A Study on Policy and Institutional Arrangements for Urban Green Space Development in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It would be helpful to include diagrams indicating differences in urban green space vs. development over time. For example, pie charts might be used show percentages of green spaces in apartment blocks, gers, and other urban areas vs. open space land dedicated to other functions such as parking lots. Figure ground maps showing green space vs. built areas over time would help the reader visualize the impact of policy decisions and their implementation relative to urbanization and population growth. Such diagrams would also help the reader to visualize the relationships of existing and proposed green space to residential developments in terms of proximity and dedicated areas.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attachment.
Kind regards,
Bayarmaa Enkhbold
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ID: land-1993022
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The topic related to Ulaanbaatar specifics in the context of development of urban green areas is interesting and valuable, also the paper corresponds well to the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript, from methodological point of view, have many weaknesses. The order of presented information is not clear, thus the manuscript need more methodological approach to represent high level of scientific soundness.
1. Abstract is generally well organized, also key words support the presented topic.
2. Introduction:
– the main aspects presented in this part are valuable, however it is not clear, if those listed in the first paragraph are related to selected area of the world, Asia, or directly to Mongolia - it should be better defined;
- the order of presented information needs some corrections – the section of Introduction should end with a paragraph with the presentation of the main objective of the study supported by a short justification.
3. Material and Methods – an organization of the study on documents as a form of review is generally not well prepared, the method is described very general without any main idea, also the main documents and their background should be presented here; also the use of interviews with 4 representatives of government is not clear – it was not explained how and why they may help or support the review of documents, also the interview form/questionnaire and the scope of questions were not indicated, etc.
4. Results and Discussion:
- the subsection ‘3.1 History of Urban Planning and Green Space Development in Ulaanbaatar City’ is a part of introductory section, not a result, thus must be included in introductory part of the manuscript; also most part of the subsection ‘3.2 Ulaanbaatar’s Urban Green Space Policy Analysis’ sounds as introduction, it is not a Result either.
- the construction and order of subsections 3.2.1 to 3.2.3. is mostly presentation of documents with some comments, but regarding the high number of documents the problems included in the description are presented very selectively and without a broader context. Next paragraphs sound as the general characteristics of the government policy and they have no relationship or form of typical Results, and certainly they are not a part of Discussion. Concluding - there are so many information, but finally the reader is not sure how the aim of the study is realized – presentation of results needs more methodological approach and order, main aspects/problems must be clearly listed, and some more organized comparison of documents could be very helpful to understanding their shortcomings, etc.
In my opinion, Authors should use typical form of Discussion, definitely presented as a separate section, and focus on comparison of their results with other studies related to similar topics and thus show similarities and/or differences of presented problems, etc. Otherwise, the scientific soundness of manuscript is low.
4. Conclusions – regarding the above mentioned weaknesses, the conclusions present rater an Authors’ interpretation or point of view, some of them are useful and include valuable ideas, but only partially related to the presented material, but not argued by other research.
Summing up, the presented material is rather a long description of so many information of government policy of Ulaanbaatar related to selected aspects of green spaces, then a methodologically organized review of listed documents and problems. The manuscript needs major revision. I can not recommend it to be published in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Kind regards,
Bayarmaa Enkhbold
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting and could make an important contribution to the field, but unfortunately in its current form the manuscript lacks research depth, visible by a focus on the case study rather than the research issue, proved by poor introduction, unclear methodology and underdeveloped discussions. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of these sections. Moreover, the manuscript is poorly organized, and requires moving parts of the text across the different sections. Detailed comments are provided for each section of manuscript.
The introduction includes many elements related to the case study (Ulaanbaatar city). It is highly recommended to remove them from the introduction (which should focus on reviewing the existing literature in order to create the theoretical framework of research), and move them to the Methods section, in a new sub-section titled "Case study" and placed in the very beginning. Also, the introduction should be developed to address the importance of green spaces, justified by the ecosystem services they provide, and the role of planning in this process. I suggest consulting some relevant studies, like [https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050592], [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.044] and [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.08.007].
The authors state that the method used in their research is a "systematic review of existing government documents as well as academic papers" (lines 72-83). However, the Methods section is not sufficiently developed and fails to explain (1) what criteria were used to identify and select the government documents and academic papers used in the analysis, and (2) what criteria were used to analyze them in order to get the answers to the questions stated in lines 85-87. For example, it was the simple presence of information, or some text mining methods were used to find the answers.
The most important section of a research article, the Discussions, is missing, and its lack masked by merging it with the "Results". The section is meant to emphasize the importance of research, justifying its publication. Normally, this section includes include (A) the significance of results - what do they say, in scientific terms; (B) the inner validation of results, against the study goals or hypotheses; (C) the external validation of results, against those of similar studies from other countries, identified in the literature; (D) the importance of results, meaning their contribution (conceptual or methodological) to the theoretical advancement of the field; (E) a summary of the study limitations and directions for overcoming them in the future research. Only the significance of results is presented, and not sufficiently. The "Discussions" should be developed to include the missing elements. It is highly suggested to present them as a separate section.
The abstract looks like a shopping list, focusing on the case study only, and not on the broader implications of research and only on what has been done, without the slightest indication on why it has been done, and what knowledge gap is actually being filled in. The abstract is supposed to deliver ideas, and not state the research steps in brief and provide useless figures instead of their significance. It needs to be rewritten entirely, and shift the focus from the case study to the research issue investigated in the study (policy and institutional arrangements for urban green space development).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Kind regards,
Bayarmaa Enkhbold
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The considerations in the article concern important and intersting issues. Research metothod and the method of analysis and formulation of conclusions are correct. The article has great cognitive and practical value. That is why is deserves to be published in present form .
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Kind regards,
Bayarmaa Enkhbold
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ID: land-1993022
Title: A Study on Policy and Institutional Arrangements for Urban Green Space Development in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
I appreciate all works done by Authors. The revised presentation of the study is more methodological and clear, also much developed especially in the section of introduction, presentation of studied documents, as well as results – the improvement increased the content and makes it much more complete.
The used structure of manuscript is much better organized; presentation of study area in the section of Introduction is a bit specific, however, regarding the proposed structure of the whole manuscript it can be accepted.
In my opinion, a certain shortcoming concerns the section of Discussion - its design and included aspects are properly selected and commented by Authors, but there is still a lack of references to other studies presented in the literature. Thus, several literature items discussing similar problems recognized in the studies on planning documents (e.g. from other cities / countries) should be still added to improve the quality and scientific soundness of presented study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article was insufficiently improved, and still lacks research depth, visible by a focus on the case study rather than the research issue, proved by underdeveloped discussions. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of discussions. Moreover, the manuscript is poorly organized, and requires moving parts of the text across the different sections. Detailed comments are provided for each section of manuscript.
1. Section 1.1 "Study area" has been placed, against my recommendation, in the introduction and not in the Methods. Lines 63-144 must be moved to the methods.
2. Figure 2 must be redone to show the position of neighboring countries. This is an article for an international journal, addressing researchers from all over the world, and not a report for the national authorities, familiar with local geography.
3. The most important section of a research article, the Discussions, is insufficiently developed. The section is meant to emphasize the importance of research, justifying its publication. Normally, this section includes include
(A) the significance of results - what do they say, in scientific terms; (B) the inner
validation of results, against the study goals or hypotheses; (C) the external validation of results, against those of similar studies from other countries, identified in the literature; (D) the importance of results, meaning their contribution (conceptual or methodological) to the theoretical advancement of the field; (E) a summary of the study limitations and directions
for overcoming them in the future research. Out of all these, only the significance of results and their external validation (sections A and C) are presented. The "Discussions" should be developed to include the missing
elements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
