.
5. The conclusions could be strengthened with clearer policy recommendations and a discussion of the method’s applicability.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1. The terminology is inconsistent in places (e.g., “realiotment” vs. “reallotment”). The language could be improved for better fluency and readability.

Response 1. Тhank you very much. We have reviewed the manuscript and corrected some inaccuracies.

Comments 2. The methodology section is complex and may be difficult for non-specialist readers to follow. Consider simplifying or illustrating the formulas.

Response 2. We have added Fig. 2 with explanations to Section 2, illustrated formula (9), and provided examples of calculations using formulas (5), (6) in Tables 2 and 3.

Comments 3. The impact of warfare on green infrastructure is mentioned but not sufficiently discussed.

Response 3.Thank you for your comment, changes have been made to the text (lines 173-178).

Comments 4. The figures (e.g., maps) lack professional cartographic elements such as scale bars and north arrows.

Response 4. We agree with this comments. Fig. 4, 6, 7-9, 11 was adjusted according to the remarks

Comments 5. The conclusions could be strengthened with clearer policy recommendations and a discussion of the method’s applicability.

Response 5. Thank you for pointing this out. The discussion section has been adjusted according to the comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The actual subject of this article is a case study of the design/redevelopment of a specific land plot with green infrastructure elements within a single rural community.

Despite the manuscript's tangible positive aspects:

- a real-life case study of a territorial community, complete with maps, diagrams, a specific plot, and a proposed redevelopment option.

- visual cartographic material: before/after satellite images, zoning maps, and a land structure diagram make the work visually understandable and suitable for discussion with practitioners.

- use of a regulatory framework, emphasizing its practical nature.

- demonstration of the importance of green infrastructure at the community level: even through a narrow example, the topic of incorporating green spaces into territorial plans is raised.

The authors drew accurate local technical conclusions, but they then overgeneralized them, failing to demonstrate the bridge from a single private land management project to the level of a general policy for developing green infrastructure for territorial communities.

Assessment of the validity, structure, and reliability of the presented results

1. The Introduction correctly emphasizes the relevance of green infrastructure and sustainable development at the local level, but overstates the scope of the study and does not clearly formalize the objectives specifically for the community level.
2. The cited sources on sustainable development and green infrastructure are generally relevant; however, work on land management planning and community green infrastructure management, as well as the regulatory framework underlying the calculations, are insufficiently presented.
3. The research methodology essentially represents a consistent description of a land management project for a specific site using maps and regulatory calculations. However, it is not presented as a reproducible algorithm and does not disclose the initial data and decision criteria, which reduces the verifiability and transferability of the results.
4. The conclusions are justified and logical within the context of the case under consideration (specific territory), but are overly generalized to the level of green infrastructure "policy" for local communities and go beyond the evidence presented in the article.

Improvements needed to strengthen the article

The main area for improvement is to transform the described case into a clearly defined methodological approach, demonstrate its potential for community green infrastructure planning, and carefully relate the findings to the scale of the data presented. To this end, steps for improvement are presented below.

1. The current objective is to develop a green land policy for Ukrainian communities as a whole, while the materials relate to a single local project. This undermines reader confidence: a discrepancy is evident between what was promised and what was actually delivered.

Recommendation: align the objective, title, and scope of the study.

Action items:

- either narrow the stated objective and title (focus on the case of a single territorial community/redevelopment project),

- or expand the study: add 1-2 more cases, compare options, and develop a more general algorithm for communities.

2. The methodology, as presented, is scattered throughout the text; the reader cannot reproduce the approach. For a scientific article, it is vital that the method be repeatable and transferable to other objects.

Recommendation: clearly formulate the "Methodology" subsection in "2. Materials and Methods" as an algorithm.

Action items:

- describe step-by-step:

a) what data is used (Google Earth, cadastral data, regulatory documents) and with what parameters.

b) how the analysis of existing land use is conducted (digitization, pavement classification).

c) how the project area is selected and by what criteria.

d) how functional zoning is performed.

e) how formulas (1)–(10) are applied: what input data, where the coefficients are derived, what standard they are based on.

- add a simple flowchart/algorithm for applying the method in any community.

3. Considering that, as a rule, each country relies on its own approaches, the formulas appear as a "black box." Without explanation, the reader cannot understand the essence and cannot use the method in practice. Recommendation: rewrite and clarify the mathematical section.

Action items:

- provide a link to the standard or source where the formulas and coefficients are taken;

- at least one example of a calculation with numbers, or better yet, a table with the numerical values ​​of the calculations performed for the described case.

- clearly distinguish between formulas, provisions, coefficients, assumptions, and generalizations—standard normative ones—and those proposed by the authors.

4. The work is perceived as simply an example of a land management project.

Recommendation: strengthen the theoretical and methodological framework.

Action items:

- introduce clear definitions: "green infrastructure," "green land policy of a territorial community," "project green infrastructure object," etc.

- briefly demonstrate how the proposed scheme differs from existing approaches to green infrastructure planning (using 2-3 key sources).

- directly indicate the specific features:

a) new scheme for incorporating objects (cemetery +sanitary green zone + agricultural land)?

b) a new indicator system?

c) a new method for integrating standards into a land-use project?

         5. The results are primarily descriptive ("project proposed..."). For a scientific article, it is important to show what exactly has improved and how this relates to sustainable development goals and management practices.

Recommendation: expand the "Results" and "Discussion" sections.

Action items:

- in the results, provide a quantitative "before and after" comparison:

a) the share of green spaces, recreational areas, and protected lands;

b) change in sanitary protection zones in hectares/percentages.

- in the discussion:

a) show what management decisions for the community follow from the project;

b) discuss how the approach can be scaled to other sites and types of territories;

c) honestly state the limitations (one case study, rural area, lack of economic analysis, etc.).

It is possible to combine the sections into a single section, "Results and Discussion".

Conclusion

This paper presents an applied study on the development of green infrastructure elements using a community as an example, demonstrating the potential of land management solutions and regulatory calculations for improving land use. In its current form, the article is valuable as a case study, but is insufficiently presented as a reproducible methodology and contains overly broad generalizations of the findings.

Recommend the article for publication after revision, including:

- aligning the formulation of the objective, title, and scope of the study with the actual scope of the presented material (one community, one project site, or an expanded sample);

- clearly structuring the "Materials and Methods" section as an algorithm describing the data, steps in land use analysis, project site selection, zoning, and application of formulas;

- clarifying the mathematical section: references to standards and sources of formulas and coefficients, a calculation example, and separating the normative from the author's assumptions;

- strengthening the theoretical and methodological framework through clear definitions of key concepts and outlining how the proposed framework differs from existing approaches;

- expanding the "Results" and "Discussion" sections through a quantitative "before/after" comparison, a discussion of the management implications for the community, the scalability of the approach, and its limitations. A combination of these sections is possible.

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review and analysis of the manuscript.

Below you will find detailed responses and corresponding corrections highlighted in the resubmitted files.

Comments 1. Improvements needed to strengthen the article

The main area for improvement is to transform the described case into a clearly defined methodological approach, demonstrate its potential for community green infrastructure planning, and carefully relate the findings to the scale of the data presented. To this end, steps for improvement are presented below.

1. The current objective is to develop a green land policy for Ukrainian communities as a whole, while the materials relate to a single local project. This undermines reader confidence: a discrepancy is evident between what was promised and what was actually delivered.

Recommendation: align the objective, title, and scope of the study.

Action items:

- either narrow the stated objective and title (focus on the case of a single territorial community/redevelopment project),

- or expand the study: add 1-2 more cases, compare options, and develop a more general algorithm for communities.

Response 1. We made the following changes to the text: a generalized algorithm for communities and a step-by-step description were added to the Materials and Methods section. Applicability to Ukrainian communities as a whole is analyzed in the Discussion section (text added in lines 598-618).

Comments 2. The methodology, as presented, is scattered throughout the text; the reader cannot reproduce the approach. For a scientific article, it is vital that the method be repeatable and transferable to other objects.

Recommendation: clearly formulate the "Methodology" subsection in "2. Materials and Methods" as an algorithm.

Action items:

- describe step-by-step:

1. a) what data is used (Google Earth, cadastral data, regulatory documents) and with what parameters.
2. b) how the analysis of existing land use is conducted (digitization, pavement classification).
3. c) how the project area is selected and by what criteria.
4. d) how functional zoning is performed.
5. e) how formulas (1)–(10) are applied: what input data, where the coefficients are derived, what standard they are based on.

- add a simple flowchart/algorithm for applying the method in any community.

Response 2. We added a block diagram (Fig. 2) and a description of it (Materials and Methods section).

Comments 3. Considering that, as a rule, each country relies on its own approaches, the formulas appear as a "black box." Without explanation, the reader cannot understand the essence and cannot use the method in practice. Recommendation: rewrite and clarify the mathematical section.

Action items:

- provide a link to the standard or source where the formulas and coefficients are taken;

- at least one example of a calculation with numbers, or better yet, a table with the numerical values ​​of the calculations performed for the described case.

• clearly distinguish between formulas, provisions, coefficients, assumptions, and generalizations—standard normative ones—and those proposed by the authors.

  Response 3. The formulas presented in the manuscript were developed by the authors. Regarding the coefficients, we have added explanations to formulas (5) and (6).

  We have added calculation examples to Tables 2 and 3.

  The presented methodology was proposed by the authors. We have added Table 1 to the text, which lists the Regulations, which predefine some of the characteristics used in the methodology.

  Comments 4. The work is perceived as simply an example of a land management project.

  Recommendation: strengthen the theoretical and methodological framework.

  Action items:

  - introduce clear definitions: "green infrastructure," "green land policy of a territorial community," "project green infrastructure object," etc.

  - briefly demonstrate how the proposed scheme differs from existing approaches to green infrastructure planning (using 2-3 key sources).

  - directly indicate the specific features:

  1. a) new scheme for incorporating objects (cemetery +sanitary green zone + agricultural land)?
  2. b) a new indicator system?
  3. c) a new method for integrating standards into a land-use project?

Response 4. We've added definitions (text added in lines 121-130). We've added text regarding the specifics of the proposed approach in the Materials and Methods section and the Discussion section (lines 333-336, 571-574).

Comments  5. The results are primarily descriptive ("project proposed..."). For a scientific article, it is important to show what exactly has improved and how this relates to sustainable development goals and management practices.

Recommendation: expand the "Results" and "Discussion" sections.

Action items:

- in the results, provide a quantitative "before and after" comparison:

1. a) the share of green spaces, recreational areas, and protected lands;
2. b) change in sanitary protection zones in hectares/percentages.

- in the discussion:

1. a) show what management decisions for the community follow from the project;
2. b) discuss how the approach can be scaled to other sites and types of territories;
3. c) honestly state the limitations (one case study, rural area, lack of economic analysis, etc.).

It is possible to combine the sections into a single section, "Results and Discussion".

Response 5. We have added an analysis of the use of the methodology in other territories, expanded the description of limitations in the Discussion section (lines 598-618). The text of the manuscript indicates the area by which the green area of ​​the Territorial Community increased by 1,084,352 m² (lines 535-536).

Conclusion

This paper presents an applied study on the development of green infrastructure elements using a community as an example, demonstrating the potential of land management solutions and regulatory calculations for improving land use. In its current form, the article is valuable as a case study, but is insufficiently presented as a reproducible methodology and contains overly broad generalizations of the findings.

Recommend the article for publication after revision, including:

- aligning the formulation of the objective, title, and scope of the study with the actual scope of the presented material (one community, one project site, or an expanded sample);

- clearly structuring the "Materials and Methods" section as an algorithm describing the data, steps in land use analysis, project site selection, zoning, and application of formulas;

- clarifying the mathematical section: references to standards and sources of formulas and coefficients, a calculation example, and separating the normative from the author's assumptions;

- strengthening the theoretical and methodological framework through clear definitions of key concepts and outlining how the proposed framework differs from existing approaches;

- expanding the "Results" and "Discussion" sections through a quantitative "before/after" comparison, a discussion of the management implications for the community, the scalability of the approach, and its limitations. A combination of these sections is possible.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for his valuable and detailed suggestions. The above corrections are highlighted in red in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an applied study on developing sustainable green infrastructure at the local level in Ukraine using a land reallotment methodology. The focus on integrating natural afforestation, windbreak rehabilitation, riparian buffers, and green belts into territorial community planning is good, particularly given Ukraine’s ongoing decentralization reforms and environmental pressures. Overall, the topic addresses an underexplored challenge: how to physically secure land for green infrastructure in a fragmented ownership environment.

 

A key contribution of the paper is the proposal of a land reallotment method that claims to minimize compulsory land acquisition while enabling significant increases in public and ecological green areas. However, the paper’s methodological section—particularly Section 3.2—requires substantial clarification to be better understandable, convincing and even reproducible. The equations are central to the paper’s novelty, yet they are currently difficult to follow. Equation (3) needs better explanation: it is unclear how the cemetery sanitary-protection area is derived, what the geometry represents, and why the tangent term is used. A simple diagram would greatly improve comprehensibility. Equations (6) and (7) introduce long lists of correction coefficients, but the paper does not explain how these coefficients are determined, whether they come from national valuation guidelines, expert judgment, or empirical models. Equations (8)–(10) present the multitude of reallotment options. Not sure what are they, how to perform the optimization.

 

More broadly, the paper would benefit from a stronger methodological narrative: who performs the valuation, what data sources are used, how landowners are approached, and how conflicts are resolved? The method is described as voluntary, yet the practical feasibility of negotiating with numerous small landowners is not addressed.

 

The discussion section provides useful contextualization, although it could more explicitly compare the proposed approach with international land consolidation practices for ecological restoration. The conclusion is clear but could emphasize how this method scales to other communities or planning contexts.

 

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important gap, but it needs clearer methodology, particularly regarding the mathematical formulation, coefficient derivation, and practical implementation steps.

Author Response

Comments:   This manuscript presents an applied study on developing sustainable green infrastructure at the local level in Ukraine using a land reallotment methodology. The focus on integrating natural afforestation, windbreak rehabilitation, riparian buffers, and green belts into territorial community planning is good, particularly given Ukraine’s ongoing decentralization reforms and environmental pressures. Overall, the topic addresses an underexplored challenge: how to physically secure land for green infrastructure in a fragmented ownership environment.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for the detailed analysis of the manuscript and for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Comments:    A key contribution of the paper is the proposal of a land reallotment method that claims to minimize compulsory land acquisition while enabling significant increases in public and ecological green areas. However, the paper’s methodological section—particularly Section 3.2—requires substantial clarification to be better understandable, convincing and even reproducible. The equations are central to the paper’s novelty, yet they are currently difficult to follow. Equation (3) needs better explanation: it is unclear how the cemetery sanitary-protection area is derived, what the geometry represents, and why the tangent term is used. A simple diagram would greatly improve comprehensibility. Equations (6) and (7) introduce long lists of correction coefficients, but the paper does not explain how these coefficients are determined, whether they come from national valuation guidelines, expert judgment, or empirical models. Equations (8)–(10) present the multitude of reallotment options. Not sure what are they, how to perform the optimization.

Response: We have added Figure 12 to illustrate calculations using formula (9) (formula (3) in the first version of the manuscript), we have added explanations to formulas (5) and (6) (formulas (6) and (7) in the first version of the manuscript) regarding the coefficients used  and provided examples of calculations using formulas (5), (6) in Tables 2 and 3.

We have added explanations to equations (2)-(4) (formulas (8)-(10) in the first version of the manuscript),  lines 237-247.

Comments:   More broadly, the paper would benefit from a stronger methodological narrative: who performs the valuation, what data sources are used, how landowners are approached, and how conflicts are resolved? The method is described as voluntary, yet the practical feasibility of negotiating with numerous small landowners is not addressed.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added explanations to the Materials and Methods section.

Comments:     The discussion section provides useful contextualization, although it could more explicitly compare the proposed approach with international land consolidation practices for ecological restoration. The conclusion is clear but could emphasize how this method scales to other communities or planning contexts.

Response: The discussion section has been adjusted according to the remark (text added in lines 567-574, 598-618).

Comments:     Overall, the manuscript addresses an important gap, but it needs clearer methodology, particularly regarding the mathematical formulation, coefficient derivation, and practical implementation steps.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript represents an improvement over the previous version. The methodology section is now thoroughly documented, and the equations, notation, and underlying assumptions are clearly and systematically presented. These improvements greatly strengthen the clarity and rigor of the work. I don't have other questions.