Development, Characteristics, and Implications of Landscape Performance Evaluation of Greenways in the United States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. This study employed a multi-source meta-analysis framework, integrating 48 cases of greenways in the United States from LPS, LAUP, and Fabos articles. The use of KH encoders for text quantification and co-occurrence network analysis effectively compensates for the deficiencies of individual case-driven studies in the existing literature and provides systematic insights for performance evaluation models. Effectively linking the greenway effects with historical and policy contexts has enhanced the theoretical depth of the research.
2. This sample is only centered on the United States, which limits its applicability worldwide. Discussions on how differences in aspects such as culture, policy, or ecology (for example, the biodiversity policy in Europe and the heritage corridor policy in the United States) affect the applicability of indicators will help enhance the framework's applicability. It is necessary to propose suggestions for cross-regional validation (for example, conducting pilot studies in Asia/Europe).
Author Response
Comment 1: [This study employed a multi-source meta-analysis framework, integrating 48 cases of greenways in the United States from LPS, LAUP, and Fabos articles. The use of KH encoders for text quantification and co-occurrence network analysis effectively compensates for the deficiencies of individual case-driven studies in the existing literature and provides systematic insights for performance evaluation models. Effectively linking the greenway effects with historical and policy contexts has enhanced the theoretical depth of the research.]
Response 1: [Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of our methodological approach and its contribution to enhancing the theoretical depth of the research.]
Comment 2: [This sample is only centered on the United States, which limits its applicability worldwide. Discussions on how differences in aspects such as culture, policy, or ecology (for example, the biodiversity policy in Europe and the heritage corridor policy in the United States) affect the applicability of indicators will help enhance the framework's applicability. It is necessary to propose suggestions for cross-regional validation (for example, conducting pilot studies in Asia/Europe).]
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We chose greenways in the United States as the study sample because the United States has the largest, most systematic, and most publicly available greenway performance evaluation database in the world (especially LPS). This makes it possible to conduct a multi-case, systematic comparative analysis. If multiple countries are included at the same time, data quality, assessment criteria and openness can vary greatly, making comparative studies extremely difficult and even misleading. And greenways in the United States have inspired greenway construction in Asia and Europe, so we have added the reasons for the inspiration of greenways in Asia and Europe in the introduction section (page 4, lines 120-127), and cited the relevant literature recommended by you to enhance the international perspective and applicability of the study. Additional discussion in the 6 Conclusion section (page 17, lines 428-433): Although the objectives are common to the basic design principles, institutional, financial, and social participation factors have a significant impact on the actual effectiveness of greenway projects in different regions. Therefore, in the next study, the evaluation indicators proposed in this paper may need to be adjusted in terms of policy system, cultural preferences and ecological/land conditions when applied to Asian or European contexts.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting, valuable and important paper concerning systems of green areas in cities - extremly important problem strictly connected with city sustainability, human well-being, adaptation to climate change and general functionnig of urbanized areas.
There is presented: complex and multifaceted methodical approach to Landscape Performance Evaluation of Greenways, 48 case sudies of main cities in the US. This methodical approach is very original and the most valuable in this article. It is a kind of complex pattern with proposition of the set of criteria used for evaluation of greenways - in division into: 1) Benefits types (ecloogical, social and economic ones), 2) Sustainability Charcteristics (29 items !), 3) Specific Evaluation Indicators (very numerous criteria for evaaluation - well adopted, guaranteeing the effectiveness of assessment). Table 2 - presenting the layout of these benefits, characterstics and criteria is very valuable, in my opinion, inspiring other scientists, managers and planners... Plus, such methods and tools are used, e.g. KH Coder, meta-analysis (qualitative and quantitative ones), and special sequence of action... Results enable good diagnosis and searching for improvement of plannig directions leading to more ecologically effective, useful and beautiful green areas systems in cities.
I see a problem of the unfortunate construction of this paper. The paper contains all important components of a scientific article, but there is a little disorder in the consctruction (in my opinion). There is a need to organize better the construction of this paper...
I suggest: 1. INTRODUCTION, 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS, 3. RESULTS (may be: AND DISCUSSION) or DISCUSSION as a separate subsection, 4. CONCLUSIONS (instead od topic: Summary).
I suggest: Actually existing parts: 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY and 3. OVERALL HIERARCHICAL... (this subsection party to RESULTS as well) - may be inserted into 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Subsection 4. ANALYSIS OF... - inserted into RESULTS (eventually RESULTS AND DISCUSSION). The subsection 5. TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS... - inserted into RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.
Instead of the title 6. SUMMARY - change into CONCLUSIONS.
Also: The aim of the studies is not formulated clearly and coherently in the INTRODUCTION and in the ABSTRACT, and also with the topic of the whole Article. Consider it, please, and formulate coherently. By the way, the aim of the studies should be formulated in the separate (new) paragraph.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind words. We appreciate your recognition of the importance of our work in relation to urban sustainability and human well-being.
Comment 1: [The paper contains all important components of a scientific article, but there is a little disorder in the construction (in my opinion). There is a need to organize better the construction of this paper...]
Response 1: [We appreciate your feedback on the structure of the paper. In response to your suggestion, we have reorganized the manuscript according to a more conventional structure: The structure of the paper has been adjusted, and the reasons for choosing the US case in the introduction have been placed in 2. Research Methodology (page 4, lines 120-127). The original section 5.1 Common Performance Evaluation Tools for Greenways should be moved to 3.2 (page 10, lines 222-234), and the assessment tool for greenway landscape performance should be part of the greenway landscape performance assessment system. 5.2 This section is a separate outlook section 5. New Technologies in Performance Evaluation Tools for Greenways, deepening the content (page 16, lines 379-410).]
Comment 2: [The aim of the studies is not formulated clearly and coherently in the INTRODUCTION and in the ABSTRACT, and also with the topic of the whole Article. Consider it, please, and formulate coherently. By the way, the aim of the studies should be formulated in the separate (new) paragraph.]
Response 3: [Thank you for your observation. We have now set out the purpose of the study clearly and coherently in the summary and introduction, and we have used a separate paragraph to explicitly state the objectives of the study. This revision can be found in the Introduction (p. 2, lines 55-64) and the Introduction (p. 3, lines 97-106).]
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: [Define the term greenways at the beginning of the summary. Briefly and clearly state which scientific and professional contribution the research in question makes. Clearly highlight the aim of the paper.]
Response 1: [We agree to the proposal. We added a clear definition of "greenway" at the beginning of the introduction (page 1, lines 29-33) and emphasized the scientific and professional contributions of the paper, as well as the purpose of the study (page 3, lines 97-106).]
Comment 2: [Define the term greenways at the beginning of the introduction, list other categories of green areas in the research in question that interact with greenways. Simply list several groups of benefits of greenways for citizens. Are there any disadvantages of greenways to the environment, for example for corridors and habitats of birds and other urban animals?]
Response 2: [We modify the introduction by adding "Greenways do not exist in isolation, and the maximization of their functions and benefits depends on the effective connection and interaction with urban parks, nature reserves, public open spaces, and productive green spaces in the urban green space system.". " (Page 2, lines 58-64) describes other categories of green space that interact with greenways.". In addition, we briefly discussed that in addition to the benefits of greenways to citizens, there are also potential environmental disadvantages due to poorly planned greenways, which also confirms the need for greenway landscape performance.]
Comment 3: [International reference sources are missing.]
Response 3: [Thank you for your advice. We included several international sources in the literature review to enhance the global perspective of the study. We have added 3 new references from international journals. These additions can be found in the list of references. [11]Liu, Z., Lin, Y., De Meulder, B., & Wang, S.Can greenways perform as a new planning strategy in the Pearl River Delta, China?[J/OL]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2019, 187: 81-95. DOI: 10.1016/J. Landurbplan. 2019.03.012. (Page 2, Line 56) [15] Balsas, CJL,. The greenway planning movement in the Iberian Peninsula: A tribute[J]. LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY. 2023, 12: 3329-3334. (Page 4, Lines 120-127) [44]Liu, Z., Lin, Y., & Chung, C. K. L. (2024). Regional governance for greenways in China: A control rights perspective. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1-19. (Page 4, lines 120-127)]
Comment 4: [Figure 1. I don't think it's necessary, there's no need to go that deep.]
Response 4:[We appreciate your feedback. Because the history of greenway development is an important background for readers to understand the full text, if the picture content is replaced by text content, it will take up a lot of space. After consideration, we think Figure 1 is necessary.]
Comment 5: [The results are correct but try to shorten them a bit.]
Response 5: [We revised the results section to provide a more concise conclusion, removing any redundant points while retaining the underlying findings. These changes are found in 6. Summary (page 16-17, lines 412-428).]
