Planning Blue–Green Infrastructure for Facing Climate Change: The Case Study of Bucharest and Its Metropolitan Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aims to study the structural rationality construction of blue-green infrastructure planning in metropolitan areas, and discusses the theoretical framework and methods for improving planning connectivity of this special space. This paper has some novelty in the perspective of planning response to climate change. However, in the process of specific research work, the results did not reflect the content organization of this perspective, and could not reflect the climate adaptation needs of the research results. Therefore, the topic of paper writing is not very clear, and the overall research framework needs to be reorganized. In addition, the paper also has some specific issues need to improve as the following:

1. The author use the abbreviated words of IT, in the thesis，which does not explain the specific meaning, please pay attention to the appropriate vocabulary in appeared for the first time the full spelling, lest produce ambiguity;

 2. In the introduction section, the previous studies in the field of literature and related research methods have no detailed summarized, therefore, the readers could not find the difference between the paper and other related literature in this academic direction;

 3. In the 3 section, the method of overall introduction is not very clear.

Firstly, Figure 1 cannot allow readers to clearly discover the selected study area of the paper, and the objects by drawing expresses needs to be clearly represented;

Secondly, what is the basis or referenced papers for the design principles and implementation target actions adopted for the blue-green integrated facilities set in the study?

Moreover, how to obtain the specific method of determining the movement resistance value of land cover?

Also, what is the causal relationship between the landscape feature assessment in the first stage and the land use assessment in the later stage? The significance and function of landscape feature evaluation cannot be found in the method section.

 4. In the results section, the front part of the study area analysis is the metropolitan area, later to study the core region, why the change between the study target object? The author needs to establish the spatial system structure reasonably according to the definite study area.

In addition, figure 6 and figure 8 don't see obvious difference. Please improve the expression way of the drawings, which are needed to explain differently between the two maps;

And figure 7 lack of legend.

Among the section, no specific research methods of improving degraded land are introduced, and it is needed to reflect detail characteristics and design methods that complement their integration into the holistic greenbelt framework in the study to create goals forming sustainable management;

  5. In the discussion section, I cannot see the correlation with the preceding part of the paper, and the main points discussed are very implicit and scattered. What is the path of upgrading the research plan and the main development model adopted should be directly and systematically discussed?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Urban Science-3264029

Title: Planning the blue-green infrastructure for facing climate change; case study: Bucharest and its metropolitan area

This study presents a method for planning a blue-green belt around Bucharest, Romania. The solution is trying to stop the sprawl of Bucharest over the adjacent rural areas, and also answer the need for a green infrastructure providing ecosystem services.

The methodology uses a data set compatible with the European environmental databases, CORINE Land Cover 2018 and Urban Atlas, and two tools of the ARCGIS PRO 2.9 software package, namely Cost Raster and Cost Connectivity. Based on results, the authors developed a framework for implementing a green-blue infrastructure strategy for Bucharest metropolitan area.

I have no reservations about the methodological technique and conceptual framework. However, certain passages should be paraphrased or modified by a competent proofreader because the statements may convey confusing meanings. Once the fine editing is completed, this work will receive attention from readers all over the world.

The part on planning a green-blue infrastructure strategy should be relocated to the ending paragraph of the discussion(after section of future research direction). Additionally, reinforce the findings with the key subject from the spatial analysis regarding the landscape connectivity.

After minor editing and paraphrasing revision, I would suggest that this work be published.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, entitled 'Planning the blue-green infrastructure for facing climate change; case study: Bucharest and its metropolitan area' aligns with the subject matter of the Urban Science Journal and the Special Issue on 'Rural–Urban Transformation and Regional Development'. The topic is both relevant and timely, particularly in terms of the context of changing environmental and climatic conditions as well as challenge of urban sprawl. The manuscript is structured in a coherent manner, with a progression from the introduction to the conclusions. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and analysis presented, provide a logical conclusion to the study, tie back to the initial research questions. Following a review of the manuscript, some concerns have been raised:

 

Line 157-158. I believe the phrase 'The method can be applied to other large cities and their metropolitan areas throughout the world' is more relevant to discussion/conclusion section.

Table 2: please specify what approach was used for obtaining the values of the resistance to movement.

It is not clear in what way the data from Tables 3, 4 were obtained. Please provide a more detailed methodology rather than just presenting the data. 

Generally, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the revision suggestions of the last round version, and the logic of the overall framework has also been improved, so the manuscript can be considered for publication.