Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting to me; however, the methodology should describe better how each point was attended based on the work goals. Besides, the discussion needs to be improved (more references) since the results are a very extensive part compared to the discussion. Some minor details are pointed out in the attached PDF document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the valuable suggestions.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a study on “Urban regeneration and green and blue infrastructure. New strategies and instruments for inclusive, sustainable, and resilient cities”, while the work is interesting, the quality of the manuscript needs substantial improvement. Pls address the following comments.

1.      The title is too long to read smoothly. It’s It is difficult for me to understand the focus of the manuscript.

2.      Pls revise the abstract to include some information on the results. The methodological steps also need to be highlighted in the abstract.

3.      The introduction was too lengthy and is not prominent. I think the novelty and justification of the current work need to be clearly highlighted in the instruction. How does it fit into the ongoing research efforts?

4.      Quality of figures are not good, especially Fig.1,3,5,7,10. The words in the figures are too small. Some of the figures are unnecessary, such as Fig.8

5.      Discussions should be re-written.

Author Response

Thanks for the valuable suggestions.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments.