Dynamics of Open Green Areas in Polish and Romanian Cities during 2006–2018: Insights for Spatial Planners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have the following general comments and suggestions for authors:

1. In Introduction, authors start with their own paper, which is very unusual. More background introduction and literature review are needed before you introduce your paper.
2. Authors formulated three research questions at the end of the Introduction, but it seems only the third question is clearly answered in the Conclusions and Recommendations.
3. Some contents in the Discussions can be moved to either Introduction or Methodology

Other comments and suggestions please see attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the time and efforts invested in the evaluation process, and for the constructive comments. Most have been fully addressed, and justifications were provided for the ones not addressed. Details can be found in the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article develops an important problem of shrinking green areas in urban functional areas. Besides, it pays attention to the need to develop solutions in the planning system that will protect green areas from significant loss of them. The methodology is interesting and has shown that many variables do not affect the loss of green space. I have one, but cardinal, comment. Taking into account rather broader understanding of the term GI, which is given in the EC strategic documents, the selected areas for analysis are not GI, but rather "open green areas" (OGA).  Elements of green infrastructure are: areas of high biodiversity value, parks, gardens, small forest areas, grassy edges, green walls and roofs, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, home greenery, cemeteries, allotment gardens, roadside trees, ponds, providing natural connectivity Ecological corridors such as hedges, rivers, wildlife belts (Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital {COM(2013) 249 final} ).  Hence, green urban areas, sports and leisure facilities, and all “agricultural” and “natural” lands do not correspond fully to GI. So, the key term should be put precisely.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the time and efforts invested in the evaluation process, and for the constructive comments. All have been fully addressed; details can be found in the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A new approach based on mathematical modeling and geostatistical analyses was developed to explore the green infrastructures in Romanian and Polish municipalities by considering the time range 2006-2018. The final aim is to support actors and stakeholders to design suitable guidelines and recommendations for more sustainable cities and territories. The paper and its contents are very interesting and promising. I list below some comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper:

• The written style should be generally improved. In some parts, the text reveals more conversational than formal, and other parts could be synthesized because they slow down the reading of the paper. This could help to highlight the crucial parts of the paper.
• Row 35: Introduction should provide the definition of the context (e.g. the ongoing climate change, the role of ecosystem services, land take and soil sealing, green infrastructure, among others) in order to better support the bridging of the gap. For example, meaningful references can be considered: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), IPCC Reports, United Nations Global Agenda (2015), Habitat Directive (2016), last but not least, the EU Next Generations (2020) for the Recovery of country members and the increase of their resilience by the social, economic and environmental impacts by COVID-19 pandemic.
• Rows 48-63: This part can be included within the section Materials and Methods.
• Row 48: Please pay attention to “proper”. Perhaps the authors would write “before we can proceed to the analysis properly?”
• Rows 50-51: The phrase can be synthesized.
• Rows 68-76: I have not found in the paper some linkages with the effects generated by urban transformations on landscape, its relationships with the ecological connectivity, and the economic attractiveness that may generate in a city or territory. I suggest to the authors the following references: Turner & Gardner (2001), Assumma et al., 2021.
• Row 70: I suggest specifying in the paper what the authors intend with global resilience (outcome or process or both outcome and process).
• Row 87: Please capitalize the first letters of “ecosystem services” and then use its acronym “ES”. Please capitalize the first letters of other words throughout the paper (e.g. rows 157, 164)
• Rows 146-152: I suggest putting the text into a table to increase the readability. It could be interesting to add two columns, one for the population density and the other one for the area.
• Rows 193-194: Please add a space between the ending part of the paragraph and the new one. Please make the same throughout the paper.
• Rows 215-219: I suggest adding the equation caption where possible
• Row 267-275: Please organize the text as a table by providing the meaningful information
• Rows 281-283: Do you have considered to use Geographic Information Systems in this application? For example, the software QGIS uses a plug-in based on Python language, not only to collect data but also to provide the most correlated and less correlated areas. Perhaps this could be considered as the future perspective of the research work. This could be considered a future perspective to involve “a broader audience” and better visualize the final output.
• Rows 327-333: The table should provide a legend thus labeling the symbols with the associated meaning to increase the readability. Otherwise, please synthesize the notes.
• Section 3: I retain that a short paragraph on the case study should be provided before the application in order to have a photograph of the two countries and the chosen municipalities. This could be useful to enforce the given discussion of the results.
• Conclusions: From a methodological point of view, it could be interesting to consider other analysis and evaluation tools, as well as the use of different language programming (e.g. more user-friendly like Python). Is it possible to provide some examples of recommendations and guidelines that may be conceived as a potential result of this research work? This may increase the decision-making utility of this research work. 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank Reviewer 3 for the time and efforts invested in the evaluation process, and for the constructive comments. Most have been fully addressed, and justifications were provided for the ones not addressed. Details can be found in the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has gained significantly in value after the revision. All comments have been taken into account. I recommend the article for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the authors for having taken into account all the comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. In my opinion, the paper deserves to be published in the Journal of Remote Sensing. Good luck!

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper fall short addressing 

 -  Defining the model used for this particular research and its theoretical      merit?

-   Model validation is missing, which is  the most important step?

-    Mathematical model of fragmentation in what scales?

"....the green infrastructure continues to be fragmented and lost.." do you really know the broad use of green infrastructure? what do you mean? 

Reviewer 2 Report

Poland and Romania are understudied in green infrastructure literature, which tends to focus on other countries, and the finding that all studied cities have lost green infrastructure is a strong contribution. However, this article has serious organization and framing issues and the conclusions seem to go far beyond the article’s results. The results of the statistical analysis appear to have little to say about planning practices in the two countries, which is the main emphasis of the conclusions. This could be addressed either by 1) better explaining the connection that does exist, but that I overlooked, or 2) cutting out conclusions and recommendations that do not clearly follow from the statistical results, or 3) adding a more in-depth analysis of how these countries conceptualize and plan for (and around) green infrastructure, which would also be a good contribution to the literature. Given the breadth of the study, however, I wonder if the issue is simply a lack of clear explanation of the conclusions that can be drawn from the study's statistical results.

The introduction should provide more of an introduction to the topic, rather than the study. What is the overall subject being discussed here and why is it important? What do we know about it already, in a general sense?

Table 1: Probably better to list the authors last names and years rather than numbers. It would be interesting to see the years of the research, in particular. Furthermore, many of the comments in this table are not novel ideas and should, perhaps, also have citations.

Line 78 – Is green infrastructure still a budding field of inquiry?

The literature review is a little unfocused, disorganized, and repetitive. It also doesn’t give me a sense of similar research that has been conducted. There are certainly studies out there on green infrastructure change, even if their emphasis is slightly different. Your literature review emphasizes the idea of green infrastructure overall, rather than the aspect of green infrastructure to which your study is more strongly related. You mention some of this later, but discussing it earlier, including why your study fills the gap remaining in this specific area, would strengthen the introduction.

You state your research questions twice in the introduction. This seems unnecessary. The third question also seems to be missing from the initial list.

I’m not sure that a review of the literature is novel. It the past 30 years there have been a variety of reviews. What is novel is your study of green infrastructure in these particular countries. I think it would be to your benefit to highlight that. Much of the green infrastructure research is from other parts of the world.

More explanation of the ‘breaking the mirror’ approach seems warranted.

Is there no spatial autocorrelation associated with your dependent variables? Cities that are closer to one another might have similar data. I am also a little concerned about the much smaller sample of Romanian cities. You need to explain why this is not a statistical limitation.

Table 3 would be much clearer if you included the variable names rather than numbers in the table itself. There is also a lot of information in one table. Breaking it up into three tables or otherwise reorganizing it to be more clearly informative would benefit the overall message of the manuscript.

Much of the explanation of your methods is in the discussion section. For example, the rationale behind the period of study. I would suggest moving this to the methods section. The discussion section also includes significant detail on the two study countries, which would be more appropriately included in a study site section in the methods section. This is important context that the reader needs to know to understand your methods and results. You even have a ‘study design’ section in the discussion. This is clearly a methods component.

The article would be stronger if you more clearly connected the planning activities that you detail with the green infrastructure outcomes. Be more explicit about what planning variables are included and whether they were associated with green infrastructure outcomes. This may be there, but if so, it is not clear. Without this, your 9 planning recommendations do not follow from your statistical work and so do not appear justified by your methods. If they are not justified by your methods, where do they come from? What analysis? This is unclear.

As it stands, the vast majority of your conclusions/recommendations are not statistical in nature, but the result of an (informal?) analysis of planning frameworks in the two countries. In this case, you might consider changing how you describe your methods. Otherwise, please detail how you came to these conclusions. What specific results led you there?

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper reports about the mathematical assessment to proof the fragmentation processes of green infrastructure in 32 Polish and 14 Romanian post-socialist cities and aims at the formulation of concrete recommendations for practitioners. With help of previously defined drivers and indicators the dynamical changes of green infrastructure are described, but fail to go into detail and explain the concrete loss of green infrastructure by specific mechanisms and most significant drivers/indicators of the previously chosen ones. Missing as well are the promised “concrete planning recommendation” what practitioners can undertake to change the dilemma of losses of green infrastructure in cities and countries with a socialist planning system legacy. The suggestions can be applied elsewhere and thus, stay generous. As a result, the paper remains uncertain and vague with rather general recommendations than precise and detailed solutions.

The structure of the paper is quite confusing and not much in line with academic standards. The manuscript includes redundancies and assertions. In the introduction chapter the literature review is partly confusing with a vague explanation of the status quo of the current literature, given in table 1. I would have expected that it not only provides international literature but also give an overview of the situation of green infrastructure in the specific countries. The research questions come out of the blue and are not embedded in the literature. A specific definition of green infrastructure is missing and how ecosystem services are integrated into the concept of green infrastructure as well as how green infrastructure is related to the planning aspects in Poland and Romania. Further not explained is the selection of these countries. Therefore, the post-socialist countries Bulgaria and Czech Republic could be also the subject of comparison. Parts belonging to the introduction, like the introduction of the planning system and the situation of green infrastructures in both countries, are presented in a later section which makes it difficult to follow the structure and arguments of the study.

In the section results more similarities and differences between the cities could be described, for instance: What does it mean for the green infrastructure to have a plus in gain and loss in table 2? Only a few cities have it. Where are the most losses of green infrastructure found in the cities: In the city center, in the suburbs, in the fringe belts? What type of green infrastructure is lost: street trees, parks, ecosystems, forests, green belts or from all a little? In table 3 the vertical axis is not self-explaining (variables related to countries?). When and why green infrastructure was gained or tremendously lost?

In the discussion section the obstacles of the post-socialist planning system in both countries were well described and the reader can follow the arguments. Particularly the examples of the cities Lublin and Konin provide a detailed picture of how differently green infrastructure is handled. However, further explanations are missing how the Polish and the Romanian planning systems deal with green infrastructure. Is the term green infrastructure already introduced in the planning systems or do other terms describe green areas? What kind of protection mechanisms do exist and why they cannot be effectively used?

The conclusion chapter lacks coherence between the results and the findings. By what specific findings the recommendations were given? The message is missing by what means the previously indicated research gap is reduced. Thus the suggestions are difficult to trace for the reader.

Finally, the paper would benefit from a close editing. I found it difficult to follow the arguments due to many stylistic and grammatical errors and recommend having the paper checked and proofread by a native speaker.

Although my critiques might sound hard and harsh, I hope my comments will not discourage the authors from continue working on their topic since it has its merits if it goes more into the unexplored angle of recommendations towards protection of green infrastructure in post-socialist cities with detailed arguments for Poland and Romania.

Specific comments:

Lines 43-45: The selection of the two countries needs a comprehensible reason.

Line 56: Table 1 has to move at the end of the literature review to give an final overview of the discussed literature.

Lines 78-80: This sentence sounds like an assertion. It needs a reformulation and at least one source.

Line 81: …more technical side to this matter, … Which other sides does green infrastructure has?

Line 82: … this newly established research niche. What research niche? It needs more explanation.

Line 92-93: This sentence needs a source otherwise it is an assertion.

Line 96-101: This sentence is long and difficult to understand. It needs reformulation.

Line 118: simple? Please reconsider the word selection.

Line 120: … relatively sensitive research effort, … By whom or what?

Line 121-123: These two sentences need a reformulation.

Line 128-130: The meaning of this sentence remains unclear. Please reformulate it.

Line 144: … a common recent history, … This could be a part of the introduction.

Lines 149-157: This section needs more explanation or reformulation as it is very confusing: Why smaller cities where included and larger cities left out, when in the brackets before the cities are mentioned which were used in the study, have over 100.000 inhabitants like Warszawa, Poznan, Bucuresti, ….? Which small cities were included then and which larger were excluded?

Line 255: What type of qualitative analysis was used in the study? Qualitative interviews – expert, problem-centered, etc. or qualitative document analyses?

Line 263: the trends would be better understandable with a short example what is meant by “the phenomenon became more prominent”

Line 267: How is the trend balance correlated to the trends gain and loss? Here a short explanation is needed.

Line 272: The trend transformation needs an example to be better understandable.

Lines 310-318: This section, presenting the results of the study, is very general and should go more into detail. The differences and similarities of the cities should be explained. Are there clusters of similar developments of transformation within the countries or are there significant differences? In which type of cities tremendous loss or fragmentation or transformation could be observed? When green infrastructure was gained, what type of green infrastructure was gained (green belts closed, connection of biotopes through green corridors, extension of inner urban green, etc.)?

Lines 325-329: There is no concrete finding related to the results. How is this point (1) connected to the results of the study, presented in the results chapter?

Line 335: … potentially different knowledge on the fragmentation processes. In what sense the knowledge is different? Compared to what the knowledge is different?

Line 340: The phrase …, even though some studies carried out in different countries … needs a source.

Line 345: What are “different things”? Please reconsider the word selection.

Line 355: … the only indicator for the overall state of the economy was employment … This phrase needs a source otherwise it is an assertion.

Lines 357- 358: which are the most appropriate social, economic and cultural indicators suitable for the comparison in both countries? This phrase needs further explanation which indicators are appropriate and why?

Lines 359-376: The chapter 4.1 should be moved to the introduction chapter.

Lines 377-467: The chapter 4.2 should be moved to the chapter materials and methods as context countries and towns are described.

Line 399: … administrative territory of cities is covered by plans. What kind of plans? general plans, local plans, green development plans, etc.?

Line 439: What is meant by building-free areas? Non built-up areas? Please reconsider the word selection, also in all following cases.

Lines 450-451: This sentence needs a source. Which law is referred to in this sentence?

Lines 477-494: A short explanation of the situation regarding green infrastructure in other Romanian cities is missing.

Line 483: What is the definition of green infrastructure referred to in this paper? This definition was not provided yet.

Line 495: Bucharest is a good example for what? How does the situation of green infrastructure differ in Bucharest compared to other Romanian cities?

Line 556: … the authorities less prone to listen to them. This is an assertion and either needs to be removed or reformulated.

Line 625: … and not just a collection of residents. This is an assertion and needs to be removed!

Lines 633-635: The inhabitants of Konin are largely characterized by the lack of activity and entrepreneurship, … This whole sentence is an assertion and needs to be removed! If the residents lack of such characteristics it needs to be studied to have a source of evidence to find reasons for such lethargy among the urban society. Sources can be found for instance in studies of East-German cities observed by Kabisch, Haase and others.

Lines 640-641: The phrase in bracket is an assertion and is not related to the results of the study. It should be removed or a source should be added.

Lines 648-650: The conclusion of the comparison needs more detailed explanation in preparation for the conclusion chapter.

Lines 651-681: The chapter 4.4 should be moved to the chapter material and methods.

Line 683: The first phrase needs a reformulation. Please reconsider the word selection.

Line 692: significant results towards which concrete issue? These results should be shortly mentioned.

Lines 696-698: These sentences need a reformulation. Please reconsider the word selection.

Lines 696-717: These statements are redundant and should be removed.

Lines 724-727: How are the recommendations related to the study? The protection of green areas was not an explicit topic in the description of the planning systems in both countries.

Lines 728-730: This recommendation comes out of the blue: the compactness of urban form related to green infrastructure was not mentioned in the discussion before nor was explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the manuscript.

Lines 738-739: How should public participation processes be considered in spatial policies? Should the policies be supplemented by aspects of participation?

Lines 749-755: This section needs reformulation or needs to be removed. It includes many assertions and the word selections and phrases should be reconsidered.

Line 790: … surprisingly shallow. This phrase needs a reformulation towards scientific standards.

Lines 796-802: This section needs a complete reformulation towards scientific standards as this recommendation is confusing and the arguments incomprehensible.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article addresses the very important issue of linking research on green infrastructure to planning practice. It is also interesting to look at these issues from the perspective of two countries: Poland and Romania. However, the way of presenting both the adopted method and the results and discussion requires, in my opinion, significant reorganisation.

Detailed remarks:

Line 128 - 130. When presenting the goal at the beginning of the argument, there should be no reference to what was the result of the research conducted and shown in the article. It should appear in the discussion or at the end of the article. The aim should be clear and unambiguous.

I think that chapter 2 Materials and Methods needs to be rewritten and  should more precisely describe in the methods used and the course of action. They should be more legible, enabling clear repeatability.

Line 142-150. What was the criterion for selecting the cities ? Or was it just that they were in Urban Atlas, what was their size?

Line 177 : there is a wrong way of quoting Rutledge (2003),

181-184 : there is no clear explanation of how the authors carried out the calculations for F' green infrastructure?  Is each element  treated separately or in total? For the area and the circumference of the whole city this is explained in line 171-181.

Line185-199 - there is no explanation of how these indices G (gain) were calculated. Were these differences, changes between the years 2006-2012? It can be only be  guessed here, but it should be clearly described at the beginning. What was the accuracy of these analyses with so many cities?

Chapter 2.1.3 in lines 201-208 :  as a description of the method is too general, there are no clear guidelines.

Chapter 3 Results

In this chapter there are redundant descriptions in some places that should be included in the method description: e.g. line 235 -248

249-254 - the results would be clearer, e.g. in the form of graphs.

Table 2

The title of the table is too extensive and unnecessarily includes contents which should be found in the text of the chapter.

The construction of the table makes it impossible to determine which of the analysed cities included in the table are Polish and which are Romanian.

Table 3

Editorial remarks

In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], 

176-180 „Equations: If you are using Word, please use either the Microsoft Equation Editor or the MathType add-on. Equations should be editable by the editorial office and not appear in a picture format”.