Assessment of the Connectivity and Comfort of Urban Rivers, a Case Study of the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present work to apply an index to assess the social value of stretches of urban river in the Czech Republic.  The general topic is an interesting one and the authors have clearly gone to a lot of effort. I did enjoy learning about the rivers that featured in this paper.

Regretfully I do not recommend that the paper is published, for the following reasons:

1.       The authors apply a method called the Urban River Sustainability Index (URSI) which was published elsewhere. The index is obscure (has only been cited a handful of times since it was published in 2019) and in my opinion is very flawed and is of limited relevance and interest. It is comprised of 13 indicators which have been selected to provide an overall evaluation of the connectivity and comfort of a stretch of urban river to river users. However, I do not believe that the indicators give a good approximation of the factors they are supposed to. For example, two indicators are presented as indicative of a factor called the ‘Continuity of the green corridor’. These are soil permeability and vegetation diversity, neither of which are actually measures of the continuity of vegetation along the river corridor. Another indicator, ‘Access to the pedestrian network’, uses crude measures of path gradient and width as a measure of the ease by which people with reduced mobility could use riverside access. While these variables are relevant, other very important factors such as the surface of the path and the presence of kerbs or other barriers that might impede wheelchair users are not considered.   

2.       There is little novel about the study as it applies the existing URSI to a new area.

3.       The context is not well articulated. In the introduction there is no explanation of why URSI was selected as a method, nor was any background given on whether alternative approaches existed.

4.       No rationale was provided as to why the four hypotheses presented at the end of the introduction were selected.

5.       The quality of the English is not good and overall the paper is hard to understand, and in fact I do not understand hypothesis 2, and I’m not certain I completely follow hypotheses 3 and 4.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your evaluation and critical comments. We tried to improve the text following your comments and respond to all of them in the following points:

1. The authors apply a method called the Urban River Sustainability Index (URSI) which was published elsewhere. The index is obscure (has only been cited a handful of times since it was published in 2019) and in my opinion is very flawed and is of limited relevance and interest. It is comprised of 13 indicators which have been selected to provide an overall evaluation of the connectivity and comfort of a stretch of urban river to river users. However, I do not believe that the indicators give a good approximation of the factors they are supposed to. For example, two indicators are presented as indicative of a factor called the ‘Continuity of the green corridor’. These are soil permeability and vegetation diversity, neither of which are actually measures of the continuity of vegetation along the river corridor. Another indicator, ‘Access to the pedestrian network’, uses crude measures of path gradient and width as a measure of the ease by which people with reduced mobility could use riverside access. While these variables are relevant, other very important factors such as the surface of the path and the presence of kerbs or other barriers that might impede wheelchair users are not considered.

Thank you for your opinion. The draft methodology with the Urban River Sustainability Index (URSI) was chosen because of its complexity for comparing individual territories of urban rivers according to clear criteria. The calculations of individual indicators were modified to provide an overall assessment of connectivity and comfort for river users in the Czech Republic/Central Europe.

We found out that no other functional and suitable methodology dealing with the assessment of the sustainability of urban rivers has been developed to date. In addition to the possibility of comparison and motivation for improvement, the methodology is intended to reveal problems in the territory. Which according to the results (especially by confirming hypothesis 3), the URSI index indicates. We compared the results of the URSI with the real problems and shortcomings of the surveyed territories to verify the correctness of the entire methodology. The methodology has proven to be functional and suitable. From this point of view, these used variables seem to be relevant.

The truth is that the original term "Continuity of the green corridor" you mentioned was misleading. The dimension (b) name was modified to "Condition of the green corridor" better to indicate the sub-calculations of soil permeability and vegetation diversity.

 

2. There is little novel about the study as it applies the existing URSI to a new area.

The methodology of the study is not only based on the original methodology published in 2019. We definitely do not just apply the existing URSI to a new area. The following fundamental changes were made in the methodological part:

• 4 of the 13 original calculation formulas were modified. Thus, more than 30 % of the formulas were adjusted so that the methodology was fully functional.
• The resources necessary for the calculation have been modified to correspond to the territory of Central Europe.

We are aware that in some passages of the article, it was ambiguously stated that this is a modified version of the methodology from 2019. Therefore, we have made several modifications in the new version that reflect and describe the change in methodology. Specifically, these are the changes you can find on lines 18, 126, 172, 180-181, 185-187, or 602.

The study further works with the obtained data - it is a comparative analysis based on a functionally adjusted methodology.

3. The context is not well articulated. In the introduction there is no explanation of why URSI was selected as a method, nor was any background given on whether alternative approaches existed.

The introduction was supplemented with an explanation of why the URSI method was chosen. Alternative considered methods (ECI TIMUR, KES) were also presented. However, they do not show such a complex solution. They do not deal with assessing the river environment in terms of connectivity and comfort, as is the case with the applied URSI methodology.

„The URSI methodology was chosen due to its complexity. Currently, it is the only available methodology dealing with the evaluation of the unique environment of rivers in the city in terms of connectivity and comfort for residents. As an alternative, the European ECI TIMUR 2006 set was considered, specifically the ECI A.4 indicator or the Coefficient of Ecological Stability (KES) calculations. Neither of these methods was entirely suitable. ECI TIMUR primarily evaluates the economic and social pillars of the city's development. The KES method is not very objective - the indicator's accuracy depends on the data source, which is derived from the types of land listed in the real estate cadastre, which are often inaccurate and outdated.“

 

4. No rationale was provided as to why the four hypotheses presented at the end of the introduction were selected.

At the end of the introduction, a justification was added as to why the three mentioned hypotheses were chosen. „Their task is to outline the situation around urban rivers in the Czech Republic and to point out specific weak points of the territory.“

 

5. The quality of the English is not good and overall the paper is hard to understand, and in fact I do not understand hypothesis 2, and I’m not certain I completely follow hypotheses 3 and 4.

The article has undergone extensive proofreading of the English language by a native speaker. However, if the article is accepted, we count on proofreading of the English language, which is mediated by MDPI, so that the article will be linguistically correct.

After much deliberation, we completely omitted the original hypothesis 2 – „The distribution of numerical values is in a similar ratio within individual cities in typologically comparable territories."

 

We believe that the article and methodology can bring new and useful findings and our corrections improved the paper and made it much better for readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

It's a good study. But there's something I don't quite understand: 1. Connectivity and comfort seem to be the main components of URSI, so why not use USRI in the title? 2. Line 177-186, Values were classified in four ranges: why do starting Values start with 3? Why is 1 indicator 3.0-3.5 and 5 indicators 3.51-4, but 3 indicators 4.51-5.0? So what should the value of 2 indicators be? 3. Why is B = 2A, C = 4A and D = 8A? 4. Why does Z12 appear after Z13 in table 3? 5. It is best to add latitude and longitude 6.5 in Figure 1. 6. The Abstract section seems to be missing some of the results.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your evaluation and critical comments. We tried to improve the text following your comments and respond to all of them in the following points:

1. Connectivity and comfort seem to be the main components of URSI, so why not use URSI in the title?

It is true that URSI is a determining result index, which is why we added it to the title of the article.

2. Line 177-186, Values were classified in four ranges: why do starting Values start with 3? Why is 1 indicator 3.0-3.5 and 5 indicators 3.51-4, but 3 indicators 4.51-5.0? So what should the value of 2 indicators be?

Experts evaluated the priority and the degree of influence of each indicator on the overall result using a Likert scale. In our case, the Likert scale indicators had the specific form 1=unnecessary; 2=unimportant; 3=neutral; 4=important and 5=very important. The indicators used to calculate the URSI must of course reach at least a neutral value, i.e. 3. That is why the initial values start with this range.

The numbers in parentheses that you are asking about are the number of indicators that have reached the given value. These values are listed in Table 1 as Average Sum/number of experts and Weighting values.

 

3. Why is B = 2A, C = 4A and D = 8A?

Because the criterion used to solve the weighting of each range is to double the previous one: b=2a, c=4a and d=8a. Mainly so that we can express the value of (a). 1a+5b+4c+3d=1 with the replacing of the values of b, c and d, the equation was as follows: a+10a+16a+24a=1, resulting in a=1/51. So, the weighting values were defined as: (a) 1/51, (b) 2/51, (c) 4/51 and (d) 8/51.

4. Why does Z12 appear after Z13 in table 3?

River zones were numbered from the north to the south of the city in all three analyzed cities. In Hradec Králové, compared to other cities, the order of parts was different. Therefore, Z13 in Hradec Králové is listed as a representative part of the city and Z12 as part of the historic center with the waterfront. The order is therefore different compared to the case of Prague and České Budějovice.

 

5. It is best to add latitude and longitude 6.5 in Figure 1.

We considered this option. In the end, we decided to keep the image in its original form because the other components were too distracting on such a small scale. Thank you very much for the improvement idea.

 

6. The Abstract section seems to be missing some of the results.

A sentence regarding the main results of the research was added to the abstract: "The best results were found in the central part of Prague, the worst in the peripheral part of Hradec Králové."

 

We believe that the article and methodology can bring new and useful findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Relevant article studies public spaces and urban rivers, discussing possible relationships between natural and urbanized areas and people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. It highlights a thorough and in-depth evaluation of different urbanized areas in the Czech Republic. Perhaps the methodology applied could be explained more extensively, but the objective of the study is equally clear. The analysis is good although its conclusions could be more extended, especially considering the study that has been done.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your factual remarks and comments.

You have captured the summary of the issue addressed in the article exactly. In the new version, we modified the Methodology chapter so that it better reflects the exact description of the calculations. Diagram of research methodology (Figure 2) was also added for greater accuracy.

The concluding chapter was expanded with information on the possibility of applying the methodology used in practice and the possibility of improving the visual appeal of urban rivers.

We hope that by incorporating the comments we have managed to raise the level of the entire work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, despite the scientific interest of the manuscript, I believe that there are some suggestions that should be implemented so that the work can be accepted:

1.- First, the manuscript is too long. On the one hand, there is a lot of redundant information that does not contribute anything relevant, while at other times there is a lack of essential information. They should be more concise and direct in their language.

2.- Introduction: this section is too long. It should only attempt here to establish a theoretical framework for the study that describes why the research is necessary. It is not necessary to go into methodological criteria. In the same way, it is sufficient to establish the objectives; the starting hypotheses are already included in the objectives themselves.

3.- Table 2.- this information should be included in an appendix, not in the main body of the manuscript (where the criteria should appear, but very succinctly).

4.- In general, the article is so scattered in terms of the information provided that the methodology used is not clear. The authors should rewrite the manuscript, leaving only the essential information, and describing the methodology in a direct and concise way, so that the reader can identify it. In the current version of the manuscript, many methodological unknowns arise.

5.- Due to methodological unknowns, the results are not well understood. It is not clear from which analysis the numerical data are obtained, for example.

6.- The discussion is too compartmentalized. On the one hand, it is fine to describe each indicator. But doing it in different paragraphs does not help to follow a common thread in the manuscript.

7.- I advise authors to rework the manuscript, being concise and clear, eliminating excess information, abbreviating their work.

Kind regards, 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your opinion and factual comments.

We tried to apply all of them in the new version of the manuscript:

1.- First, the manuscript is too long. On the one hand, there is a lot of redundant information that does not contribute anything relevant, while at other times there is a lack of essential information. They should be more concise and direct in their language.

The manuscript was significantly shortened and supplemented with key information.

2.- Introduction: this section is too long. It should only attempt here to establish a theoretical framework for the study that describes why the research is necessary. It is not necessary to go into methodological criteria. In the same way, it is sufficient to establish the objectives; the starting hypotheses are already included in the objectives themselves.

The Introduction chapter has been significantly shortened and improved. Information about wider contexts has been eliminated. Now in the introduction, more space is devoted to the aim of the work and an explanation of the chosen methodology.

3.- Table 2.- this information should be included in an appendix, not in the main body of the manuscript (where the criteria should appear, but very succinctly).

Table 2 is the main evaluation criterion. Despite its length, after a long consideration, we decided to keep it in the main part. However, we agree that some images/tables may not necessarily be placed in the main body of the article. That is why we placed Figures S1 and S2 and Table S1 in the appendices chapter.

4.- In general, the article is so scattered in terms of the information provided that the methodology used is not clear. The authors should rewrite the manuscript, leaving only the essential information, and describing the methodology in a direct and concise way, so that the reader can identify it. In the current version of the manuscript, many methodological unknowns arise.

The article was reformulated with an emphasis on its better coherence. Only essential information was left and the Methodology chapter was more clearly designed. For better clarity, we included the Diagram of research methodology (Figure 2).

5.- Due to methodological unknowns, the results are not well understood. It is not clear from which analysis the numerical data are obtained, for example.

For better clarity of individual steps and numerical data, the already mentioned scheme was added. This diagram describes the step-by-step procedure and explains the origin of individual numerical data. The methods part was improved to be cleared. 

6.- The discussion is too compartmentalized. On the one hand, it is fine to describe each indicator. But doing it in different paragraphs does not help to follow a common thread in the manuscript.

An overall proofreading of the Discussion chapter was carried out. We mainly removed the descriptive parts.

7.- I advise authors to rework the manuscript, being concise and clear, eliminating excess information, abbreviating their work.

The work was rewritten and significantly shortened. She underwent a significant correction. New resources have also been added that offer specific links to academic literature.

 

We hope you will be fully satisfied with the applied changes.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors, I appreciated reviewing your manuscript. The concept of the work is interesting and the goal is right. However, the work needs several corrections. 

1. Abstract_ all showed common knowledge, and some interesting and quantified results should be concluded. At the same time, the abstract may be a useful summary, but the language and organization quality should be improved. In addition, statements similar to the first line can be seen in some articles; it is better to start the abstract in a more interesting and accurate way.

2. Methods_ A flow chart to describe the procedure of the experiment is needed. In essence, the methods must be described in detail so that other researchers are able to replicate and build on results.

3. Conclusions_ Conclusions were all common knowledge. How to apply the results to accurate urban rivers? How to improve the visual attraction of urban rivers? Some prospective statements should be highlighted.   In addition, I suggest you emphasize the contribution of research.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your factual remarks and comments.

We appreciate your interest in the manuscript. We tried to take your comments into account in the modified version as follows:

1. Abstract_ all showed common knowledge, and some interesting and quantified results should be concluded. At the same time, the abstract may be a useful summary, but the language and organization quality should be improved. In addition, statements similar to the first line can be seen in some articles; it is better to start the abstract in a more interesting and accurate way.

Abstract - The abstract has been edited to improve the organizational and language structure. The first line has been reworded to make the beginning sound more interesting and accurate. In our opinion, the new version of the abstract acts as a whole and presents interesting and quantified results.

 

2. Methods_ A flow chart to describe the procedure of the experiment is needed. In essence, the methods must be described in detail so that other researchers are able to replicate and build on results.

Methods - A Diagram of research methodology (Figure 2) was added to the Methodology chapter, which describes in detail the methodology used and its procedure. The entire chapter has been reformulated to make it clearer for others who might decide to apply it in the future.

3. Conclusions_ Conclusions were all common knowledge. How to apply the results to accurate urban rivers? How to improve the visual attraction of urban rivers? Some prospective statements should be highlighted.   In addition, I suggest you emphasize the contribution of research.

Conclusions - We have added the required more precise information to the conclusion chapter reflecting your comments/questions. Moreover, discussion part has been improved better to emphasize the contribution of research.

 

We hope you will be fully satisfied with the applied changes.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

The authors have improved the manuscript and they have provided some context as to why URSI was used and not alternative approaches.

However, I would say that the main issue remains, in that it is not clearly communicated what is novel or interesting about the paper. The authors respond that 'fundamental changes' were made to the URSI method to adapt it to Central Europe. If this is what is interesting about the research then the article should be framed around this, and the reader should be guided through the rationale. For example, the abstract should:

-introduce the problem that indices like URSI address (i.e. why are they useful)

-state the limitations with the previous application of URSI

-state what modifications the authors have made and why they address the limitations they have identified

The Introduction should do the above in more details

The Discussion should discuss the pros and cons of the modifications and  explain how the works adds to existing knowledge.

 

 

Another major issue with the paper is the language. Unfortunately, non-native English speakers have an unfair extra challenge of writing up their work in a second language, which understandably is very challenging, and the disadvantage it places on them is a major problem with the way academic research is conducted. Therefore I am certainly sympathetic towards the author.

However, it is critical that a paper can be understood, and currently it is not of an adequate standard. Some examples;  

-          The first sentence of Abstract states ‘The article examines the research of public spaces…’. The is misleading, as by saying ‘the article examines the research’ it makes it sound like a literature review.

-          The first sentence of the Introduction is ‘The water flow, the river floodplain and the landscape comprise a unique ecosystem based on the wide range of functions and services it provides to society and various flora and fauna species’. It is not clear what is meant by ‘water flow’; presumably a river. The grouping of ‘water flow, the river floodplain and the landscape’ doesn’t really make sense, as the landscape is collectively all the features of an area of land, so it could be pretty much anywhere, whereas the authors are referring to urban rivers.

-          In the Discussion, the sentence ‘…that the physical environment and its characteristics contribute to building a good feeling about a given place, in this specific case, the embankments of urban rivers.’ Embankments refer to a wall or bank built to prevent a river flooding an area. Perhaps ‘urban river corridors’ would be a better phrase.  

 The majority of sentences need work. 

Beyond this there are examples of carelessness. For example;

-          The first sentence of the Results section starts with ‘This Chapter…’, which gives the impression that the article has been hastily adapted from a Thesis.

-          There’s the odd typo, for example Table 1 contains ‘Firts built line’

-          The new text in the discussion appears to be an insertion from elsewhere without much effort to integrate it into the existing text, with the result that it repeats that there are 13 indicators (line 435)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your factual remarks and comments that were very important in an improvement of our paper.

We tried to respond to all of them in the following points:

1. However, I would say that the main issue remains, in that it is not clearly communicated what is novel or interesting about the paper. The authors respond that 'fundamental changes' were made to the URSI method to adapt it to Central Europe. If this is what is interesting about the research then the article should be framed around this, and the reader should be guided through the rationale.

The article presents a modified methodology currently lacking in the European regions. It is, therefore, unique primarily in its approach and concretization of shortcomings in the analyzed area. We described this fact in detail in the Conclusions chapter, which we have now added with the sentence: “The approach proved to be utterly unique in the environment of the whole of Central Europe, as no similar studies were found.”

At the same time, the article provides a comprehensive view of the situation of urban rivers in the Czech Republic. The results are new, concrete, and should be interesting for reader, because they have not been presented or investigated in any similar study before.

We supported the stated facts by supplementing the justification of the selection methodology in the Introduction chapter. We have listed the specific explanation in Methodology chapter.

 

2. For example, the abstract should:

-introduce the problem that indices like URSI address (i.e. why are they useful)

-state the limitations with the previous application of URSI

-state what modifications the authors have made and why they address the limitations they have identified

The abstract was supplemented with the necessary information by the following sentences: “The URSI calculation was used for its possibility of a comprehensive numerical assessment of the territory. In the original methodology, it was necessary to adjust the calculations of indicators and resources for the Central European area.”

3. The Introduction should do the above in more details. The Discussion should discuss the pros and cons of the modifications and explain how the works adds to existing knowledge.

We have supplemented the introduction chapter with new explanation stating the issue of the URSI evaluation index. We did a critical elaboration of this method.  In the discussion, we elaborated more on the advantages of modifying the original methodology.

4. Another major issue with the paper is the language. Unfortunately, non-native English speakers have an unfair extra challenge of writing up their work in a second language, which understandably is very challenging, and the disadvantage it places on them is a major problem with the way academic research is conducted. Therefore I am certainly sympathetic towards the author.

Yes, it is true that the whole process of creating an article can be complicated. However, that is why we use the language proofreading of a native speaker. If paper approved, we are going to use MDPI services of the language proofreading.

5. However, it is critical that a paper can be understood, and currently it is not of an adequate standard. Some examples; 

-          The first sentence of Abstract states ‘The article examines the research of public spaces…’. The is misleading, as by saying ‘the article examines the research’ it makes it sound like a literature review.

The mentioned first sentence has been corrected: "The article investigates public spaces near urban rivers that contribute to the interaction between natural and urbanised areas and between people from different socio-economic backgrounds."

 

6. The first sentence of the Introduction is ‘The water flow, the river floodplain and the landscape comprise a unique ecosystem based on the wide range of functions and services it provides to society and various flora and fauna species’. It is not clear what is meant by ‘water flow’; presumably a river. The grouping of ‘water flow, the river floodplain and the landscape’ doesn’t really make sense, as the landscape is collectively all the features of an area of land, so it could be pretty much anywhere, whereas the authors are referring to urban rivers.

We have corrected the subject of the first sentence of the Introduction. After much consideration, we decided to use only the word river as a collective designation: „The river comprises a unique ecosystem based on the wide range of functions and services it provides to society and various flora and fauna species.“

 

7. In the Discussion, the sentence ‘…that the physical environment and its characteristics contribute to building a good feeling about a given place, in this specific case, the embankments of urban rivers.’ Embankments refer to a wall or bank built to prevent a river flooding an area. Perhaps ‘urban river corridors’ would be a better phrase. 

We modified the mentioned sentence and used the phrase "urban river corridors."

 

8. The first sentence of the Results section starts with ‘This Chapter…’, which gives the impression that the article has been hastily adapted from a Thesis.

Thank you for the notice. We replaced "This chapter" with "This section".

 

9. There’s the odd typo, for example Table 1 contains ‘Firts built line’

The typo has been corrected.

 

10.The new text in the discussion appears to be an insertion from elsewhere without much effort to integrate it into the existing text, with the result that it repeats that there are 13 indicators (line 435)

We had to state that the mentioned sentence really only repeated the information. Therefore, we have shortened it to introduce only the necessary information.

 

We hope that by incorporating the comments we have managed to raise the level of the entire work.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has revised the paper accordingly and now it is acceptable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Many thanks for your review and your very useful comments!  

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded to my comments and have improved the manuscript.

My strong view is that the main flaw with the paper remains, in that the paper does not communicate how it makes a contribution to the academic literature that is worthy of publication.

Much of the first half of the Introduction is only of marginal relevance to the paper and could be pruned significantly, but there is hardly anything in the Introduction on the critically important points of what the limitations with URSI are that the paper addresses, and why addressing those limitations will make a valuable contribution to human knowledge. Currently there is just these lines which tell the reader almost nothing (I don’t actually understand the first line):

Among the negatives of the original methodology is primarily the focus of computing resources on the different environment in which it was originally applied. So, an implementation of this index in different territories is limited due to different data sources and local conditions.

Furthermore, the three hypotheses at the end of the paper are presented without any logical explanation as to where they have come from and why they are interesting and relevant.

In my opinion, the paper just doesn’t hang together; there isn’t a clear logical path which the reader is guided along step by step so that that they can clearly see the merit of the contribution made by the research.    

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your opinion and comments.

The article has been radically improved, reformulated and shortened, so we hope that it will now meet your requirements.

1. My strong view is that the main flaw with the paper remains, in that the paper does not communicate how it makes a contribution to the academic literature that is worthy of publication.

The current version of the article aims to emphasize the importance of the contribution, methods and data sources to the academic literature and explain why it should be published. We have newly included a table with a list of sources Data source overview (Table S1) at the end of the article, where it is evident that this methodology involves a completely new and standardized combination of data. Mainly the chapters Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion were modified.

2. Much of the first half of the Introduction is only of marginal relevance to the paper and could be pruned significantly.

The introduction has been slimmed down and supplemented with critically important points.

3. Furthermore, the three hypotheses at the end of the paper are presented without any logical explanation as to where they have come from and why they are interesting and relevant.

Hypotheses have been replaced by newly formulated objectives that are based directly on the Introduction chapter.

4. In my opinion, the paper just doesn’t hang together; there isn’t a clear logical path which the reader is guided along step by step so that that they can clearly see the merit of the contribution made by the research.

The article has been edited so that the logical continuity is more apparent. We paid a lot of attention to the Methodology chapter, where we added the Diagram of research methodology (Figure 2) for better clarity.

We hope that this version of the manuscript will lead to your complete satisfaction.