A Green Infrastructure Planning Approach: Improving Territorial Cohesion through Urban-Rural Landscape in Vojvodina, Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper set out to analyze the connectivity of green infrastructure, which is a critical indicator for achieving territorial cohesion and integrated urban-rural landscape planning. This research topic is quite interesting and with particular significance for informing urban planners and policymakers.

Overall, this paper is well designed and with good writing. I think it fits the mandate of the LAND journal.

Nevertheless, as far as I’m concerned, several issues need to be addressed to perfect the current manuscript.

1.        The description of the research background in the first three paragraphs should be more concise. As the connectivity of green infrastructure is the primary focus of this study, it should be introduced earlier, or the research issues will be weakened.

2.        Please clearly explain the article’s innovation and necessity in Introduction Section. What the research gaps are and how this study contributes to existing knowledge?

3.        Please add a map scale in Figure 1. Also, there should be a legend for the land use/land cover in Figure 1.

4.        The descriptions for the three surveyed towns (Lines 178-210) can be shortened by removing the unnecessary information.

 

5.        Some sentences of the manuscript are too long and complicated to read smoothly, such as Lines 539-543 and Lines 576-581. Please rephrase them more concisely and straightforwardly.

Author Response

Comment 1. “The description of the research background in the first three paragraphs should be more concise. As the connectivity of green infrastructure is the primary focus of this study, it should be introduced earlier, or the research issues will be weakened”.

 

 

• Response: We really appreciate reviewer comment. It helped us to structure Introduction in the way that, we hope, the innovation as well as problem that we are trying to solve, is much more clear. We have made “panoramic” observations, as one the reviewer named the “state of the art “, of the previous research and approach to green infrastructural planning. At the we have highlighted the novelty of our research and research questions as well.

 

Comment 3. “Please add a map scale in Figure 1. Also, there should be a legend for the land use/land cover in Figure 1”

 

• Response: Accepted. We have added a map scale to all segments of Figure 1. We have used a simplified form of the scale bar – this figure shows spatial relationships on a wider scale (scale bars on other Figures has spatial information with much more details). Regarding the comment related to the missing legend – we have added text in the title of Figure 1 that points to the first part of Figure 2, which shows the legend for LCLU. The LULC classification has too many entities (more than 20), and it would be impossible to show all classes in Figure 1.

 

Comment 4.  “The descriptions for the three surveyed towns (Lines 178-210) can be shortened by removing the unnecessary information “

 

• Response: Accepted. Thank you so much for catching unnecessary details in the description of the characteristics of the researched areas. The text about the territory of the analysed cities has been corrected and shortened.

 

Comment 5. “Some sentences of the manuscript are too long and complicated to read smoothly, such as Lines 539-543 and Lines 576-581. Please rephrase them more concisely and straightforwardly”

 

• Response: Accepted. Thank you for this suggestion. We have simplified and rephrased these sentences and also others for which we could apply this comment.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is about spatial planning the urban-rural fringe landscapes by means of re-connection strategies based on the design of a green infrastructure. The Authors focus on three centres in the region of Vojvodina, Serbia and apply a mix of tools to study land use cover and locate the hubs and nodes of the green network. The topic falls within the aims of the journal Land. It is well written too. On the other hand, the piece still presents some pitfalls that need to be fixed before it is accepted for publication. Authors are advised as follows.

Section 1. Lines 32 and 47-49: please, clarify and insert references supporting phase n. 1. The Authors refer to multifunctionality, but do not provide the reader with any definition and classification of ecosystem services. This could be inserted around line 95. The Authors use the green infrastructure as a strategy to increase the connectivity. The analysis is entirely devoted to the study of the nodes, while the corridors (the edges of the network) are very poorly covered (actually, never mentioned). Authors are invited to complete. The main concerns of the entire piece: the research question is not fully clear. This paper starts with the proposition of exploring the hot topic of spatial planning support in hybrid landscapes through green infrastructures. However, the Authors do focus mainly on the application of a mix of tools to locate the nodes of a GI. How do they believe this framework helps spatial planners exactly? Authors are invited to develop on this by -for instance advancing three instances, that are finally recalled in the conclusions (section 5).  At the end of the section, a paragraph on the contents and development of the rationale through the sections is needed to let the reader make a panoramic idea of the whole argument.

Section 3.3. hypotheses are not clear as for the addressing and bettering the whole green infrastructure. Authors are invited to integrate.

Section 4 discussion. This piece focuses on the repetition of many concepts already proposed beforehand. It lacks the comments on the very contribution of the paper to the broader scientific literature on the topic. Which gaps are filled in? Authors are required to develop on these concerns.  

Section 5: some concepts presented in the discussion section are repeated, while no information is provided on the limitations of the application and the possible future studies.  Authors are suggested to wrap up the main issues of this paper and open properly to further works.

Author Response

Comment 1. “Section 1. Lines 32 and 47-49: please, clarify and insert references supporting phase n. 1. The Authors refer to multifunctionality, but do not provide the reader with any definition and classification of ecosystem services. This could be inserted around line 95. The Authors use the green infrastructure as a strategy to increase the connectivity. The analysis is entirely devoted to the study of the nodes, while the corridors (the edges of the network) are very poorly covered (actually, never mentioned). The main concerns of the entire piece: the research question is not fully clear. This paper starts with the proposition of exploring the hot topic of spatial planning support in hybrid landscapes through green infrastructures. However, the Authors do focus mainly on the application of a mix of tools to locate the nodes of a GI. How do they believe this framework helps spatial planners exactly? Authors are invited to develop on this by -for instance advancing three instances, that are finally recalled in the conclusions (Section 5).  At the end of the section, a paragraph on the contents and development of the rationale through the sections is needed to let the reader make a panoramic idea of the whole argument”.

• Response: Accepted. We really appreciate reviewer comment. Our intention in the chapter Introduction was to discuss the emergence of urban-rural landscapes, which will be, referring to the estimation of many scholars, the space in which we will live in the future. Through the need to achieve spatial cohesion, we have introduce the concept of green infrastructure, as concept based on the principle of connectivity. But, as you noticed, it was not enough clear. According to your suggestion, and comments from other reviewers, the chapter has been shortened. Your observation and precise suggestion helped us to structure Introduction in the way that, we hope, the innovation as well as problem that we are trying to solve, is much more clear. We have made “panoramic” observations - “state of the art “of the previous research and approach to green infrastructural planning, and, at the end highlight the novelty of our research, as well as research questions (line 121-151)

As we have decided to make introduction more concise, and some of answers to your comments are not observable in the re written Introduction, we have answered the questions in the order they appear in your comment:

• “Lines 32 and 47-49: please, clarify and insert references supporting phase n. 1.

Answer: Reference that support assertion that “This urban-rural continuum is an environmentally sensitive landscape and is susceptible to numerous conflicts, hazards as well as natural disasters. Urban metropolitan zones (UMZ) are used as a spatial basis for defining environmental indicators that should indicate the general sustainability and vulnerability to climate change” is Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. The Holistic Nature of Landscape – Landscape Dynamic and Evolution, str 164. Landscape Series 2017, 1–9. Landscape Dynamic and Evolution.

At the page 164. you can find paragraph “UMZs are used as a spatial basis to define environmental indicators, e.g. related to sustainability and vulnerability to climate change. It is obvious that these ways to define urban areas are remotely based on landscape reality. However, as planning tools, they have an important impact on the landscape transformation in the future”.

• “The Authors refer to multifunctionality, but do not provide the reader with any definition and classification of ecosystem services. This could be inserted around line 95. The Authors use the green infrastructure as a strategy to increase the connectivity. The analysis is entirely devoted to the study of the nodes, while the corridors (the edges of the network) are very poorly covered (actually, never mentioned)”

Answer: In that part of the introduction, we have interpreted findings of Moteiro at al. (Monteiro, R.; Ferreira, J.C.; Antunes, P. Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: Identification of Priorities Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5170  ). The authors provide us with deep insights into green infrastructure principles, where the principal of multifunctionality have been defined “directly connects green infrastructure with the provision of a wide number of ecosystem services, namely provision, regulation, support, and cultural.

We agree that ecosystem services are crucial for aspect of GI functionality, but in this paper, we prefer to focus on the territorial cohesion and measure connectivity, and so we will leave exploration the aspects of ecosystems services, specially aspect of cultural ecosystems services, to other research.  We have added to line 87-91, typology of ecosystem services as well as main form of GI elements - corridor and patches.

 

Comment 3. “Section 4. Discussion. This piece focuses on the repetition of many concepts already proposed beforehand. It lacks the comments on the very contribution of the paper to the broader scientific literature on the topic. Which gaps are filled in? “

 

• Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation.

We have discussed in Discussion section that the level of connectivity between the elements of green infrastructure (Green infrastructure hubs, Green infra-structure nodes, Green infrastructure gateways), are the basis for the application of the GI concept in the formation of various spatial planning scenarios. As Albert et all. highlights, Green infrastructure hubs as nature protected entities are priority elements of green infrastructure, Green infra-structure nodes and Green infrastructure gateways (which have a functional role of corridors) belong to the secondary priorities of green infrastructure planning and represent ecosystem services provision units and thus ensure coherence and functionality . But for our research, and in the spatial planning sense, as the third level of priority, Green infrastructure dots are the most important. As a complex and mixed cultivation pattern, open spaces with little or no vegetation, as well as pastures in the edge that influence urban settlements, they have spatial and functional potential to provide several ecosystem services at the local scale. The previous research findings that GI planning approach has gaps at the implementation at the local level, is the reason why we find that GI dots has great potential for cross - sectoral planning and design scenarios.   

 

Comment 4. “ Section 5: some concepts presented in the discussion section are repeated, while no information is provided on the limitations of the application and the possible future studies.  Authors are suggested to wrap up the main issues of this paper and open properly to further works”

• Response: Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. It helped us to emphasize the main result. We have wrap up the main issues of this paper related to the main research questions and further research.

 

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and responding to any further questions and comments you may have.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

General: This is an interesting study revealing the ecological model of achieving territorial cohesion in urban-rural landscape planning. Based on the connectivity analyses of GI, the authors emphasized the importance of GI dots and the level of connectivity while pursuing sustainable spatial development goals and future urban spatial plans. While the findings brought some valuable insights, practical policy implications seem to be neglected in the current manuscript. I would suggest providing some realistic spatial strategies that local planners or decision-makers may adopt in their long-term comprehensive city plan or regional spatial plan for improving their territorial cohesion. I have suggested the following edits that aim to make the manuscript clearer and further developed.

Introduction: Previous studies that have assessed the GI connectivity should be shown and summarized in the Introduction or Literature Review section. Which areas were previous GI connectivity research focused and what will be the novel approach from this study? In addition, the authors may re-summarize (shorten) the key parts of the second paragraph (lines 46-63), since their contents are not so relevant to the purpose of this study even though the main idea can be important.

Figure 1: In all figures within the manuscript, please insert the north arrows and scale bars. Also, legends should be shown on the map.

Line 162: typo

Table 1: The authors could include “GI dots” information together in this table.

Information in Table 2 can be shown in a bar graph or other kinds of graphs to better compare the connectivity of GI for three different study sites.

Discussion: As I have mentioned earlier, it will be great to see some realistic strategies to improve the connectivity of GI. In reality, although GI dots and some specific hubs or nodes play important roles on the ecological side, we need to consider the future development plan and rapid expansion of urban areas. The authors may consider prioritizing areas that need to be preserved the most by giving orders or rankings. In addition, specific action strategies can be suggested within the existing Regional Spatial Plan by considering the current (problematic) goals and policies.

 

Conclusion: I do believe that there will be some limitations while conducting the connectivity analyses. For instance, aren’t there any resolution issues for satellite imageries? What is the resolution of the current LULC? While the classification of GI was made by referring to previous studies, is this classification reliable enough and generalizable? How do we have to interpret the role of ‘water’ as GI? 

Author Response

Comment 1. “Introduction: Previous studies that have assessed  GI connectivity should be shown and summarized in the Introduction or Literature Review section. Which areas were previous GI connectivity research focused and what will be the novel approach from this study? In addition, the authors may re-summarize (shorten) the key parts of the second paragraph (lines 46-63), since their contents are not so relevant to the purpose of this study even though the main idea can be important”

 

 

• Response: We really appreciate your comment. Our intention in writing chapter Introduction was to discuss the emergence of urban-rural landscapes, which will be, according to the estimation of many scholars and practitioners, the space in which we will live in the future, and later, through the need to achieve spatial cohesion, introduce the concept of green infrastructure, as concept based on the principle of connectivity. According to your suggestion, the second chapter has been shortened. It helped us to structure Introduction in a way that, we hope, the innovation as well as a problem that we are trying to solve, is clearer. We have made “panoramic” observations, as one the reviewer named the “state of the art “of the previous research and approach to green infrastructural planning, and, at the end highlight the novelty of our research.

Comment 2. “Figure 1: In all figures within the manuscript, please insert the north arrows and scale bars. Also, legends should be shown on the map.“

• Response: We have added the north symbol and map scale to all figures. Regarding the comment related to the missing legend – we have added text in the titles of figures that point to the particular part of Figure 2, which shows the legends. The figures classification has too many entities, and it would be impossible to show all classes in figures (especially Figure 1).

 

 

Comment 3. “ Table 1: The authors could include “GI dots” information together in this table. Information in Table 2 can be shown in a bar graph or other kinds of graphs to better compare the connectivity of GI for three different study sites.“

• Response: The essence of Table 1 is to show the methodological logic of the quest for the classification of green infrastructure elements and the analysis of their significance in the present state of the landscape structure. In this part of the article, GI dots are a methodological assumption, so we believe that it is not appropriate to elaborate in detail on their spatial and functional characteristics in the part that provides a system of methodological steps. However, in the following text, GI dots are described in detail. Regarding the suggestion for a different graphic display, your comment inspired us, so we added another graphic display and additional text that compares in more detail the connectivity and cohesion of the lower territorial organizational units. This new part of the article is also useful for considering the logic of the prioritizing areas that need to be preserved, which is the part of your comment related to Discussion (The authors may consider prioritizing areas that need to be preserved the most by giving orders or rankings.).

Comment 4.  Discussion: „As I have mentioned earlier, it will be great to see some realistic strategies to improve the connectivity of GI. In reality, although GI dots and some specific hubs or nodes play important roles on the ecological side, we need to consider the future development plan and rapid expansion of urban areas. The authors may consider prioritizing areas that need to be preserved the most by giving orders or rankings. In addition, specific action strategies can be suggested within the existing Regional Spatial Plan by considering the current (problematic) goals and policies“.

Response: Mostly accepted. We have discussed in Discussion section that the level of connectivity between the elements of green infrastructure (Green infrastructure hubs, Green infra-structure nodes, Green infrastructure gateways), are the basis for the application of the GI concept in the formation of various spatial planning scenarios. As Albert et all. highlights, Green infrastructure hubs as nature protected entities are priority elements of green infrastructure, Green infra-structure nodes and Green infrastructure gateways (which have a functional role of corridors) belong to the secondary priorities of green infrastructure planning and represent ecosystem services provision units and thus ensure coherence and functionality . But for our research, and in the spatial planning sense, as the third level of priority, Green infrastructure dots are the most important. As a complex and mixed cultivation pattern, open spaces with little or no vegetation, as well as pastures in the edge that influence urban settlements, they have spatial and functional potential to provide several ecosystem services at the local scale. The previous research finding that GI planning approach has gaps at the implementation at the local level, that is the reason why we find that GI dots has great potential for cross - sectoral planning and design scenarios.

  

Comment 5 Conclusion: I do believe that there will be some limitations while conducting the connectivity analyses. For instance, aren’t there any resolution issues for satellite imageries? What is the resolution of the current LULC? While the classification of GI was made by referring to previous studies, is this classification reliable enough and generalizable? How do we have to interpret the role of ‘water’ as GI? 

 

• Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. It helped us to emphasize the main result. We have wrap up main issues of this paper related to the main research questions and further research. During the research, certain limitations of the proposed methodological procedure appeared, which primarily relate to the method of reclassification of UrbanAtlas under the principles of Gray-Green Continuum and Novel Urban Ecosystems. In this sense, this comment was added to the conclusion, and suggestions were given for improving the research approach through the use of other original databases or by compilations with some of the derivatives of remote sensing and by expanding the interest in the domain conceptual framework of blue-green infrastructure.

 

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

See the box for editors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Good work. The authors have responded well to the reviewer's previous comments. Please check the typos before the publication.