Refined Wilding and Functional Biodiversity in Smart Cities for Improved Sustainable Urban Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper needs to be thoroughly revised by a native English speaker. There are many instances of sentences that are so long that the reader gets lost. There are also many instances that simply do not make sense, for example 'The negative impacts of the natural-environment are more advanced understandings'. It is currently impossible to provide feedback on the scientific merit of this paper as the language is impenetrable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

The article has been re read and revised for English and sentence structure.

The example sentence does however make sense.

The revisions or examples of sentence structure changes, and paragraph changes are highlighted blue. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the article basically in accordance with the previous round of review comments, and the article as a whole is complete and logical.

Author Response

Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are still some minor errors (e.g. sometimes you say Smart Cities, other times smart cities - the latter is correct), but presumably these can be corrected at the proof stage.

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

Through literature review and conceptual framework analysis as a means, the article proposes the combination of fine wildlife and functional biodiversity with the concept of smart city to promote the further development of urban green space quality, which provides a theoretical guidance for the sustainable development of cities. The article covers a wide range of contents, and the use of professional terms is frequent and academic. It is recommended to further sort out the graphical content and embellish the textual expression.

Line 33: The scope of the key words "efficiency; convenience" here is too broad and not sufficiently focused on the area covered by the article, and it is suggested to revise or merge them with other key words.

Line 51: The structure of the sentence is more complicated, and the expression "functional biodiversity reaches then to an advanced function" is vague.

Line 72: "More recently ......" is a factual description. It is suggested to add references to relevant documents or cases to support the point.

Line 98: "smart cities is proven as conducive to ccd" lacks data or literature support.

Line 105: "These proven advances or improvements" needs to be supported by further data or literature.

Line 107: "Future directions provides" has a grammatical error and the subject is not clear.

Table 1: The structure of the table is too simple. It is recommended that it be changed to an entry or paragraph format.

Line 159: "A choice of ......" There is a grammatical error in this sentence and the meaning is not clear.

Line 182: The scope of "sustainability categories" is too broad. It is suggested that a qualifier be added to enhance the point.

Line 184: There is a lack of references to relevant documents for this point.

Line 233: PTSG is not a common term here. It is suggested to use a more standardised term, such as "Community Structure", or to add citations of relevant documents to explain the difference between PTSG and common expressions and to show the necessity of using this term here.

Line 246: The subheading here is too broad, and it is suggested to revise it to be more specific.

Line 278: The theoretical part here is rather independent, and it is suggested to add a discussion related to the research topic.

Line 415: "provide" should be changed to "provides".

Line 416: There is an extra and, please delete it.

Line 420: "human realities, of health and ......" The sentence structure here is complicated and unclear.

Table 3: The title of the icon is not sufficiently prescriptive and provides a vague overview of the content of the icon. The layout of the charts is difficult to read and less logical.

Line 424: In table 3, the title is "two examples" but here it is "three examples", is it referring to cases in the same section? If it is a quantitative error, please revise and standardise. If there are two different examples, please add a description to distinguish them.

Line 442: This paragraph is an addition to the table above. It is recommended that it be merged with the table and that the cases be presented in a paragraph format to increase the fluency of the reading.

Line 446: "These complexities are for ......" The sentence is not clear enough and is difficult to understand.

Line 464: "planning process for smart cities and ......" is a structural juxtaposition of the previous three points, but there is no corresponding serial number, which makes the logic more confusing, and it is recommended to optimise the expression of the sentence.

Line 470: What examples are being referred to here? Suggest further correlation with relevant examples to avoid confusion in reading.

Line 475: replace "definitional" with "definition".

Line 480: This paragraph is about factual exposition, and the wordings used are more absolute, it is suggested that relevant information be quoted to support the point of view.

Line 482: "meets efficiency and convenience" is too general, and it is suggested that specific explanations be given.

Line 497: "already have sustainability and almost similar to ......" is a grammatical error, please correct it.

Line 500: "airborne air particles" is a repetition of the word "airborne air particles".

Line 531: The description of examples (i) and (ii) after "Two examples" is too long and not clear enough.

Line 533: "They aren't about UGS type but function for ......" has a speech defect, please revise.

Line 557: This sentence is rather abrupt as the beginning of a paragraph, and the intention of the writing is not clear, so it is suggested to revise it or explain it further.

Line 572: The title of this sentence is slightly repetitive with the word "definitional" in the previous sentence.

Line 590: "This concept and theory" is not clear, suggest further clarification.

Table 4: The table structure is confusing and the text is colloquial.

Line 625: The language style of the subheadings is inconsistent with the previous headings and is too broad.

Line 757: the conclusion section should include guidance for practice, future direction, etc. It is suggested to merge this section with 6. future direction to make the structure of the article more concise and clear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 107: "Future directions provides" has a grammatical error and the subject is not clear.

Line 159: "A choice of ......" There is a grammatical error in this sentence and the meaning is not clear.

Line 415: "provide" should be changed to "provides".

Line 416: There is an extra and, please delete it.

Line 420: "human realities, of health and ......" The sentence structure here is complicated and unclear.

Line 446: "These complexities are for ......" The sentence is not clear enough and is difficult to understand.

Line 475: replace "definitional" with "definition".

Line 497: "already have sustainability and almost similar to ......" is a grammatical error, please correct it.

Line 500: "airborne air particles" is a repetition of the word "airborne air particles".

Line 533: "They aren't about UGS type but function for ......" has a speech defect, please revise.

Line 557: This sentence is rather abrupt as the beginning of a paragraph, and the intention of the writing is not clear, so it is suggested to revise it or explain it further.

Line 572: The title of this sentence is slightly repetitive with the word "definitional" in the previous sentence.

Line 590: "This concept and theory" is not clear, suggest further clarification.

Table 4: The table structure is confusing and the text is colloquial.

Line 625: The language style of the subheadings is inconsistent with the previous headings and is too broad.

Line 757: the conclusion section should include guidance for practice, future direction, etc. It is suggested to merge this section with 6. future direction to make the structure of the article more concise and clear.

Author Response

Through literature review and conceptual framework analysis as a means, the article proposes the combination of fine wildlife and functional biodiversity with the concept of smart city to promote the further development of urban green space quality, which provides a theoretical guidance for the sustainable development of cities. The article covers a wide range of contents, and the use of professional terms is frequent and academic. It is recommended to further sort out the graphical content and embellish the textual expression.

thank you for the comments. The article has been revised against them. Please see response to each comment here.

Line 33: The scope of the key words "efficiency; convenience" here is too broad and not sufficiently focused on the area covered by the article, and it is suggested to revise or merge them with other key words.

They are deleted. Further definition for both words are added in introduction

Line 51: The structure of the sentence is more complicated, and the expression "functional biodiversity reaches then to an advanced function" is vague.

The sentence is revised.

Line 72: "More recently ......" is a factual description. It is suggested to add references to relevant documents or cases to support the point.

A reference has been provided with example.

Line 98: "smart cities is proven as conducive to ccd" lacks data or literature support.

Further citation and cross reference with smart cities and sustainability are added.

Line 105: "These proven advances or improvements" needs to be supported by further data or literature.

The sentence has been revised.

Line 107: "Future directions provides" has a grammatical error and the subject is not clear.

Corrected.

Table 1: The structure of the table is too simple. It is recommended that it be changed to an entry or paragraph format.

Changed to paragraphs.

Line 159: "A choice of ......" There is a grammatical error in this sentence and the meaning is not clear.

Corrected.

Line 182: The scope of "sustainability categories" is too broad. It is suggested that a qualifier be added to enhance the point.

Economic, environment and society added.

Line 184: There is a lack of references to relevant documents for this point.

[7] has been added. And a new citation for the following sentence has been added.

Line 233: PTSG is not a common term here. It is suggested to use a more standardised term, such as "Community Structure", or to add citations of relevant documents to explain the difference between PTSG and common expressions and to show the necessity of using this term here.

A citation for community structure specific to bird species and urban green systems is provided, and the difference between PTSG and community structure is added.

Line 246: The subheading here is too broad, and it is suggested to revise it to be more specific.

The subheading has changed.

Line 278: The theoretical part here is rather independent, and it is suggested to add a discussion related to the research topic.

These paragraphs are now in table to emphasis the relation to the research topic.

Line 415: "provide" should be changed to "provides".

Changed to provides.

Line 416: There is an extra and, please delete it.

Deleted

Line 420: "human realities, of health and ......" The sentence structure here is complicated and unclear.

Revised to health human realities.

Table 3: The title of the icon is not sufficiently prescriptive and provides a vague overview of the content of the icon. The layout of the charts is difficult to read and less logical.

Revised.

Line 424: In table 3, the title is "two examples" but here it is "three examples", is it referring to cases in the same section? If it is a quantitative error, please revise and standardise. If there are two different examples, please add a description to distinguish them.

It is changed to three examples.

Line 442: This paragraph is an addition to the table above. It is recommended that it be merged with the table and that the cases be presented in a paragraph format to increase the fluency of the reading.

The table has been moved to paragraphs.

Line 446: "These complexities are for ......" The sentence is not clear enough and is difficult to understand.

The sentence is revised.

Line 464: "planning process for smart cities and ......" is a structural juxtaposition of the previous three points, but there is no corresponding serial number, which makes the logic more confusing, and it is recommended to optimise the expression of the sentence.

It now has (iv)

Line 470: What examples are being referred to here? Suggest further correlation with relevant examples to avoid confusion in reading.

The subheading is changed to functional biodiversity as applicable and relevant.

Line 475: replace "definitional" with "definition".

Changed

Line 480: This paragraph is about factual exposition, and the wordings used are more absolute, it is suggested that relevant information be quoted to support the point of view.

Some sentences have been added and citations from information added in introduction are now included.

Line 482: "meets efficiency and convenience" is too general, and it is suggested that specific explanations be given.

I have specified it as terms used by refined wilding.

Line 497: "already have sustainability and almost similar to ......" is a grammatical error, please correct it.

The sentence is corrected.

Line 500: "airborne air particles" is a repetition of the word "airborne air particles".

I can only see it written once.

Line 531: The description of examples (i) and (ii) after "Two examples" is too long and not clear enough.

(I)             Is simplified.

Line 533: "They aren't about UGS type but function for ......" has a speech defect, please revise.

Revised.

Line 557: This sentence is rather abrupt as the beginning of a paragraph, and the intention of the writing is not clear, so it is suggested to revise it or explain it further.

There aren’t any line numbers in the manuscript. I have revised most sentences in these lines.

Line 572: The title of this sentence is slightly repetitive with the word "definitional" in the previous sentence.

Paragraph has been added between titles with definitional.

Line 590: "This concept and theory" is not clear, suggest further clarification.

Changed to refined wilding and functional biodiversity.

Table 4: The table structure is confusing and the text is colloquial.

Table 4 is revised and more accurate to the original table with column right an addition.

Line 625: The language style of the subheadings is inconsistent with the previous headings and is too broad.

There aren’t line numbers to make the subheadings referred to clear for revising.

Line 757: the conclusion section should include guidance for practice, future direction, etc. It is suggested to merge this section with 6. future direction to make the structure of the article more concise and clear.

I have changed the number of future directions to be included in conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 107: "Future directions provides" has a grammatical error and the subject is not clear.

Changed to provide

Line 159: "A choice of ......" There is a grammatical error in this sentence and the meaning is not clear.

Corrected

Line 415: "provide" should be changed to "provides".

Corrected

Line 416: There is an extra and, please delete it.

Deleted.

Line 420: "human realities, of health and ......" The sentence structure here is complicated and unclear.

Changed to health human realities

Line 446: "These complexities are for ......" The sentence is not clear enough and is difficult to understand.

These complexities and functions are for both humans and ecological interactions and processes, as functional biodiversity by ESHR.

Line 475: replace "definitional" with "definition".

Replaced with definition.

Line 497: "already have sustainability and almost similar to ......" is a grammatical error, please correct it.

Changed to: are already sustainability orientated, some of which are similar and complementary to..

Line 500: "airborne air particles" is a repetition of the word "airborne air particles".

It is only written once.

Line 533: "They aren't about UGS type but function for ......" has a speech defect, please revise.

The sentence has been removed.

Line 557: This sentence is rather abrupt as the beginning of a paragraph, and the intention of the writing is not clear, so it is suggested to revise it or explain it further.

The line numbers are not in the manuscript I am working on.

Line 572: The title of this sentence is slightly repetitive with the word "definitional" in the previous sentence.

Corrected with some sentences added.

Line 590: "This concept and theory" is not clear, suggest further clarification.

Corrected.

Table 4: The table structure is confusing and the text is colloquial.

Corrected.

Line 625: The language style of the subheadings is inconsistent with the previous headings and is too broad.

I don’t have the line numbers to know which subheadings are being referred to.

Line 757: the conclusion section should include guidance for practice, future direction, etc. It is suggested to merge this section with 6. future direction to make the structure of the article more concise and clear.

I have changed the future directions as included in the conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The definition and theoretical framework of "refined wilding" are not clearly explained, which may confuse readers.
• The relationship between "smart cities" and "Sustainable Development Goals" (SDGs) is mentioned but lacks specific literature support and theoretical basis.
• The research question is not clearly articulated, and the core objectives of the study are not explicitly stated.
• The integration of "smart cities" and "functional biodiversity" is under-discussed, with insufficient analysis of their relationship.
• Some cited literature is too general and does not clearly link to the research theme.
• The structure of the literature review is loose and lacks a clear logical hierarchy. It is recommended to organize it by theme or research question.
• The methodology section lacks detailed descriptions of specific research steps and data sources, such as how literature was selected and screened.
• The specific operational steps and evaluation criteria for applying "refined wilding" in smart cities are not clearly explained.
• The methodology section does not sufficiently highlight the innovation of the study. It is recommended to emphasize the unique contributions of the research.
• The results section lacks a systematic analysis of how refined wilding specifically improves the functionality of smart cities. More quantitative or qualitative data should be provided.
• The discussion section does not fully address the research questions and does not deeply explore the potential challenges and limitations of refined wilding in smart city development.
• The logical connection between the results and discussion sections is weak. It is recommended to strengthen their integration.
• The conclusion is too general and does not clearly highlight the specific contributions and practical significance of the research.
• The future research directions are vague and lack specific research questions or methods.

This paper presents an interesting and innovative research topic but requires improvements in concept definition, methodological detail, and result analysis. It is recommended that the author revise the paper according to the above suggestions to enhance its logical coherence and academic value.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The definition and theoretical framework of "refined wilding" are not clearly explained, which may confuse readers.

Refined wilding is better explained in 1.2.1. And in 1.2.2.

The relationship between "smart cities" and "Sustainable Development Goals" (SDGs) is mentioned but lacks specific literature support and theoretical basis.

Citations and further explanation of smart cities and sdgs is added.

The research question is not clearly articulated, and the core objectives of the study are not explicitly stated.

Thirteen hypotheses are added to introduction which give further information to the introduction which explains, this article provides a conceptually framed review of literature to determine…..

The integration of "smart cities" and "functional biodiversity" is under-discussed, with insufficient analysis of their relationship.

Hypothesis (iii) which is added to the revised article includes this relationship. How the article answers hypothesis is in discussion.

Some cited literature is too general and does not clearly link to the research theme.

Newly cited literature is more specific to the points made in the article.

 

The structure of the literature review is loose and lacks a clear logical hierarchy. It is recommended to organise it by theme or research question.

There is a structure to the literature review which is more clearly explained. There is a first, second and third literature review, and then a selection of examples. These paragraphs are rewritten.

The methodology section lacks detailed descriptions of specific research steps and data sources, such as how literature was selected and screened.

The methods section has been revised to explain three literature reviews with logical order to develop the answer to the research question, if refined wilding can significantly contribute to the smart cities concept for improved sustainability, with some enquiry into how smart cities considers UGS, and where considerations of UGS fit with the history of smart cities as a concept, and with smart cities and sustainability.

The specific operational steps and evaluation criteria for applying "refined wilding" in smart cities are not clearly explained.

Table 4 does summarise a five stage process for smart cities with a column on the right that examples how refined wilding and functional biodiversity can be applied.

The component model with how refined wilding could be applied is also in results.

The summary of advanced ideas for UGS and applicability of refined wilding is in findings.

Exact examples of how refined wilding can be applied to devices for monitoring is also given.

The methodology section does not sufficiently highlight the innovation of the study. It is recommended to emphasize the unique contributions of the research.

2. Materials and methods now includes explanation of contributions to knowledge and why it is innovative. With findings further explaining or proving contribution to knowledge and therefore originality.  
Material and methods also now include a contribution to knowledge subheading.

The results section lacks a systematic analysis of how refined wilding specifically improves the functionality of smart cities. More quantitative or qualitative data should be provided.

Quantified data from analysis, or simple quantification of search results is presented for UGS articles in the smart cities journal. The presentation of years and number of publications is considered a significant finding, with limitation in the smart cities journal as representative of all smart cities journals. The years are considered indicative of when UGS started to be included in smart cities concept and practice. This finding is now graphed and more quantified.

The results provide answer to how UGS already is considered by smart cities, indicative of easier uptake of refined wilding and functional biodiversity for smart cities. The alignment between smart cities common definitional terms of efficiency and convenience and refined wilding as an efficiency and convenience is proven through knowledge management. Then, how refined wilding can improve from already advanced UGS ideas. The specific examples of smart cities devices and how refined wilding can improve sustainability outcomes from them is further proof of a contribution of knowledge. This is how the results are presented.

The discussion section does not fully address the research questions and does not deeply explore the potential challenges and limitations of refined wilding in smart city development.

The challenges and limitations of refined wilding for smart city development is addressed by equitable access to tech and to resources for urban design and UGS implementation. These factors are included in ESHR and in improvements for smart cities cited.

The logical connection between the results and discussion sections is weak. It is recommended to strengthen their integration.

The discussion now provides a paragraph that summarises findings, and cited broader points. It also presents hypotheses met with findings. Hypotheses are introduced in the introduction.

The conclusion is too general and does not clearly highlight the specific contributions and practical significance of the research.

The conclusion is now a short paragraph with subheadings that summarise conclusion for each finding. Then, future directions with a list of specific recommendations or directions.

The future research directions are vague and lack specific research questions or methods.

Future directions have been revised and are listed and connected to findings and hypotheses.

This paper presents an interesting and innovative research topic but requires improvements in concept definition, methodological detail, and result analysis. It is recommended that the author revise the paper according to the above suggestions to enhance its logical coherence and academic value.

Thank you. The article has been revised with specific changes to discussion and conclusion for logical coherence. Subheadings have been added and findings as addressing research questions and hypotheses are added. The future directions subsection is now in conclusion and is simplified. Refined wilding has been more clearly defined. The methods and results are more clearly explained according to comments provided. The article has been revised according to the suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript needs to be thoroughly revised by a native English speaker before it can be reviewed for its scientific content, as it is impossible to read.

Some of the sentences are far too long, such that the reader loses the thread. For example, the sentence starting in line 40: ‘Advanced function is responsive to UGS type, local urban landscape dynamics, emerging trends in urban development, UGS assessments, including assessments of influential factors between different UGS, and between different Urban Open Spaces (UOS) (grey and transparent spaces), and an ability to address a range of specific disciplinary findings and recommendations, and use existing terms, knowledge sets and practices to optimise advanced function’.

This extremely long sentence is then followed by one that is too short, and indeed it lacks a verb, making it grammatically incorrect:  Line 45 ‘Particularly for human health’.

Another example: Line 55: Referred to as coupling coordinated development (ccd). Again, this is grammatically incorrect.

Throughout the manuscript there are excessively long and excessively short sentences which need to be rectified.

In addition to the excessive length, there are phrases in the sentence beginning on line 40 that are not clear. What does ‘advanced function’ mean’? What are transparent spaces?

The explanation of what refined wilding means needs to come much earlier in the paper, since it is a new concept developed by the author and therefore one that is not familiar.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See previous comments 

Author Response

line 40: ‘Advanced function is responsive to UGS type, local urban landscape dynamics, emerging trends in urban development, UGS assessments, including assessments of influential factors between different UGS, and between different Urban Open Spaces (UOS) (grey and transparent spaces), and an ability to address a range of specific disciplinary findings and recommendations, and use existing terms, knowledge sets and practices to optimise advanced function’.

The introduction is revised with citations and improved sentence length.

This extremely long sentence is then followed by one that is too short, and indeed it lacks a verb, making it grammatically incorrect:  Line 45 ‘Particularly for human health’.

Corrected.

Another example: Line 55: Referred to as coupling coordinated development (ccd). Again, this is grammatically incorrect.

Corrected. Changed to coupling coordination development.

Throughout the manuscript there are excessively long and excessively short sentences which need to be rectified.

The writing for the article has been revised and can in preparation for publication be proof read by an English editor if still needed.

In addition to the excessive length, there are phrases in the sentence beginning on line 40 that are not clear. What does ‘advanced function’ mean’? What are transparent spaces?

definitions for these terms has been provided.

Advanced function and transparent spaces are explained.

The explanation of what refined wilding means needs to come much earlier in the paper, since it is a new concept developed by the author and therefore one that is not familiar.

In response to this comment, I have introduced refined wilding from  1.2.1 in 1.1. And then smart cities.

 

.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made detailed revisions to the review comments, most of the problems have been solved, the article is smooth and logical, and there are still two problems that need to be further revised:

1. The article uses a lot of abbreviated terms. Considering the smoothness of reading, please pay attention to the consistency of the case of abbreviations (e.g., ccd), and give the explanation of the full name of the abbreviated words in a timely manner according to the order of reading (e.g., the full name of ESHR appears after the abbreviation has already been used in Chapter 1.1).

2. It is recommended that the tables be drawn in a more standardised way, for example, the second row of table 3, "Stakeholders: public sector, private firms, and community", should be deleted and labelled outside the table.

Author Response

The authors have made detailed revisions to the review comments, most of the problems have been solved, the article is smooth and logical, and there are still two problems that need to be further revised:

1. The article uses a lot of abbreviated terms. Considering the smoothness of reading, please pay attention to the consistency of the case of abbreviations (e.g., ccd), and give the explanation of the full name of the abbreviated words in a timely manner according to the order of reading (e.g., the full name of ESHR appears after the abbreviation has already been used in Chapter 1.1).
   abbreviations have been corrected. CCD and eshr are explained by full name when they are first written

2. It is recommended that the tables be drawn in a more standardised way, for example, the second row of table 3, "Stakeholders: public sector, private firms, and community", should be deleted and labelled outside the table.

i have deleted the stakeholders: public sector, private firms… subheading.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On the basis of considering the opinions of the reviewers, the quality of the paper has greatly improved, and I do not have any further comments.

Author Response

On the basis of considering the opinions of the reviewers, the quality of the paper has greatly improved, and I do not have any further comments.

thank you for the comments. They improved the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In addition to the quality of the English language, there are still some issues which need be addressed. These are just a few examples - once the English language has been revised please go through it very carefully to make sure that there are no remaining errors:

1. Make sure you spell out abbreviations the first time you use them (e.g. UGS and SSGs in the introduction, ESHR in section 1.1, etc.).
2. Surely the abbreviation for plants, shrubs, trees, and grass should be PSTG, not PTSG
3. Abbreviations should always be in capital letters (should be SDGs not sdgs in section 2.1)
4. Section 2.2 - should be Google Scholar (not googlescholar) and Smart Cities MDPI journal (not smart cities mdpi journals) [throughout the manuscript you use mdpi - you need to correct all of these)
5. Section 2.2 - the literature review methodology needs to be explained more clearly. The first literature review is from search terms, ‘smart cities definitions’, and ‘smart cities and sustainability’, ‘smart cities history’ and ‘smart cities concept’. What was your exact search term?
6. Section 2.2 - Search terms were, ‘Urban Green Space’ and ‘UGS. Do you mean the search term was -Urban Green Space' AND 'UGS'?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest you ask a native English speaker to review the manuscript, as there are many sentences that either do not make sense, or are grammatically incorrect. For example, your opening sentence:

Nature is or has been a ‘blind spot’ for urban planners and that urban development should be a balanced sustainability development that coordinates across sustainable development categories as responsive to different urban landscapes'. ['and that' makes no sense in this sentence]

Page 2: Examples of air quality reductions with green space and electricity 
consumption increases, and human capital which does not result in green space or air quality improvements but does lead to electricity conservation and security and privacy concerns related to online information, digital divides, and reinforced social biases are examples.  Equitable access and disclosures from use of different ICTs, devices and cars are examples. [poor sentence structure and excessive repetition of the word examples]

As is conceptual guidance that can encourage balanced and advanced sustainable development across categories, with decreased contradiction. [you cannot start a sentence with 'As is;]

These errors are in just the first four paragraphs ...

Random examples from other sections:

Section 2.1  How UGS is published in the smart cities journal as an example of UGS considered by smart cities. [makes no sense]

Section 2.4 Of the examples of smart city ICT and devices are selected from literature reviewed. [makes no sense]

Section 3 High quality UGS is a determinant of functional al biodiversity as a positive outcome.

I stopped reading here. If the language is not significantly improved the paper will have to be rejected.

 

Author Response

addition to the quality of the English language, there are still some issues which need be addressed. These are just a few examples - once the English language has been revised please go through it very carefully to make sure that there are no remaining errors:

thank you. The article has been revised for the specific comments provided. Most sections have been re read and revised with some paragraphs re written and re ordered.

1. Make sure you spell out abbreviations the first time you use them (e.g. UGS and SSGs in the introduction, ESHR in section 1.1, etc.). abbreviations are spelled out with first mention.
2. Surely the abbreviation for plants, shrubs, trees, and grass should be PSTG, not PTSG PTSG is correct, the order of the words is not.
3. Abbreviations should always be in capital letters (should be SDGs not sdgs in section 2.1) abbreviations have changed to capital letters.
4. Section 2.2 - should be Google Scholar (not googlescholar) and Smart Cities MDPI journal (not smart cities mdpi journals) [throughout the manuscript you use mdpi - you need to correct all of these) all corrected.
5. Section 2.2 - the literature review methodology needs to be explained more clearly. The first literature review is from search terms, ‘smart cities definitions’, and ‘smart cities and sustainability’, ‘smart cities history’ and ‘smart cities concept’. What was your exact search term? They were the search terms. I have added ‘smart cities’ to the search terms.
6. Section 2.2 - Search terms were, ‘Urban Green Space’ and ‘UGS. Do you mean the search term was -Urban Green Space' AND 'UGS'? Yes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest you ask a native English speaker to review the manuscript, as there are many sentences that either do not make sense, or are grammatically incorrect. For example, your opening sentence:

upon further review the manuscript could be sent to English editing if needed. The article has been reread again and revised for English expression and sentence structure

Nature is or has been a ‘blind spot’ for urban planners and that urban development should be a balanced sustainability development that coordinates across sustainable development categories as responsive to different urban landscapes'. ['and that' makes no sense in this sentence] this sentence has been rearranged.

Page 2: Examples of air quality reductions with green space and electricity 
consumption increases, and human capital which does not result in green space or air quality improvements but does lead to electricity conservation and security and privacy concerns related to online information, digital divides, and reinforced social biases are examples.  Equitable access and disclosures from use of different ICTs, devices and cars are examples. [poor sentence structure and excessive repetition of the word examples] this new paragraph has been rewritten.

As is conceptual guidance that can encourage balanced and advanced sustainable development across categories, with decreased contradiction. [you cannot start a sentence with 'As is;]

The sentence is revised.

These errors are in just the first four paragraphs ...

Random examples from other sections:

Section 2.1  How UGS is published in the smart cities journal as an example of UGS considered by smart cities. [makes no sense]

this sentence is rewritten.

Section 2.4 Of the examples of smart city ICT and devices are selected from literature reviewed. [makes no sense]

this sentence is rewritten.

Section 3 High quality UGS is a determinant of functional al biodiversity as a positive outcome.

The al is deleted.