Urban Planning and Landscape Projects on Urban Riverbanks in Europe: Comparative Study of the Ebro River, Zaragoza, and the Isar River, Munich

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This paper addresses one of the fundamental issues in urban and territorial planning today: the management, intervention and treatment of urban river spaces. The topic is of great interest and there are more and more studies on this issue around the globe. 

I suggest that the authors address two basic issues to improve their manuscript: consolidating the introductory section with more bibliography (and especially bibliography from the Anglo-Saxon and French fields, which are the most productive on this topic) and, on the other hand, reinforcing the section of discussion. It seems like a section that is too brief, which could have much more impact on key aspects, and develop them in a little more depth. 

On the other hand, congratulations to the authors for the comparative methodology carried out. More research like this is needed in the geographical field, which proposes the comparison of case studies. It seems that we have forgotten that comparison, as well as analytical description, are two fundamental instruments to understand today's world from a holistic and geographical perspective.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We are grateful for your interest in the proposed topic and for the invaluable suggestions aimed at improving the manuscript. We have tried to consider all the recommendations received, so we have extended the length of the manuscript to clarify, deepen and improve the understanding of the study. In addition, we have added graphics that we hope will be helpful. To facilitate the new revision, the changes and new content are in blue. Finally, a specialist has reviewed the English edition.

Corresponding to your two suggestions for improvement, we have expanded and consolidated the introduction by including more references and bibliography with which we worked for the theoretical framework and the proposed methodology. Among others, there are Anglo-Saxon and French authors whose contributions have been relevant to our study. Likewise, and very much in accordance with your observations, we have strengthened the discussion section by stressing the issues that can be discussed in the methodology and emphasizing the salient aspects of the comparative study.

In accordance with these changes, we have reformulated the initial abstract and added a suplementary table

We hope we have met your expectations for improvement.

Kind regards,

 

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript comes with very attractive and interesting topic of comparing two projects of restoration of two European great rivers – Isar (Germany) and Ebro (Spain).

The manuscript starts very promising, with a statement (lines 87-90): “With the aim of combining theoretical reflection and concrete project experiences, this research proposes a working methodology based on the review of two riverbank enhancements projects in urban environments of cities with a marked historical heritage character in relation to the river.”

The problem, however, is that the article does not contain any methodology or even a detailed comparison of the two projects, it just summarizes the basic facts, a few interesting facts from the implementation of the two projects and a number of general statements, which are true and necessary, but do not bring any added value. However, it would be very interesting to directly compare the parameters of the two projects, the experience of implementation, the common features and possible differences and, in particular, an assessment of the benefits and negatives of the two projects with the benefit of hindsight. In short, the article is very superficial and contains nothing new of interest to the reader. This is a great pity, because a deeper dive into the issue would have made the article more attractive and would have made an important contribution to the debate on creation and management of urban river public spaces. Therefore, I suggest the authors to complete the article and especially to specify the mentioned methodology.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We are grateful for your interest in the proposed topic and for the invaluable comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We have tried to consider all the good recommendations received so, extending the length of the manuscript to clarify, deepen and improve the understanding of the study was necessary. In addition, we have added graphics that we hope will be helpful. To facilitate the new revision, the changes and new content are in blue. Finally, a specialist has reviewed the English edition.

Thank you very much for your review comments. They were very helpful as they made us realize that we had not been able to translate our research and, indeed, we had remained in generalities. We have organized and synthesized our work, which we hope will be worthy of the interest aroused by the subject matter and methodology that we initially suggested. To this end, and in accordance with other reviews, we have expanded the introductory part with references and the contextualization of the work in relation to urban riverbank requalification interventions and the studies carried out on these. In the following section we have described the methodology and developed the conceptual framework of the evaluation matrix used. We have maintained the analytical description of the cases, which is the basis for our study, and incorporated a new section with a detailed description of the empirical data results. Plots that summarize and facilitate the reading of the results have been included. Finally, in the discussion and conclusions section we evaluate both the proposed tool and the results, proposing future lines of study and improvements. We also highlight the relevant findings of this comparative analysis. In accordance with these changes, we have reformulated the initial abstract and added a supplementary table.

We hope to have completed the work in accordance with your recommendations.

Kind regards,

 

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a detailed comparison of two cases, accompanied by numerous images. While the visuals are helpful, I find it challenging to fully gauge the manuscript's innovative aspects. Currently, it appears more as an introduction to the actual circumstances and viewpoints of these cases. To enhance its appeal and depth, I suggest that the author consider integrating some questionnaires and data, specifically from the perspective of ecosystem services. This additional layer of empirical data would significantly enrich the manuscript and provide a more compelling narrative.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We are grateful for your interest in the proposed topic and for the invaluable comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We have tried to consider all the good recommendations received, so extending the length of the manuscript to clarify, deepen and improve the understanding of the study was necessary. In addition, we have added graphics that we hope will be helpful. To facilitate the new revision, the changes and new content are in blue. Finally, a specialist has reviewed the English edition.

 

Thank you very much for your review comments. They were very helpful as they made us realize that we had not been able to translate our research and, indeed, we had remained in generalities. We have organized and synthesized our work, which we hope will be worthy of the interest aroused by the subject matter and methodology that we initially suggested. To this end, and in accordance with other reviews, we have expanded the introductory part with references and the contextualization of the work in relation to urban riverbank requalification interventions and the studies carried out on these. In the following section we have described the methodology and developed the conceptual framework of the evaluation matrix used. We have maintained the analytical description of the cases, which is the basis for our study, and incorporated a new section with a detailed description of the empirical data results. Plots that summarize and facilitate the reading of the results have been included. Finally, in the discussion and conclusions section we evaluate both the proposed tool and the results, proposing future lines of study and improvements. We also highlight the relevant findings of this comparative analysis. In accordance with these changes, we have reformulated the initial abstract and added a supplementary table.

We hope to have completed the work in accordance with your recommendations.

Kind regards,

The authors

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant and appropriate for the scope of the Urban Science journal. A comparative analysis of projects implemented in consolidated urban spaces is of clear interest in the context of research on environmentally sensitive urban areas linked to key watercourses. The regeneration of these areas spurs the city's transformation in which they are developed. The selected cases of study: the Ebro River in Spain and the Isar River in Germany offer great opportunities to conduct a comparative analysis.

A preliminary suggestion might be to elucidate the novel aspects of the research presented. It would be advantageous to more accurately reflect the innovation of the comparative analysis conducted, which could be related to the potential for environmental and urban regeneration, the creation of new central locations based on nature, or the facilitation of a working methodology based on the experience of transformation of the selected case studies.

It is recommended that the abstract be revised to reflect the key aspects of the conclusions. Furthermore, using qualifiers such as "meta-project" would necessitate clarification for a more comprehensive understanding of the research context. Maybe they should be avoided in the abstract and used only in the main text if properly contextualized.

In the introduction section, it is suggested to name additional examples. It is suggested that the introduction refers to other actions from which the cases of Zaragoza and Muchich were selected, for example in Spain the cases of Seville, Bilbao or Valencia, and in Germany the cases of Emscher, Havel or Ruhr.  In this sense, two references are suggested to be taken into account by the author's consideration: 

Joan Tort-Donada, Albert Santasusagna, Sylvain Rode, Maria Teresa Vadrí, Bridging the gap between city and water: A review of urban river regeneration projects in France and Spain, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 700, 2020, 134460, ISSN 0048-9697, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134460.

Jones A.L., Regenerating Urban Waterfronts-Creating Better Futures-From Commercial and Leisure Market Places to Cultural Quarters and Innovation Districts (2017) Planning Practice and Research, 32 (3), pp. 333 - 344. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2016.1222146

In the case of Zaragoza, it would be desirable to offer more detailed information about the meaning of: "to recalibrate the riverbed" (p.8, line 253); the word "galacho" which is an old meander where the water doesn't run (p.8, line 266); the concept of "public water domain" which is only used in line 267 p.8, could be reformulated to be more easily understood. These definitions could be interesting to provide a wider spatial context to a more international audience.

Discussion and Conclusions could include additional information about future lines of work to provide continuity to the research field.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Professional proofreading is highly recommended

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We are grateful for your interest in the proposed topic and for the invaluable comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We tried to consider all the good recommendations received so, extending the length of the manuscript to clarify, deepen and improve the understanding of the study was necessary. In addition, we have added graphics that we hope will be helpful. To facilitate the new revision, the changes and new content are in blue. Finally, a specialist has reviewed the English edition.

Thank you very much for your review comments. They were very helpful as they made us realize that we had not been able to properly expose the research. We have organized and synthesized our work, which we hope will be worthy of the interest aroused by the subject matter and methodology that we initially suggested. To this end, and in accordance with the reviews, we have expanded the introductory part with references and the contextualization of the work in relation to urban riverbank requalification interventions and the studies carried out on these, thanks to the new references you proposed. In the following section we have described the methodology and developed the conceptual framework of the evaluation matrix used. We have maintained the analytical description of the cases, which is the basis for our study, and incorporated a new section with a detailed description of the empirical data results. Plots that summarize and facilitate the reading of the results have been included. Finally, in the discussion and conclusions section we evaluate both the proposed tool and the results, proposing future lines of study and improvements. We also highlight the relevant findings of this comparative analysis. In accordance with these changes, we have reformulated the initial abstract, added a supplementary table and clarify the meaning of the Spanish terms.

We hope to have completed the work in accordance with your recommendations.

Kind regards,

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been extensively supplemented and is a significant improvement over the previous version. It is recommended that the abstract include more innovative about this research, including innovative ideas, rather than simply introducing the basic situation of the two cases.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback on the latest version of the submitted manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in blue in the re-submitted file.

Comments 1: The manuscript has been extensively supplemented and is a significant improvement over the previous version. It is recommended that the abstract include more innovative about this research, including innovative ideas, rather than simply introducing the basic situation of the two cases.

Response 1: We agree with this recommendation. Therefore, we have reformulated the summary with greater emphasis on the proposed tool, its conceptualization and highlighting its capabilities. We consider this to be one of the innovations of the research. We also anticipate the result of its use in the comparison of the proposed cases.

Response to the comments on the review report form: Likewise, we have improved the introduction as recommended. We have added a paragraph at the end of this section that briefly outlines the structure of the article. It also highlights the points developed in this section. As for the discussion and conclusions, we have minimally reordered this section and added a paragraph reinforcing the benefits of the proposed tool for decision making and action. Finally, we have updated some information in the comparative table of the two cases that we thought was not clear (number of bridges and pedestrian ones.