Urban Green Spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali: Land Use Changes and Perceptions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW FOR MANUSCRIPT 601588 (RENAMED AS 2741780 WHEN I RECEIVED PAPER FOR SECOND REVIEW) IN MDPI JOURNAL, LAND

Urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali: Land-use changes and perceptions

Mohamed FOMBA*, Zinash Delebo Osunde, Souleymane Sidi TRAORE, Appollonia Okhimamhe, Janina Kleemann, Christine Fürst

The researchers argue that increasing land use, land cover change and climate change impacts urban green spaces and their ecosystem services, causing a loss of urban green space and compromised climate resilience. The researchers aim to identify the spatio-temporal changes of urban sprawl and its perceived influence on the loss of green spaces by local stakeholders in Bamako and Sikasso in Mali. Two methods are used to do this, namely spatial analysis/land use analysis (GIS and remote sensing data, using satellite data) and a survey along with photographs, although it still remains confusing as the authors use survey, questionnaire and interview interchangeably. The spatial analysis clearly shows how urban sprawl has intensified and how green spaces are decreasing. Through the use of photographs of green spaces in the two cities studies, nine different categories of urban green spaces were identified and were used in the first question asked to respondents. The authors briefly discuss this section, naming the most common urban green space categories for each city; and the perception of respondents regarding whether green spaces in their area are excellent, good, moderate or poor. The discussion adds various recent programs, government decisions and local actions to the layer of findings. The conclusion reiterates the two main findings, namely that natural vegetation has decreased in both cities since 1990, yet respondents were still positive regarding the status of urban green spaces.

Comments per section:

Section 1: Introduction

Comment from first review: Why is it referred to as a semi-quantitative analysis? Yes, I agree that sophisticated analyses were not undertaken, but the results are reported on quantitatively.

Second review: Still referred to as semi-quantitative analysis – please outline in methods what this means.

Section 2: Methods

Far more clarity is needed in the methods section, so that readers can replicate the methodology. The second question asked to respondents is complex and would not have been easy for respondents to understand (“What is your perception of green spaces related to the sustainability in your community? 1 = Excellent; 2= Good; 3= Moderate”). I am unsure of what is being asked here. This will unfortunately affect the results. A precise explanation is also required regarding how the different categories of land as per Annex 4 were explained to the respondents. How did they know and clearly understand these different categories, as some are not commonly used terms? Please explain to the reader how it was ensured that respondents understood the categories so that they could choose those relevant to their area.

The overall time range of the photographic part of the study is still not clear.

2.2.3: Please be clear regarding when photos were taken, how often, over what time period, etc. How many photos were used in the end? Line 264 gives the impression that the fieldwork consisted of three photos. I suggest renaming these as figures as each consists of more than one photos. However, the impression still remains that only a few photos were taken. More detail is needed here for reader to understand what was done.

Furthermore, once the reader gets to this point, it is made clear that the photos were used to identify categories, which were then used in the first question posed to respondents. This is not clear from Figure 2. Figure 2 places survey (I do not agree with this term) and photos on the same level (at the same stage). However, photos preceded the “survey”. The diagram still needs to show this progression.  

Figure 2 – survey, questionnaire or interview? Very confusing. The use of the word “pictures” is problematic – please see my earlier review. I suggest that you use the term “Questionnaire” and state that “questions were verbally put to respondents”.

Lines 236-246 are very unclear. Consider rewording as follows (see below) but please also attend to the questions  (Q) I still have regarding this section.

“A socio-economic and cultural survey of the populations in both cities was conducted. It involved  analyzing the effects of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) and their Ecosystem Services (ES) on sustainability and climate change resilience.”

Q: Is this survey different to the questionnaire you refer to below?

“A questionnaire was developed for interviews at the level of the different urban green spaces and the socio-cultural knowledge of indigenous populations, administrative authorities and some technical services.“

Q: What is meant by a questionnaire for interviews? These are two different things. Later (line 254-255) you talk about a survey being conducted verbally with participants. I would refer to that as “Questionnaire” and state that “questions were verbally put to respondents”.

Please resolve this as terminology is mixed up and creates confusion for the reader.

 

“The (survey or questionnaire? – confusing) was divided into four sections: 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent; 2. Characteristics and perception of ecosystem services provided by green spaces; 3. Urbanization, changing urban planning strategies, social, physical and environmental benefits; and 4. Relationship and motivation to use green spaces providing ecosystem services. This paper focuses on part 2, the questions for which can be found in Annex 3.”

 

Lines 266-275 – thank you, this explanation helps. However, it still does not explain whether participants would have understood this concept. Is it general knowledge or did the fieldworkers have to explain the different types of green spaces to participants. Please clarify. Please see further comments within article on the CICES classification.

 

Line 288-289: Can’t spaces be occupied by vegetation as well as still be a public space?

 

Line 292-295 – these are your results (the text suggests that this is your classification based on findings. If so, it should be in results.

 

Section 3: Results

 

Line 349 – You refer to Annex 5, which is now pulled into the paper. Please remove this mention.

I am assuming that since no additional questions were brought into the paper, that there is no addition data that can strengthen the paper (as per my previous review)?

Section 4: Discussion

Lines 408-410 do not make sense. Were real estate agencies (one or several?) created in 2000? Did they not exist before? Are trees planted where there offices are? What are you saying about the historic centre – that it does not have trees? Very unclear – please clarify.

The discussion still lacks depth. I expected to see more comparison between the authors findings and that of other research, and between the interview results and the photo reuslts. I also expected rigorous discussion on the origin of these changes – is it climate change? Is it bad decisions by government? Is it overall increase of land use by various parties? Climate change comes across strongly in the introduction (climate resilience is mentioned in the abstract) but is not addressed in this paper. Furthermore, why are the views of respondents different to the actual land-use changes? What could the reasons for this be? What does other research say about this?

Conclusion

The authors have attempted to bring in the value of the research and recommendations. However, these are vague and come across as superficial. Can you dig deeper into lines 467-470? Consider more specific steps on how these can be achieved.

The added wording in conclusion needs attention.

 

General

The new sections added as well as overall paper would benefit from editing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The new sections added as well as overall paper would benefit from editing.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali: Land-use changes and perceptions

Mohamed FOMBA*, Zinash Delebo Osunde, Souleymane Sidi TRAORE, Appollonia Okhimamhe, Janina Kleemann, Christine Fürst

The researchers argue that increasing land use, land cover change and climate change impacts urban green spaces and their ecosystem services, causing a loss of urban green space and compromised climate resilience. The researchers aim to identify the spatio-temporal changes of urban sprawl and its perceived influence on the loss of green spaces by local stakeholders in Bamako and Sikasso in Mali. Two methods are used to do this, namely spatial analysis/land use analysis (GIS and remote sensing data, using satellite data) and a survey along with photographs, although it still remains confusing as the authors use survey, questionnaire and interview interchangeably. The spatial analysis clearly shows how urban sprawl has intensified and how green spaces are decreasing. Through the use of photographs of green spaces in the two cities studies, nine different categories of urban green spaces were identified and were used in the first question asked to respondents. The authors briefly discuss this section, naming the most common urban green space categories for each city; and the perception of respondents regarding whether green spaces in their area are excellent, good, moderate or poor. The discussion adds various recent programs, government decisions and local actions to the layer of findings. The conclusion reiterates the two main findings, namely that natural vegetation has decreased in both cities since 1990, yet respondents were still positive regarding the status of urban green spaces.

Response by authors: Thank you very much for your detailed observations and comments! We respond to your questions and critique below.

Comments per section:

Section 1: Introduction

Comment from first review: Why is it referred to as a semi-quantitative analysis? Yes, I agree that sophisticated analyses were not undertaken, but the results are reported on quantitatively.

Second review: Still referred to as semi-quantitative analysis – please outline in methods what this means.

Response by authors: Thank you for the comment. We have corrected it (lines 117): “A spatial analysis was chosen to identify changes in land use, and a quantitative analysis was conducted through questionnaires with local stakeholders to identify the types of green spaces and determine the perceived status of urban green spaces.”

 

Section 2: Methods

Far more clarity is needed in the methods section, so that readers can replicate the methodology. The second question asked to respondents is complex and would not have been easy for respondents to understand (“What is your perception of green spaces related to the sustainability in your community? 1 = Excellent; 2= Good; 3= Moderate”). I am unsure of what is being asked here. This will unfortunately affect the results. A precise explanation is also required regarding how the different categories of land as per Annex 4 were explained to the respondents. How did they know and clearly understand these different categories, as some are not commonly used terms? Please explain to the reader how it was ensured that respondents understood the categories so that they could choose those relevant to their area.

Response by authors: Thank you for the critical review. The different categories were explained to the respondents. Table 4 shows the criteria established to determine local people's perception of the status of urban green spaces in the two cities. Field visits made it possible to identify green spaces by geolocation (GPS) and to identify the types of green space by photography. Thus, the types of green spaces listed in Annex 4 and photos were shown to respondents during the survey so that they could understand the choice of these different categories and their relevance to their area.

 

The overall time range of the photographic part of the study is still not clear.

2.2.3: Please be clear regarding when photos were taken, how often, over what time period, etc. How many photos were used in the end? Line 264 gives the impression that the fieldwork consisted of three photos. I suggest renaming these as figures as each consists of more than one photos. However, the impression still remains that only a few photos were taken. More detail is needed here for reader to understand what was done.

Furthermore, once the reader gets to this point, it is made clear that the photos were used to identify categories, which were then used in the first question posed to respondents. This is not clear from Figure 2. Figure 2 places survey (I do not agree with this term) and photos on the same level (at the same stage). However, photos preceded the “survey”. The diagram still needs to show this progression.  

Figure 2 – survey, questionnaire or interview? Very confusing. The use of the word “pictures” is problematic – please see my earlier review. I suggest that you use the term “Questionnaire” and state that “questions were verbally put to respondents”.

Response by authors: We are sorry for the confusion. We have used now only the term “survey”.

Lines 236-246 are very unclear. Consider rewording as follows (see below) but please also attend to the questions (Q) I still have regarding this section.

Response by authors:  Thank you for the request. We have added in the text (lines 297 - 300): Field visits were conducted every two months for six months in Bamako and Sikasso in order to identify the main types of green space classified and the variability of the different land-use categories.

“A socio-economic and cultural survey of the populations in both cities was conducted. It involved analyzing the effects of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) and their Ecosystem Services (ES) on sustainability and climate change resilience.”

 

Q: Is this survey different to the questionnaire you refer to below?

 

Response by authors: No, the survey is the questionnaire.

 

“A questionnaire was developed for interviews at the level of the different urban green spaces and the socio-cultural knowledge of indigenous populations, administrative authorities and some technical services.“

Q: What is meant by a questionnaire for interviews? These are two different things. Later (line 254-255) you talk about a survey being conducted verbally with participants. I would refer to that as “Questionnaire” and state that “questions were verbally put to respondents”.

Please resolve this as terminology is mixed up and creates confusion for the reader.

 

Response by authors: Thank you. We have followed your suggestions. And we have used now only the term “survey” to avoid confusion.

 

“The (survey or questionnaire? – confusing) was divided into four sections: 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent; 2. Characteristics and perception of ecosystem services provided by green spaces; 3. Urbanization, changing urban planning strategies, social, physical and environmental benefits; and 4. Relationship and motivation to use green spaces providing ecosystem services. This paper focuses on part 2, the questions for which can be found in Annex 3.”

 

Lines 266-275 – thank you, this explanation helps. However, it still does not explain whether participants would have understood this concept. Is it general knowledge or did the fieldworkers have to explain the different types of green spaces to participants. Please clarify. Please see further comments within article on the CICES classification.

 

Response by authors: We have clarified the terms and concepts during the survey. We have added in the text (lines 287 - 289): “…the types of green spaces listed in Annex 4 were explained to respondents during the survey so that they could understand the choice of these different categories and their relevance to their area.”

 

Line 288-289: Can’t spaces be occupied by vegetation as well as still be a public space?

 

Response by authors: We have corrected it (Lines 307): “….it was possible to locate all public spaces occupied by vegetation.”

 

Line 292-295 – these are your results (the text suggests that this is your classification based on findings. If so, it should be in results.

 

Response by authors: We have shifted Table 5 to the results according to your suggestion.

 

Section 3: Results

 

Line 349 – You refer to Annex 5, which is now pulled into the paper. Please remove this mention.

Response by authors: Thank you. We have removed it.

I am assuming that since no additional questions were brought into the paper, that there is no addition data that can strengthen the paper (as per my previous review)?

Response by authors: We are sorry that we did not add more questions from the survey. The aim of this paper was to analyse urban green spaces from different angles: a) land use change by remote sensing and b) the quality of urban green spaces by the perception of people. We have already a lot of text (word count) and additional questions would increase the number of words. In addition, we would like to use more results from the survey for another paper.

 

Section 4: Discussion

Lines 408-410 do not make sense. Were real estate agencies (one or several?) created in 2000? Did they not exist before? Are trees planted where there offices are? What are you saying about the historic centre – that it does not have trees? Very unclear – please clarify.

Response by authors: Thank you for the comment. We rewrote this sentence (lines 447 - 451): “Overall, there is no strategic plan for afforestation in and around cities, whereas trees are planted everywhere in the zone of the real estate agency (“Agence de Cessions Immobilières”, ACI), created in 2000 by a real estate agency that took green spaces into account in its development plan and in certain colonial-era developments and boulevards [78].”

The discussion still lacks depth. I expected to see more comparison between the authors findings and that of other research, and between the interview results and the photo results. I also expected rigorous discussion on the origin of these changes – is it climate change? Is it bad decisions by government? Is it overall increase of land use by various parties? Climate change comes across strongly in the introduction (climate resilience is mentioned in the abstract) but is not addressed in this paper. Furthermore, why are the views of respondents different to the actual land-use changes? What could the reasons for this be? What does other research say about this?

Response by authors: Thank you for your critical comment. We have tried to improve the discussion. Please take a look at the lines 397 – 400 and 411 – 426.

 

Conclusion

The authors have attempted to bring in the value of the research and recommendations. However, these are vague and come across as superficial. Can you dig deeper into lines 467-470? Consider more specific steps on how these can be achieved.

Response by authors: The recommendations are still broad because we would like to give general recommendations that fit to the case of Bamako as well as to the case of Sikasso. In addition, an extensive explanation would not fit to a Conclusion. We hope that we still satisfy your request.

The added wording in conclusion needs attention.

Response by authors: We followed your suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article on urban green space is interesting. The following suggestions should be included for rectification.

1.) Highlight the key results of your study in the abstract.

2.) Reduce the keywords. Avoid using the words already written in Title. Delete Change (Keyword).

3.) Line 51......The correct form of citation [4–6]

Line 52......[7–10,11]   Line 53.....[12,13]

4.) Line 58-61....''Target 11.7.........persons with disabilities”......You may cite a reference.

5.) Give some data of area of green spaces currently available in the study area (Introduction section).

6.) Line 123.....Study area in place of Study areas

7.) Please write clearly about survey and sampling in methodology.

8.) Line 305......Please write separately about image processing and statistical analysis.

9.) Result section is short. Hence, more results can be presented.

10.) Add some recent literature in the discussion section.

11.) A bit data can be provided in  conclusion section. Also, policy and recommendations can be re-emphasized for better understanding.

12.) Check all the typos and grammar.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing is required.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The article on urban green space is interesting. The following suggestions should be included for rectification.

Response by authors: Thank you very much for your detailed observations and comments! We respond to your questions and critique below.

• Highlight the key results of your study in the abstract.

Response by authors: Thank you for the comment. The key results are described in the abstract.

• Reduce the keywords. Avoid using the words already written in Title. Delete Change (Keyword).

 

Response by authors: Thank you. We have changed it to: “Public Space, Green area, Ecosystems Services, Land Cover, Urbanization, Africa”

3.) Line 51......The correct form of citation [4–6]

Line 52......[7–10,11]   Line 53.....[12,13]

Response by authors: Thank you. We have corrected it.

4.) Line 58-61....''Target 11.7.........persons with disabilities”......You may cite a reference.

Response by authors: We have cited the “United Nations, The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean (LC/G.2681-P/Rev.3), Santiago, 2018.”

5.) Give some data of area of green spaces currently available in the study area (Introduction section).

Response by authors: We have shifted text from the case study description to the introduction: “In Bamako, the green area is allocated by the municipality according to the distribution plan approved by the Urban Planning Department in cooperation with the municipality. Thus, the total area of ​​green areas in the municipality of Bamako is 1 439 hectares [13], the largest of which is Municipality 1, since it has the classified forest of “Koulouba”, which occupies a very large area. In Sikasso, the total area of green spaces is approximately 828.49 hectares, of which the inland settlement area comprises two types of classified forest: Zamblara (60 ha) and Kaboïla (410 ha) [14]. These forests lack maintenance and development.”

6.) Line 123.....Study area in place of Study areas

Response by authors: Thank you. We have corrected it.

7.) Please write clearly about survey and sampling in methodology.

Response by authors: We have added content in the method section.

8.) Line 305......Please write separately about image processing and statistical analysis.

Response by authors: We have separated image processing and the statistical analysis.

9.) Result section is short. Hence, more results can be presented.

Response by authors: Thank you. We acknowledge your comment. However, we would like to use more results for another paper.

10.) Add some recent literature in the discussion section.

Response by authors: We have added more content from literature (see lines 397 – 400 and 411 – 426). Unfortunately, to find recent literature in the situation of Mali is difficult.

11.) A bit data can be provided in conclusion section. Also, policy and recommendations can be re-emphasized for better understanding.

Response by authors: We have added in lines 504 – 506: “The built-up area increased in Bamako between 1990 and 2020 from 22.08% to 54.37%, and in Sikasso from 20.49% to 48.81% while vegetation decreased in both cities.”

We have also added in lines 510 - 512: “These results can be used by policy-makers for sustainable city planning to address climate issues through specific mitigation and resilience actions.”

12.) Check all the typos and grammar.

 Response by authors: We tried to improve the grammar.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines the impact of land use changes and climate change on urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali, over a thirty-year period (1990-2020). Utilizing Landsat imagery data, it explores the spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl and its influence on the reduction of urban green spaces in these cities. Additionally, the study incorporates a survey of local stakeholders to gauge perceptions of urban green spaces. Findings indicate a significant reduction in green spaces, predominantly due to increased built-up areas, and a general perception of these spaces being in good or moderate condition. The study underscores the importance of urban green spaces for ecosystem services and urban resilience against climate change, offering recommendations for sustainable land use and highlighting the need for further research on the socio-economic impacts of these environmental changes. Overall, The article presents a comprehensive study on the impact of land use changes and climate change on urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali, yet there are areas that require refinement for enhanced clarity and impact. The abstract, while providing a good summary, needs more conciseness and should include specific data, such as the percentage decrease in green spaces. Additionally, the key recommendations should be briefly mentioned to give readers a clear idea of the study's practical implications.

In the introduction, the article sets a solid foundation for understanding the significance of the study but could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the socio-economic impact of urban green spaces, particularly in the specified regions. There's a need to clearly articulate the gap this study fills in existing literature, which would solidify its rationale. Also, the objectives and research questions, while well-defined, should be presented earlier to establish immediate clarity for readers.

The methodology section, well-structured in its current form, requires further detailing, particularly regarding the survey design elements like question nature and respondent demographics. The choice of Landsat imagery and the selected time frames for study also need justification. A discussion on the limitations of the methods used and their potential impact on the study’s findings is necessary to validate the research's reliability.

 

Finally, the discussion and conclusion sections need specific improvements. The discussion should more effectively link the results to existing theories on urban development and climate change resilience, including a comparative analysis with similar studies in other geographic contexts. This would enhance the understanding of Bamako and Sikasso’s unique challenges and contributions. The conclusion adeptly summarizes key findings but should further synthesize these in the broader context of urban planning and climate change adaptation. The practical implications for urban planners and policymakers, particularly in Mali, should be clearly stated, along with suggestions for future research. Structurally, the article would benefit from a stronger theoretical framework, enhanced data presentation, and a comparative perspective. The policy relevance of the findings, especially in the context of Mali and similar regions, should be a focal point to underline the study’s significance in urban planning and climate adaptation policies.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The article examines the impact of land use changes and climate change on urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali, over a thirty-year period (1990-2020). Utilizing Landsat imagery data, it explores the spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl and its influence on the reduction of urban green spaces in these cities. Additionally, the study incorporates a survey of local stakeholders to gauge perceptions of urban green spaces. Findings indicate a significant reduction in green spaces, predominantly due to increased built-up areas, and a general perception of these spaces being in good or moderate condition. The study underscores the importance of urban green spaces for ecosystem services and urban resilience against climate change, offering recommendations for sustainable land use and highlighting the need for further research on the socio-economic impacts of these environmental changes. Overall, The article presents a comprehensive study on the impact of land use changes and climate change on urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali, yet there are areas that require refinement for enhanced clarity and impact.

Response by authors: Thank you very much for your detailed observations and comments! We respond to your questions and critique below.

The abstract, while providing a good summary, needs more conciseness and should include specific data, such as the percentage decrease in green spaces. Additionally, the key recommendations should be briefly mentioned to give readers a clear idea of the study's practical implications.

 

Response by authors: We have adapted the content of the abstract. 

In the introduction, the article sets a solid foundation for understanding the significance of the study but could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the socio-economic impact of urban green spaces, particularly in the specified regions. There's a need to clearly articulate the gap this study fills in existing literature, which would solidify its rationale.

 

Response by authors: Although it is widely accepted that urban green spaces are rapidly disappearing in the study area, little is known about the dynamics of urban green spaces and landscape structure, especially for Mali. This study aims to bridge this gap by analysing changes in land use. This research provides valuable information for urban green space planning and management in Mali.  

Also, the objectives and research questions, while well-defined, should be presented earlier to establish immediate clarity for readers.

Response by authors: Thank you for the comment. According the structure of a scientific paper (original article), the research questions appear at the end of the introduction to provide a transition towards the method´s section. The overall topic that is addressed in the introduction should be clear from the title. We hope, you understand our concern.   

 

The methodology section, well-structured in its current form, requires further detailing, particularly regarding the survey design elements like question nature and respondent demographics. The choice of Landsat imagery and the selected time frames for study also need justification. A discussion on the limitations of the methods used and their potential impact on the study’s findings is necessary to validate the research's reliability.

Response by authors: We have added information in the method´s section. For example, “We used the formula of Dagnelie (1998) to identify the sample size [71]  The targeted sample size was 384 respondents in each city. In total, 754 people were asked in the survey, including 370 people (out of the 384 planned) for Bamako and 384 people in Sikasso, in order to find out people's perceptions of green spaces and the ecosystem services that green spaces provide. Most of the respondents in both cities were male – in Bamako with 78%; and in Sikasso with 71%; their ages range from 20 to 70 years – with an average age of 31. Male had a higher educational level in both cities.” Line 259 – 263.

Finally, the discussion and conclusion sections need specific improvements. The discussion should more effectively link the results to existing theories on urban development and climate change resilience, including a comparative analysis with similar studies in other geographic contexts. This would enhance the understanding of Bamako and Sikasso’s unique challenges and contributions. The conclusion adeptly summarizes key findings but should further synthesize these in the broader context of urban planning and climate change adaptation. The practical implications for urban planners and policymakers, particularly in Mali, should be clearly stated, along with suggestions for future research. Structurally, the article would benefit from a stronger theoretical framework, enhanced data presentation, and a comparative perspective. The policy relevance of the findings, especially in the context of Mali and similar regions, should be a focal point to underline the study’s significance in urban planning and climate adaptation policies.

Response by authors:  There were no other scientific studies about urban green spaces for these two cities.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents interesting results of land cover changes obtained thanks to the analysis of satellite images. These results seem to be representative for the region, Slightly less the survey results are interesting. It is quite original to assess the types of dominant greenery on the basis of surveys, but perhaps in such a large city as Bamako, there is no other way. The results regarding the perception of greenery require better description because not everything is fully understood. See detailed comments.

In the ‘introduction’ it would be worth adding a few sentences about the pressure of climate change on the local flora

A lot of space is spent to mentioning by name various objects occurring in different parts of the studied cities, without further characterization of these objects. It is probably not very interesting for a wider audience. Instead, more space should be devoted to the characteristics of individual types of greenery and types of land cover, especially those related to vegetation. It would be worth answering, for example, the question whether the ‘high vegetation’ also includes forests, that occupy a significant area in one of the studied cities. It would be good to write, at least briefly, what forests they are. What grows there, are they exploited, how and so on.

The text of the article does not mention the name of any plant, even in the context of resistance to climate change

This type of research generally analyze the transfer of area between different types of land cover, for example: in the first period, about 10 to 15% of farmland changed into bare land. This was most likely related to the lack of profitability of production in a given area. At the same time, in another place, 10% of arable land changed into wasteland (bare land) e.t.c

 

Detailed comments

line 78 81: repetition of the same information as above line - 40 45

lines 236 to 239: in the study described here, we do not assess the actual impact of green spaces on ecosystem services and other elements, but the state of society's knowledge on this topic

table 3: In my opinion, it is unfortunate describe the group of respondents with the words citizens and students. Students are also citizens

line 270: ‘ecosystem services are defined as contributions from ecosystem services’ - this statement is not clear to me

Figure 3: The presented maps are of poor quality

Table 4: requires clarification especially in the context of Annex 3

Last column of table 5: ’A specific tree or group of trees for specific tree care operations.’ this statement is not clear to me. Comment needed

Photo 1-Photo 3: each photo requires a separate description

It would be advisable to have more photos illustrating all categories of greenery

lines 375-384: the same information repeated twice

lines 390-391: ‘green areas in the city of  Bamako decreased from 1,439 hectares to 4,867 hectares” - ???

line 472: no space (paragraph)

Author Response

Reviewer 4

The article presents interesting results of land cover changes obtained thanks to the analysis of satellite images. These results seem to be representative for the region, Slightly less the survey results are interesting. It is quite original to assess the types of dominant greenery on the basis of surveys, but perhaps in such a large city as Bamako, there is no other way. The results regarding the perception of greenery require better description because not everything is fully understood. See detailed comments.

Response by authors: Thank you very much for your detailed observations and comments! We respond to your questions and critique below.

In the ‘introduction’ it would be worth adding a few sentences about the pressure of climate change on the local flora

Response by authors: “Increasingly, the earth's surface and human well-being today are being affected by urbanization and climate change, creating a number of challenges for urban planning [1]. Climate change is seen as one of the main emerging issues facing cities. Indeed, it is described as one of the greatest challenges of our time, with negative effects compromising the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development. For example, vegetation, phenology and biodiversity in urban areas are directly affected when air temperature rises [2].”

A lot of space is spent to mentioning by name various objects occurring in different parts of the studied cities, without further characterization of these objects. It is probably not very interesting for a wider audience. Instead, more space should be devoted to the characteristics of individual types of greenery and types of land cover, especially those related to vegetation. It would be worth answering, for example, the question whether the ‘high vegetation’ also includes forests, that occupy a significant area in one of the studied cities. It would be good to write, at least briefly, what forests they are. What grows there, are they exploited, how and so on.

Response by authors: As we have outlined, the contribution of urban green spaces is an important sustainable and climate-resilient issue. Green spaces should be especially integrated in city planning where urbanization is a challenge and where livelihood dependencies on ecosystem services are high [50]. Bamako and Sikasso are the largest cities in Mali that are confronted with land use change and climate change. Many people are affected by the negative effects and, therefore, urban green spaces and ecosystem services are highly relevant for adaption and mitigation. Green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso are different. In Bamako, the green area is allocated by the municipality according to the distribution plan approved by the Urban Planning Department in cooperation with the municipality. Thus, the total area of ​​green areas in the municipality of Bamako is 1 439 hectares [51], the largest of which is Municipality 1, since it has the classified forest of “Koulouba”, which occupies a very large area. In Sikasso, the total area of green spaces is approximately 828.49 hectares, of which the inland settlement area comprises two types of classified forest: Zamblara (60 ha) and Kaboïla (410 ha) [52]. These forests lack maintenance and development. Lines 94 – 108.

The text of the article does not mention the name of any plant, even in the context of resistance to climate change

This type of research generally analyzes the transfer of area between different types of land cover, for example: in the first period, about 10 to 15% of farmland changed into bare land. This was most likely related to the lack of profitability of production in a given area. At the same time, in another place, 10% of arable land changed into wasteland (bare land) e.t.c

Response by authors: It is not that production profits are insufficient, but that production land has been converted into construction land. For security reasons, except for vegetable cultivation, other crops, especially grains, are not allowed to grow in the city.

Detailed comments

line 78 81: repetition of the same information as above line - 40 45

Response by authors: We have corrected it. In the study described here, we do not assess the actual impact of green spaces on ecosystem services and other elements, but the state of society's knowledge on this topic (lines 236 to 239).

table 3: In my opinion, it is unfortunate describe the group of respondents with the words citizens and students. Students are also citizens

Response by authors: We wanted to emphasised that we focus especially on students. We rewrote: “Students and other citizens”

line 270: ‘ecosystem services are defined as contributions from ecosystem services’ - this statement is not clear to me

Response by authors: We have deleted it.

Figure 3: The presented maps are of poor quality

 

Response by authors: We are sorry that the quality is not good but we do not have any further time to improve the maps.

Table 4: requires clarification, especially in the context of Annex 3

Response by authors: We have adapted it.

Last column of table 5: ’A specific tree or group of trees for specific tree care operations.’ this statement is not clear to me. Comment needed.

Response by authors: We have added a sentence: “These are trees planted at specific points along the street to protect the edges from water erosion and ongoing degradation.”

Photo 1-Photo 3: each photo requires a separate description

 

Response by authors: We have added a description:

• Photo 1: This includes vegetation on facades and around boundary walls, as well as trees in urban parks.
• Photo 2: This is considered to be all vegetation in public spaces, along roads, as well as trees in rows and meadows.
• Photo 3: All areas occupied by market gardens as well as vegetation along the river and water points in towns.

 

It would be advisable to have more photos illustrating all categories of greenery

 

Response by authors: We weren't able to take photos of every type of green space, only those shown in the document.

 

lines 375-384: the same information repeated twice

 

Response by authors: We are sorry. We have deleted it.

lines 390-391: ‘green areas in the city of Bamako decreased from 1,439 hectares to 4,867 hectares” - ???

Response by authors: We have deleted it.

line 472: no space (paragraph)

Response by authors: We have corrected it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved based on the given comments. It has been developed theoretically. The methodological part of the article has also been developed. It has now clearly stated contribution in the article. I can see that the internal validity of the revised manuscript has also been increased. From my point of view, the article is ready for publication.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW FOR MANUSCRIPT 601588 IN MDPI JOURNAL, LAND

Changes and perceptions of urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali

Mohamed FOMBA*, Zinash Delebo Osunde, Souleymane Sidi TRAORE, Appollonia Okhimamhe, Janina Kleemann, Christine Fürst

The researchers argue that increasing land use, land cover change and climate change impacts urban green spaces and their ecosystem services, causing a loss of urban green space and compromised climate resilience. The researchers aim to identify the spatio-temporal changes of urban sprawl and its perceived influence on the loss of green spaces by local stakeholders in Bamako and Sikasso in Mali. (Please note that the aim is unclear and I have suggested changes below). Two methods are used to do this, namely spatial analysis/land use analysis (GIS and remote sensing data, using satellite data) and a survey along with photographs. The spatial analysis clearly shows how urban sprawl has intensified and how green spaces are decreasing. Through the use of photographs of green spaces in the two cities studies, nine different categories of urban green spaces were identified and were used in the first question asked to respondents. The authors briefly discuss this section, naming the most common urban green space categories for each city; and the perception of respondents regarding whether green spaces in their area are excellent, good, moderate or poor. The discussion adds various recent programs, government decisions and local actions to the layer of findings. The conclusion reiterates the two main findings, namely that natural vegetation has decreased in both cities since 1990, yet respondents were still positive regarding the status of urban green spaces.

Overall feedback:

The research is interesting and has merit and it would be good to see this published. However, the paper needs to be strengthened. To this end, I have provided more detailed feedback in the sections that follow. I wish the authors all the best with this paper and this important and relevant research.  

Comments per section:

Title: Consider this option as it may be clearer to reader: “Urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali: Land-use changes and perceptions”

Abstract: This needs to be revised once the paper has been strengthened. The interesting finding that, though green spaces are decreasing, the respondents were still positive, is not clear in the abstract. The abstract also needs to bring to the reader’s attention the “so what factor” – why is this research important? Why do we need it? What value does it have in moving forward? This also needs to come across in the conclusion.

Section 1: Introduction

The abstract states that “Increasing land use and land cover change and climate change impacts urban green spaces and their ecosystem services”. This is part of the research problem and the reason why the research was done. For this reason, it warrants more discussion here in the introduction. The introduction briefly touches on why we need urban green spaces, but it does not explain in sufficient detail what the changes are that are causing loss of green spaces in cities – how and why is land use being increased and how and why is land cover changing? More detail is needed here to understand the research problem. I know that this is one of your specific research questions, but I still maintain that the paper would benefit from some context being given in this regard as part of the introduction.  

The aim is unclear – please see my general comments below for lines 91 and 92.

Why is it referred to as a semi-quantitative analysis? Yes, I agree that sophisticated analyses were not undertaken, but the results are reported on quantitatively.

Section 2: Methods

Far more clarity is needed in the methods section, so that readers can replicate the methodology. The second question asked to respondents is complex and would not have been easy for respondents to understand (“What is your perception of green spaces related to the sustainability in your community? 1 = Excellent; 2= Good; 3= Moderate”). I am unsure of what is being asked here. This will unfortunately affect the results. A precise explanation is also required regarding how the different categories of land as per Annex 4 were explained to the respondents. How did they know and clearly understand these different categories, as some are not commonly used terms? Please explain to the reader how it was ensured that respondents understood the categories so that they could choose those relevant to their area.

2.1: Clarity is required regarding concept of communes. More detail is required regarding the changes in urban green spaces that the authors refer to. Please see more detail in “General comments” below. Please be clear in this section that the second part involved a survey as well as the analysis of photographs (the word pictures in Figure 2 is misleading).

2.2: Line 162 refers to a survey, whereas elsewhere the researchers mention interviews (line 99). A survey refers to a quantitative instrument, whereas an interview is usually qualitative (may contain a small quantitative component). To use the terms of survey and interview interchangeably is contradictory. Considering the closed questions asked as per Annex 3, this is a survey, not an interview. The methods therefore need to be clear – was this a survey administered by fieldworkers and filled in by the fieldworkers as the respondents answered the questions? Who were the fieldworkers? How many? How were they trained to administer the survey in the same manner? Etc.

2.2.1.1: Please clarify why one of the selection criteria is that the data had to be acquired during the regional dry season. The overall period in which the study was conducted needs to be clear. The first line of this section and Table 1 show that existing data was used from the years of 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2020. The authors mention field visits every two months, but do not specify the overall time range of this part of the study.

2.2.2: Please make it clear in this section that the paper only deals with two questions that were asked, as part of a wider research project. It concerns me that the stakeholders were only chosen due to accessibility and willingness to answer questions at short notice (line 237). If I look at the different types of stakeholders chosen, I wonder if the authors are perhaps selling themselves short with this description, as to me it seems a balanced representation of the types of people who would be affected by changes in urban green spaces. Should this not be added to your description of why you chose these stakeholders?  

2.2.3: Please be clear regarding when photos were taken, how often, over what time period, etc. How many photos were used in the end? Line 264 gives the impression that the fieldwork consisted of three photos. I suggest remaining these as figures as each consists of more than one photos. However, the impression from line 264 is that the fieldwork consists of these photo collages only, which would be insufficient material to draw conclusions from. More detail is needed here for reader to understand what was done. Also explain how the master plan for urbanization was used.

Furthermore, once the reader gets to this point, it is made clear that the photos were used to identify categories, which were then used in the first question posed to respondents. This is not clear from Figure 2. Figure 2 places survey (I do not agree that this was an interview) and photos on the same level (at the same stage). However, photos preceded the survey. The diagram needs to show this progression.   

Section 3: Results

In Section 3.1 the satellite images showing the change in land use from 1990 to 2020 certainly show cause for concern and strengthen the research problem identified at the start of this paper. Section 3.2, however, is weak. It is a pity that only two questions are reported on and, for both of these I have my concerns (See first paragraph under “Section 2: Methods” above). It would have strengthened the research if respondents had been asked about their perception of the changes in city green spaces over time, and their concerns regarding the impact of these changes on their lives. This would have slotted well in the research problem identified as well as the spatial analysis that was done. However, that cannot be changed now, but I do wonder if the researchers have other questions that were asked, that could help build/strengthen the paper. They only report on two questions from a larger survey. Bringing Annex 5 into the main results section and discussing this in more depth in Section 4 could help.

Section 4: Discussion

The discussion lacks depth. I expected to see more comparison between the authors findings and that of other research. I also expected rigorous discussion on the origin of these changes – is it climate change? Is it bad decisions by government? Is it overall increase of land use by various parties? Climate change comes across strongly in the introduction (climate resilience is mentioned in the abstract) but is not addressed in this paper. Furthermore, why are the views of respondents different to the actual land-use changes? What could the reasons for this be? What does other research say about this?

Conclusion

This is brief, but does reiterate the main findings. This section needs to bring to the reader’s attention the “so what factor” – why is this research important? Why do we need it? What value does it have in moving forward? There is also room here for the limitations of the study and for opportunities for future research. Furthermore, it would strengthen the paper to have specific recommendations in this section.

General comments (The number refers to the relevant line):

The article needs an edit.

Please check that citation technique corresponds to journal requirements. Sections missing from several references in bibliography – please check all and conform to Land referencing style, for example, references 41, 49, 52, 53, 55, 58.

50 & 55: Check overlap/repetition. If line 55 is there to bring across a new concept, this must be clearer and more distinguishable from line 50.

62-90: Well written

91: Do you mean “ “… to identify the spatio-temporal changes resulting from urban sprawl …?”

92: Is this what you are wanting to say? “… the perceptions of local stakeholders on the loss of green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso”. In its current form, it sounds as if local stakeholders are responsible for the loss of green spaces.

96: Present tense: “How are urban green spaces perceived …”, as this relates to your current study.

133: Are the communes the green areas? Or do communes contain green areas? Please clearly define “communes” for the reader, when you first introduce this concept.

134: Use roman numeral “I” for “Commune I” to align with how you number the other communes.

139: To give context to the reader and help us understand the importance of this research, can you specify what changed in the use of public green spaces? Please be sure you are clear here – did public green spaces change (e.g. they were removed or developed) or did the use of public green spaces change? You currently are stating the latter, but is this really what you want to say?

140: This connects with my comment above – you state “Commune IV (33%) was the most affected, while Commune V and VI were 32% 140 affected”. Please specify how were they affected? What happened/changed in these public spaces?

151: “Challenges” might be a better word than “concerns”.

147-155: It is not clear to the reader whether the areas described here are within communes or not? Please check line 155 which states that “forests lack maintenance and development”. While maintenance might be necessary, is it not a good thing that the forests lack development – in line with your paper, surely one wants to conserve these forests and not develop them. Please clarify.

Line 240 (Table 3):

·        Do you mean “left of the Niger river and right of the Niger river”? To understand this, the reader needs to know the overall orientation, e.g. if moving from north to south, for arguments sake, then 60 respondents are found to the left of the river. Please clarify.

·        Column 3 needs a heading

·        Line 5, column 3: is the number “4” supposed to be there? Do these names refer to different regions in Sikasso? Please clarify.

·        Generally, column 3 is confusing. Can you use bullet points to make this clearer? What is “governorate” – is it the name of an organisation or a local term for something/an organisation? Please remember the reader will not be familiar with this and it therefore needs to be clearer. What is “Urbanism” and so forth.

Line 242: Explain what the Kobo toolbox is. Why was this toolbox used in Bambara and not elsewhere? Where is Bambara? (it is only mentioned in line 242).

Line 242-243 does not make sense. Please rewrite.

299-303: “Especially” is used in three sentences in a row. Its use is not always appropriate, please seek advice from an editor. The sentence structure in these three sentences needs attention.

327: When considering the definition of “Roadside tree ranger”: as per Annex 4, would “Group of roadside trees” not be a clearer name? In addition, were these groups always along a road or next to a road? If not, rather drop “roadside” from the name as it confuses them with “Street trees”.

495 (Annex 3): Linked to the comment above, could “Urban defensive forest” be termed “Urban protected forest”?

359-360: Specify the change in use of the classified spaces – changed from X to Y. Specify X and specify Y.

364-367: This sentence contradicts itself – if trees play an important role in the culture, then why are they only panted at the end of a development?

370-381: Please check this sentence and the table line interrupting it. “Trees are planted everywhere (Real estate sales agency created in 2000), except in rare arrangements in the historic center of the colonial era and on the Mali boulevard [70].” Is the bracketed part the citation? Is this being mentioned as a problem or a good thing? Are you saying that in the historic centre they are not planting trees?

386: Replace “really existing” with “actual”

385-387: A link is needed between sentence starting in 385 and the one starting in 387. The jump here is not easy for the reader to follow.

404-406: “Various urban planning and development projects were conducted at the scale of "Grand Bamako 2030", giving priority to projects that can have a significant leverage effect on the functioning of the metropolis, the participation of private actors and residents, and the attractiveness of the city”. This sentence is preceded by a description of more historical actions (2010/2011), hence I suggest you precede this sentence with “More recently, …”; consider replacing “at the scale of” with “as part of ..”, if this is accurate to what you are trying to say. The sentence is not clear. Furthermore, explain what “Grand Bamako 2030”. Is it a strategy with action points/priorities that should be reached by 2023?

409: Who are these consultants? How do they fit into this study?

415: Link needed between this sentence and the preceding one.

459-460: What is the purpose and meaning of this sentence?

457: Annex 1: Are communes only relevant to Bamako and not to Sikasso?

507: Please check what is going on there – un-numbered reference (incomplete?)?

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sections of the paper are clear, while others are less clear and harder to understand. After the feedback of reviewers has been incorporated, the paper will need to be edited by a professional editor. 

Author Response

Section 1 : Introduction

     Increasing land use and land cover change (LULC), climate change (CC) and rapid urbanization have considerable impacts on urban green spaces and their ecosystem services (ES). These impacts result in a loss of urban green space and particularly weaken the climate resilience of urban populations.

    Green spaces are considered to be areas covered with vegetation of any kind (such as trees, vegetable crops, grass, bushes, etc.). These green spaces allow water to infiltrate through the soil and vegetation, filtering some of the sediment and pollutants before reaching the underlying water table [1]. Forest vegetation, phenology and biodiversity in urban areas are directly affected when air temperature rises [2]. Green spaces need to be integrated particularly in low and lower middle income countries where the pace of urbanization is expected to be fastest to achieve sustainable urban growth [3].

In some study, urban green spaces are considered as one type of nature based solutions that use urban ecosystem services to provide mitigation and adaptation actions and solutions to climate change and urbanization related challenges [50]. According to the Sustainable Development Goals from UN, the goals 3, 10, and 11 help strengthen sustainable and inclusive urban development in all countries, reduce inequalities while aiming to meet the needs of different populations by 2030 [51]. Thus, the contribution of urban green spaces is an important sustainable and climate-resilient issue.

The main aim of our study is to assess changes in land use, its impact on the loss of green space and the perception of ecosystem services in the context of climate change.

The specific research questions are:

• How has urban land use changed between 1990 and 2020? What types of green spaces have been identified?
• How do local representatives in Bamako and Sikasso view urban green spaces?

Spatial analysis was chosen to identify changes in land use, and semi-quantitative analysis was conducted through questionnaires with local stakeholders to identify the types of green spaces and determine the perceived status of urban green spaces.

 

Section 2 : Méthodes

The district of Bamako is located south of the Koulikoro (both sides of the Niger River), between 12º29'12º29'57 and 12º42'7º54'22 north latitude and 7º54'8º4'6 and 8º4'12º29'57 west longitude. Bamako district is separated by the Niger River to the north by Mount Manding; and in the South, by the Tienkoulou reliefs [54]. Sikasso city is located in the southern part of Mali between 10° 49 and 12° 18 of north latitude and between 5° and 6° 35 of west longitude.

 

2.1 : The survey allowed the development of a database that includes the location of green spaces in the communes of Bamako and Sikasso, the type of green space according to the vegetation cover based on the typology described by [65]–[69].

 

2.2 :  A survey of the population involves analysing the effects of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) and their Ecosystem Services (ES) on sustainability and climate change resilience in Bamako and Sikasso cities through the socio-economic and cultural survey of the populations in both cities was conducted. Questionnaires was developed for survey at the level of the different urban green spaces and the socio-cultural knowledge of indigenous populations, administrative authorities and some technical services. So, it was divided into four sections (Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent; characteristics and perception of ecosystem services provided by green spaces; urbanization, changing urban planning strategies, social, physical and environmental benefits; relationship and motivation to use green spaces providing ecosystem services), but our study focused on the perception of ecosystem services provided by green spaces which was focused on both questions showed in annex 3.

 

2.2.1.1 : We believe it is much safer to identify green areas during the regional dry season, when nearly the entire landscape is green due to the effects of winter rainfall.

 

 

2.2.2 : The questionnaire was administered by university students and graduates (agronomists and geographers) who had received preliminary training in the concept of green spaces and the ecosystem services provided, based on the definition and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) of different types of green spaces. Therefore, according to the structure and scope of the original and new versions of the CICES classification, the perception standards for urban green spaces and their ecosystem services provided are defined, and ecosystem services are defined as contributions from ecosystem services. Ecosystems for human well-being [25]. On the other hand, field visits confirmed the presence of green spaces through geolocation (GPS) and identified the types of green spaces through photography. Table 4 shows the perceived criteria for urban green spaces and the ecosystem services they provide.

2.2.3 : Every two months (first two weeks), field visits in Bamako and Sikasso were conducted to identify the main green space types and the variability of the different land use categories.

Based on survey and fieldwork investigation as showed the selected photos 1, 2, and 3, and the master plan for urbanization which has made possible to locate all public spaces as well as   occupied spaces by vegetation [49], the green spaces in both cities were divided into nine categories: Streets trees, Grass, Private Garden, Public Garden, Urban defensive forest, Urban Park, Market Garden, Roadside tree ranger and Greenery of river banks. The definitions of each type of green spaces are showed in table 5.

 

Section 3 : Résultats

Questionnaires was developed for survey at the level of the different urban green spaces and the socio-cultural knowledge of indigenous populations, administrative authorities and some technical services. So, it was divided into four sections (Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent; characteristics and perception of ecosystem services provided by green spaces; urbanization, changing urban planning strategies, social, physical and environmental benefits; relationship and motivation to use green spaces providing ecosystem services), but our study focused on the perception of ecosystem services provided by green spaces which was focused on both questions showed in annex 3.

Section 4 : Discussion

The main types of green spaces encountered in the locality of and by the respondents in both cities were street trees and roadside tree groups, while private and public gardens reached a high level in Bamako. In Bamako, the green area is allocated by the municipality according to the distribution plan approved by the Urban Planning Department in cooperation with the municipality. Thus, the total area of ​​green areas in the municipality of Bamako is 1 439 hectares [61], the largest of which is Municipality 1, since it has the classified forest of “Koulouba”, which occupies a very large area. According to the distribution plan approved by the Urban Planning Department in cooperation with the Municipality, the total area of green areas in the municipality of Bamako is 1 439 hectares [61], the largest of which is Municipality 1, since it has the classified forest of Koulouba, which occupies a very large area.

In Sikasso, the total area of green spaces is approximately 828.49 hectares, of which the inland settlement area comprises two types of classified forest: Zamblara (60 ha) and Kaboïla (410 ha) [63]. These forests lack maintenance and development. Less important in the community is the work of protecting cultivated land from mixed erosion. The results of the land use analysis showed that the area of ​​green areas in the city of Bamako decreased from 1,439 hectares to 4,867 hectares, while the area of ​​green areas in the city of Sikasso decreased from 828.49 hectares to 704 hectares.

 

Trees are planted everywhere in the areas of Real estate sales agency created in 2000, thus that in rare arrangements in the historic center of the colonial era and on the Mali boulevard [75]

 

Further research is needed to explore the relation between perceptions of the local population and current land use changes.

 

More recently, various urban planning and development projects were conducted as part of "Grand Bamako 2030", giving priority to projects that can have a significant leverage effect on the functioning of the metropolis, the participation of private actors and residents, and the attractiveness of the city. Indeed, Grand Bamako 2030 is a strategy of planning with action points or management priorities to be achieved by 2030.

The consultants, the URBATEC/Atelier 21 consortium, developed the urban master planning approach in a document consisting of two main parts: (i) the assessment/consensus aims to diagnose all issues related to the development of the city of Sikasso, including housing, large commercial areas, roads and various networks and large facilities, (ii) the program report includes twenty (20) years of development recommendations, summary cost estimates, implementation strategies and recommendations [63].

 

Conclusion

 

These results can be used to implement certain policies, in order to solve certain climate problems in the cities, through specific actions in recommendations below: (i) Promoting sustainable land use systems, such as urban green spaces, which are crucial for the provision of ecosystem services and the resilience of cities to climate change; (ii) Help urban planners to take into account the public perception of the benefits of urban green spaces for a sustainable city with multiple ecosystem services. Therefore, the elaboration of new or the enforcement of existing measures are needed to maintain and improve urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso.

 

Annex

 

N˚	QUESTIONS	ANSWER
…	…
Q.10	What types of green spaces exist in your locality? 1= Market gardens; 2= Roadside tree group; 3= Protected urban forest; 4= Urban park; 5= Public garden; 6= Private garden; 7= Street trees; 8= Grassland; 9= Greenery of river bank.
…	…
Q.16	What is your perception of green spaces related to the sustainability in your community? 1 = Excellent; 2= Good; 3= Moderate; 4= Poor

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article on urban green space is interesting and has been modified drastically as compared to the first submission. However, some minor corrections are still required for further improvement.

i) Abstract is still general. Focus more on results and policy recommendations.

ii) Introduction: This section can be improved by focussing on the area that has decreased related to green space. Some early literature data is expected. Further, urbanization process can be elaborated....What major activities are causing more degradation? Include some studies which have shown spatio-temporal changes in other cities.

iii) Line 106-107: The Long. and Lat. coordinates should be presented scientifically.

iv) Check the format of Table 3 and Table 4.

v) Line 375: Write.....The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) report....

vi) Check the row between Line 379-381. Years Overall accuracy (%) Kappa Coefficient (%)

vii) Line 429-431: The authors have to specify some policy recommendations from this significant study or outcome. This should be well written because it will be useful for decision makers.

viii) The reference format in text is not proper in some cases. For example, Line 40...[1][2]......[1,2]

ix) Check Annex Table A2....Some error

x) Check extra bracket in Line 605, 666.

xi) Please check grammar and language properly. Some typos should also be checked.

xii) A separate section on Data analysis in Methods section is expected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The English improvement is very necessary to the paper. I don't see any originally idea in thebpaper

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English improvement is very necessary to the paper.

 

 

Author Response

L'article sur les espaces verts urbains est intéressant et a été considérablement modifié par rapport à la première soumission. Toutefois, quelques corrections mineures sont encore nécessaires pour l'améliorer.

 

1. i) The researchers argue that increasing land use, land cover change and climate change impacts urban green spaces and their ecosystem services, causing a loss of urban green space and compromised climate resilience. The researchers aim to identify the spatio-temporal changes of urban sprawl and its perceived influence on the loss of green spaces by local stakeholders in Bamako and Sikasso in Mali. (Please note that the aim is unclear and I have suggested changes below). Two methods are used to do this, namely spatial analysis/land use analysis (GIS and remote sensing data, using satellite data) and a survey along with photographs. The spatial analysis clearly shows how urban sprawl has intensified and how green spaces are de-creasing. Through the use of photographs of green spaces in the two cities studies, nine dif-ferent categories of urban green spaces were identified and were used in the first question asked to respondents. The authors briefly discuss this section, naming the most common ur-ban green space categories for each city; and the perception of respondents regarding wheth-er green spaces in their area are excellent, good, moderate or poor. The discussion adds vari-ous recent programs, government decisions and local actions to the layer of findings. The conclusion reiterates the two main findings, namely that natural vegetation has decreased in both cities since 1990, yet respondents were still positive regarding the status of urban green spaces.

 

1. ii)

     Increasing land use and land cover change (LULC), climate change (CC) and rapid urbanization have considerable impacts on urban green spaces and their ecosystem services (ES). These impacts result in a loss of urban green space and particularly weaken the climate resilience of urban populations.

    Green spaces are considered to be areas covered with vegetation of any kind (such as trees, vegetable crops, grass, bushes, etc.). These green spaces allow water to infiltrate through the soil and vegetation, filtering some of the sediment and pollutants before reaching the underlying water table [1]. Forest vegetation, phenology and biodiversity in urban areas are directly affected when air temperature rises [2]. Green spaces need to be integrated particularly in low and lower middle-income countries where the pace of urbanization is expected to be fastest to achieve sustainable urban growth [3].

In some study, urban green spaces are considered as one type of nature-based solutions that use urban ecosystem services to provide mitigation and adaptation actions and solutions to climate change and urbanization related challenges [50]. According to the Sustainable Development Goals from UN, the goals 3, 10, and 11 help strengthen sustainable and inclusive urban development in all countries, reduce inequalities while aiming to meet the needs of different populations by 2030 [51]. Thus, the contribution of urban green spaces is an important sustainable and climate-resilient issue.

The main aim of our study is to assess changes in land use, its impact on the loss of green space and the perception of ecosystem services in the context of climate change.

The specific research questions are:

• How has urban land use changed between 1990 and 2020? What types of green spaces have been identified?
• How do local representatives in Bamako and Sikasso view urban green spaces?

Spatial analysis was chosen to identify changes in land use, and semi-quantitative analysis was conducted through questionnaires with local stakeholders to identify the types of green spaces and determine the perceived status of urban green spaces.

iii) The district of Bamako is located south of the Koulikoro (both sides of the Niger River), between 12º29'12º29'57 and 12º42'7º54'22 north latitude and 7º54'8º4'6 and 8º4'12º29'57 west longitude. Bamako district is separated by the Niger River to the north by Mount Manding; and in the South, by the Tienkoulou reliefs [54]. Sikasso city is located in the southern part of Mali between 10° 49 and 12° 18 of north latitude and between 5° and 6° 35 of west longitude.

4. iv) Vérifiez le format des tableaux 3 et 4.

Table 3: Sample description of Bamako and Sikasso.

City	Representatives of the respective stakeholder group	Specification of representatives	Number of respondents
Bamako	Farmers and private owners of green spaces	Left the Niger river (60) and right the Niger river (90)	150
	Local population	Citizens and students	190
	Administrative authorities and technical services	Health, Institute of Rural Economy (IER), Health, Water and Forests, Municipality, Urbanism, School and Institute	30
Sikasso	Farmers and private owners of green spaces	Sanoubougou, Hamdallaye, Lafiabougou, 4 Ponts, Medine, Lafiabougou	200
	Local population	Citizens and students	134
	Administrative authorities and technical services	Governorate, Regional Direction of Agriculture (DRA), Health, IER, Water and Forests, Municipality, Urbanism, School and Institute	50
Total			754

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Perception of population on Ecosystem Services provided by green spaces

Criterias	Perceptions
Provisioning ; Regulation and maintenance ; Cultural	Excellent
Provisioning; Regulation and maintenance	Good
Provisioning and regulating or Provisioning and Cultural or Cultural and Regulating	Moderate
Any of them	Poor
None of them	Indifferent

 

 

1. v) Ligne 375 : Écrire.....Le rapport d'évaluation des incidences environnementales et sociales (ESIA)....

. In Bamako, the green area is allocated by the municipality according to the distribu-tion plan approved by the Urban Planning Department in cooperation with the munic-ipality. Thus, the total area of green areas in the municipality of Bamako is 1 439 hec-tares [61], the largest of which is Municipality 1, since it has the classified forest of “Koulouba”, which occupies a very large area. According to the distribution plan ap-proved by the Urban Planning Department in cooperation with the Municipality, the total area of green areas in the municipality of Bamako is 1 439 hectares [61], the largest of which is Municipality 1, since it has the classified forest of Koulouba, which occu-pies a very large area.

In Sikasso, the total area of green spaces is approximately 828.49 hectares, of which the inland settlement area comprises two types of classified forest: Zamblara (60 ha) and Kaboïla (410 ha) [63]. These forests lack maintenance and development. Less im-portant in the community is the work of protecting cultivated land from mixed erosion. The results of the land use analysis showed that the area of green areas in the city of Bamako decreased from 1,439 hectares to 4,867 hectares, while the area of green areas in the city of Sikasso decreased from 828.49 hectares to 704 hectares.

381. vi) Vérifiez la ligne entre les lignes 379 et 381. Années Précision globale (%) Coefficient Kappa (%)

Annex 2: Accuracy assessment of land use and land cover in Bamako and Sikasso from 1990 to 2020

Annex Table A1: Accuracy assessment of land use / cover in Bamako between 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2020.

Years	Overall accuracy (%)	Kappa Coefficient (%)
1990	97.92	93.43
2000	98.42	98.14
2010	98.02	97.65
2020	96.96	96.43

 

 

 

Annex Table A2: Accuracy assessment of land use/cover in Sikasso between 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2020.

 

 

Years	Overall accuracy (%)	Kappa Coefficient (%)
1990	84.81	82.26
2000	90.00	88.17
2010	98.68	93.98
2020	99.17	99.02

 

 

 

vii) Lignes 429-431 : Les auteurs doivent préciser certaines recommandations politiques découlant de cette étude ou de ce résultat important. Ces recommandations doivent être bien rédigées car elles seront utiles aux décideurs.

These results can be used to implement certain policies, in order to solve certain climate problems in the cities, through specific actions in recommendations below: (i) Promoting sustainable land use systems, such as urban green spaces, which are crucial for the provision of ecosystem services and the resilience of cities to climate change; (ii) Help urban planners to take into account the public perception of the benefits of urban green spaces for a sustainable city with multiple ecosystem services. Therefore, the elaboration of new or the enforcement of existing measures are needed to maintain and improve urban green spaces in Bamako and Sikasso.

viii) Le format de référence dans le texte n'est pas correct dans certains cas. Par exemple, ligne 40...[1][2]......[1,2]

OK

2. ix) Vérifier le tableau de l'annexe A2....Certaines erreurs.

OK

666. x) Vérifiez les crochets supplémentaires aux lignes 605 et 666.

OK

1. xi) Veuillez vérifier la grammaire et la langue. Certaines fautes de frappe doivent également être vérifiées.

OK

xii) Une section séparée sur l'analyse des données dans la section Méthodes est attendue.

The data analysis of LULC and mapping was processed through Envi 4.7, GIS 10.8, and remote sensing measurements were used for the spatial analysis of green areas and the technique was made it easy to differentiate vegetative areas from non-vegetative areas. The survey data from Kobo Toolbox were then analyzed with application systems such as Excel and R-Studio.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx