Urban Open Space Systems and Green Cities: History, Heritage, and All That

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the development of urban green spaces and their significance for society, ecology, and cultural heritage. The author effectively connects historical context with contemporary approaches to urban planning, highlighting the importance of incorporating cultural values and community involvement in the preservation and development of urban green systems. The use of concrete examples, such as the High Line in New York and the Manchester canals, effectively illustrates how urban spaces can be transformed into functional areas that serve the needs of the community. It is also commendable that the author includes a perspective on the Asian region, which broadens the scope of the paper. However, if there are literary sources from other regions and cultures, it might be beneficial to incorporate them into the paper to further enhance the global applicability of the arguments presented. Due to its contribution to the ongoing discourse on sustainability and the cultural significance of urban spaces, the paper is accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Informed Consent Statement

The reviewer's comments are highly supportive of the paper.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the development of urban green spaces and their significance for society, ecology, and cultural heritage. The author effectively connects historical context with contemporary approaches to urban planning, highlighting the importance of incorporating cultural values and community involvement in the preservation and development of urban green systems. The use of concrete examples, such as the High Line in New York and the Manchester canals, effectively illustrates how urban spaces can be transformed into functional areas that serve the needs of the community. It is also commendable that the author includes a perspective on the Asian region, which broadens the scope of the paper. However, if there are literary sources from other regions and cultures, it might be beneficial to incorporate them into the paper to further enhance the global applicability of the arguments presented. Due to its contribution to the ongoing discourse on sustainability and the cultural significance of urban spaces, the paper is accepted in its current form.

It is given 5 stars for four criteria and 4 stars for one criterion and recommended for publication 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Article “Urban Open Space Systems and Green Cities: History, Heritage and All That” is an interesting study containing reflections on the subject of green cities. The context for this paper is how urban growth has been accompanied by loss of green areas and how, in turn, this phenomenon has stimulated scholarly and professional attention on the concept of green cities.

The reviewed article differs significantly from the typical scientific articles one is most often confronted with. The MDPI publisher allows the form of a “Review” article so I will refer to the requirements for such a type of article.

1. Reviews offer a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems.

The article is in line with current research trends and addresses current issues being taken up in scientific studies.

The literature contains references to 57 items, in fact 56 (item 51 in the literature is a mistake). After rejecting 7 items that are not scientific publications, only 49 items remain. For a comprehensive review of the literature in the field under study, this seems a far too small number. The subject matter undertaken is not a specific narrow field, and one can easily find many more publications on this topic in the available databases. Please elaborate on this item.

2. No new, unpublished data should be presented

Attention is drawn to the excessive number of citations of the author's own positions. He refers to 7 of his previous publications in the literature (out of 49 articles in the list). This is far too many. There is also a doubt here that if the Author cites his own previous publications, are these really new, unpublished data?

3. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research.

I consider these requirements fulfilled. The article provides a critical and constructive analysis on the subject matter addressed. One can also find in it recommendations for future research in this area.

4. The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions.

The structure of the article meets the requirements of the publisher. In the article you can find all the indicated elements of structure, although there is no separate chapter “Future Directions”. - these elements are mainly contained in the conclusion.

Additional notes

The article needs to be refined in editorial form. References do not meet MDPI requirements. Figure 1 - probably when creating the pdf file something got messed up. Figure captions need to be standardized - some of the photographs, as I understand, were made by the Author himself and thus his name directly under the photos - this should rather be placed at the end of the description of each figure. The font appears in colors in the article (e.g. lines 568-569). Some phrases are linked to Wikipedia (e.g., lines 470-488). All these elements need to be refined and improved.

Final evaluation

The article is very interesting, although certainly not a typical scientific study. The form of the title itself already arouses interest. It is read with pleasure. You can see the great knowledge and long experience of the Author in the subject matter undertaken. Having taken into account the above-mentioned comments, I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

It is noted that the publication, notwithstanding Reviewer comments and points, is recommended by the Reviewer. Reviewer makes the point that the article is not a typical scientific study. Certainly it is not a scientific study with a hypothesis. It is a review that is not attempting to prove/disprove anything based on a hypothesis. Rather it is a review covering a broad spread of ideas and research and thinking and practice on urban open space and greening of cities. This is in the context of a review being a report on or evaluation of a subject or past events/ ie a critical appraisal. Overall, it is a review with its foundation in a humanities  approach of how we have arrived at the point we are internationally. Reviewer also questions use of 7 items that are not scientific publications. I reiterate my comments above on humanities not scientific approach where humanities refrs to branches of knowledge that concern themselves with human beings and their culture or with analytic and critical methods of inquiry derived from an appreciation of human values and of the unique ability of the human spirit to express itself. As a group of educational disciplines, the humanities are distinguished in content and method from the physical and biological sciences and, somewhat less decisively, from the social sciences. The humanities include the study of all languages and literatures, the arts, history, and philosophy (Encyclopaedia Brittanica).

Reference to author quoting his own publications. It is hardly surprising this occurs given that the author has been involved for the last 35 years in this topic. I am not trying to push my own publications at any cost or as new unpublished date, but they recognised internationally.

References have been reformatted to meet MDPI requirements.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very well written and worthwhile contribution to the ongoing debate over urban green and open space, and particularly Historic Urban Landscape and heritage values. The paper takes a comprehensive view and a refreshing perspective on the situation, the consequent issues, and the systems approach in creating the urban open space and greenways. Overall, the study reads very well and is a nice account of this important field. Whilst the paper focussed specifically on the Urban Green Spaces case-studies in the U.S and U.K, it will also find creative resonance with urban green corridors and networks in many non-Western contexts, such as the East and Southeast Asia as mentioned, where urban green and nature are historically and culturally different from Western framing with their own equal rights and living worlds as of the human beings. Hence revisiting and rebalancing an East-West or Asia-centric approach might offer an alternative layering of the same direction of travel, as well as destination.

Author Response

The Reviewer suggests an alternative way might offer an approach to the topic covered in the review. Yes this is so, but whist if would parallel the submitted review it would be a different review. By referring to East and West in the paper  and particular reference to Ian Mel’s book and Kanasan & Hassan my intentions is to indicate this is a topic for further critical discussion

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this engaging and thought-provoking paper on urban heritage and its evolving interpretations over time. Your study raises important questions about how heritage is defined, managed, and conceptualized in the urban context. The historical depth and thematic breadth of the paper are commendable, but there are some structural and conceptual refinements that could enhance its clarity and coherence.

First, the paper would benefit from a more focused and clearly defined timespan. Currently, observations span from the 1880s to the 1960s and beyond. While this historical scope is valid, it may be useful to set a more specific temporal framework (e.g., post-World War II) to allow for a sharper focus and more precise conclusions.

Second, the organization of the paper needs better alignment with its main thesis. Section 4 and subsequent parts shift from heritage discussions to urban planning and green spaces. While these topics are related, they need to be more clearly integrated into the argument. If the paper intends to discuss green/open spaces in relation to heritage, this should be explicitly stated and thematically structured rather than appearing as a deviation.

Additionally, the prologue currently reads as a general introduction. It would be beneficial to clearly establish the paper’s organizational principles from the outset, ensuring that the central argument is well-framed and that the connections between sections are more explicit.

Lastly, there are repetitions between Sections 2 and 3, particularly in the explanation of Figure 1, which could be streamlined to improve readability.

Specific Comments

• L.60: The phrase “as with the 1960s and 1970s monuments and sites mindset” may not be immediately clear to younger readers or those from different heritage backgrounds. Providing a brief explanation of what this mindset entails would improve accessibility.

• L.107: The concept of “living heritage” has been widely discussed in academic literature. While it is a commonly used term, it can be seen as somewhat contradictory in light of Lowenthal’s perspective, which suggests that all heritage is dynamic, evolving, and inherently tied to the present. The author may wish to engage with this debate, considering whether the term implies the existence of “dead” or “semi-dead” heritage. A useful reference here is Poulios (2014), which critically explores this concept in depth. See a review of this work here: Review of I. Poulios, The Past in the Present: A Living Heritage Approach.

• L.206: The paper could benefit from acknowledging the shift in heritage discourse from the focus on the monument as an object of preservation (as seen in the Venice Charter or UNESCO World Heritage Sites framework) to broader heritage values, cultural landscapes, and urban heritage complexes. The author might consider referencing the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000) in this context.

To strengthen the theoretical and historical underpinnings of the paper, I recommend the following readings:

1. Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, 2006. 
2. Graham, Brian, Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy. Routledge, 2000. 
3. Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention. 2000. 
4. Harrison, Rodney. Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, 2013.

Author Response

I have added to the section on 1960s/1970s monuments mindset.

Regarding living heritage the Poulios reference is already in the submitted ms.

Reference to living heritage is not contradictory to Lowenthal’s perspective of heritage being tied to the present which misconstrues Lowenthal’s point of view as can be seen in Lowenthal’s suggestion that ‘awareness of the past is essential to the maintenance of purpose in life. Without it we would lack all sense of continuity, all apprehension of causality, all knowledge of our own identity.’ (page 2).

I have added to the monuments’ commentary by adding reference to Venice Charter, 1992 WH Cultural Landscape categories and ICOMOS 1994 Document on Authenticity and also reference to Logan 2010.

Also included citation Graham, B. J.; Ashworth, G. J; Tunbridge, J. E.; (2016), A geography of heritage : power, culture, and economy, London and New York: Routledge in section on broadening approaches to heritage considerations.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you very much for this masterclass manuscript. The history introduction is poetic and the elaboration on history and heritage enriches the scientific debate. The evolution of the concept of value and the paradigm shifts are well situated in the academic debate and the ponderation on the concept of space and place is valuable. The literature review is significant and beautifully connected.

This paper aims to explore how urban green growth has become regarded as critical to the well-being of people in urban areas and the role of people and their social and cultural values which shape how they see their cities. While this objective is well debated and situated in the literature review, the explored case-studies doesn’t address specifically neither wellbeing nor social and cultural values and seem more of a top-down approach to urban greening practices led by spatial agents. The case-studies, although relevant, are not comparable and are mostly from the Anglo-Saxon world with a brief reflection on the Asian perspective. For example, in Europe there is a burgeoning debate, and a rich compendium of best practice in Natura Based Solutions (NEB) which are often community driven. A suggestion would be to emphasis the geographic scope and explain how these interventions improved the wellbeing and/or how they were perceived by the local communities in terms of positive and negative externalities, what social and cultural values people attach to them.

Finally, since the manuscript speculates on the rapid urbanisation and the fact that most of the growth will be concentrated in the global south it is advisable to mirror this in the conclusions and explain the potential role of urban greening in improving people’s wellbeing and co-construction of value(s).

On a different note, some of the lines are underlined, please check line 470-488 and 511-512, 601-602

Author Response

 

I do address values people attach to places throughout the document.

Section on Asia is, I think, indicative of the potential role of urban greening in the global south

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf