Research on Functional Value Estimation and Development Mode of Green Infrastructure Based on Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Model: A Case Study of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Please specify the objectives of the paper.
- What is the added value of research?
- What is the novelty of the paper?
- A comparative analysis between the data obtained by you and those reported in the literature is necessary. Insert a scientific discussion justified by bibliographical references.
- The authors should refine the abstract and the conclusions.
Author Response
Thank you. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The considerations undertaken in the article are of great cognitive and substantive value. The applied method of value and development mode of gren infrastructure does not any fundamental objections. Critical remarks refer to the following aspects: 1/ the article does not distinguish a clear aim , 2/ the lack of research hypothesis, 3/ no recommendations for business practice and directions for further research. For this reasons, the considerations taken cannot be value unequivocally positively. Therefore, it is necessery to supplement considerations with thes aspects. After completing, the article can be published in the yournal.
Author Response
Thank you. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.
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 and conclusions, and lack of discussions. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of these sections. Moreover, the article lacks the international exposure required for publication in an international journal, and suffers from an extremely poor, almost random editing, requiring the assistance of a native English speaker or professional English editing services. Detailed comments are provided for each section of manuscript.
The introduction is not organized properly, and the most important parts are obscured. Normally, in a scientific article the introduction analyzes the existing literature in order to identify their shortcomings (ambiguities, controversies, misconceptions or lacks), justifying the need for research, and emphasizing the novel and original elements of the current study. This is why it does not make sense having two separate sections, "Introduction" and "Multifunctional Value Analysis of Green Infrastructure". They should be merged. The merged section, called "Introduction", should end with a separate paragraph containing current lines 58-64, starting from "Based on the". The research goals are written in an unclear way, without any clear statement (e.g., "this study aims to..."); they should be rewritten clearly, rephrasing current lines 58-64. For the multifunctional value analysis of green infrastructure, we suggest consulting the article at https://dx.doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.4716; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.013
Also, the introduction should include only a literature review; all elements related to the case study should be placed in the methodological section, if they help understanding the application of the approach used by the current study, or discussion, if they facilitate the understanding of findings. The article is about the functional value evaluation and development mode of green infrastructure based on multi-dimensional evaluation model and not about China; China is only the case study. Therefore, the introduction should deal with the functional value evaluation and development mode of green infrastructure based on multi-dimensional evaluation model and not with China.
The Methods section is written in an unclear way. I suggest using the conventional name "Material and Methods", and dividing it in "Overview" (lines 125-132), followed by the existing sections.
he most important section of a research article, the Discussions, is missing. 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 in the "Results" sections, and only partially. An overview of the significance of results will be also useful. The "Discussions" should be developed to include the missing elements.
Conclusions are not sufficiently broad in scope, and lack research depth, pertaining only to the case study and being in fact just a summary of the main findings. Conclusions are meant to deliver a scientific message, far away beyond the case study, to the entire scientific community, making a clear contribution to the theoretical (conceptual or methodological) development of the field. Conclusions must be developed beyond the case study.
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 (functional value evaluation and development mode of green infrastructure based on multi-dimensional evaluation model).
The main shortcomings of the article relate to the correct use of English; the authors should seek for the assistance of a native English speaker or professional English editing services. There are many issues that need to be addressed before publication, including basic level issues, such as the proper use of capitalization, punctuation, and spaces in relationship to punctuations; the manuscripts suffers from an almost random editing.
Author Response
Thank you. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have fully and deeply addressed my previous comments, and as a result the manuscript increased its research depth and addresses a broader international audience. I do not have any additional comments and recommend its publication in the revised form.
