Significance of Allotment Gardens in Urban Green Space Systems and Their Classification for Spatial Planning Purposes: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of the article is important not only in relation to Poland but also other countries where allotment gardens are popular and are a part of the urban green infrastructure as well as the urban agriculture idea. But there are some points which need to be taken into consideration. They are as follows:
- The title of the article is not precise and seems to be too promising, because:
- the presented classification method is not “new” as the “old” one is not mentioned in the article; maybe it would be better to use the phrase “a classification method based on…” or similar;
- sustainable landscape planning is also not mentioned in the text; spatial planning documents are presented instead; maybe “classification for spatial planning purposes” or similar.
- The terminology used in the article may be misleading to some extent due to:
- the use of different terms with similar or the same meaning (green spaces, green areas, urban greenery, green wedges); I would suggest using one term previously defined because in different countries areas included in green spaces (areas) may be slightly different (see the problem of allotment gardens in Poland);
- the lack of the general definition of the term “green spaces system”; it is presented using the example of Poznan but this may vary in other cities;
- the use of the term “land use plan” [line 262: Poznan Land Use Plan (2014)] probably for a document called in the Polish system of spatial planning “a study of the conditions and directions of the spatial development of a commune”; it is better to translate it as “the spatial policy of a city” or use the term “study….” (it had been already mentioned in line 95)
- The aim of the article. The first part of the aim is entirely in line with the content of the article. But in order to fulfill its second part, (to present “a universal and simple method” - lines 78-80), the authors should:
- re-write the section entitled “Methods” and introduce the adopted method in a more procedural way which allows repeating it in other cities; at the moment it is too oriented on Poznan;
- develop the section entitled “Discussion” and elaborate some on the advantages and limitations of the method;
- change the scope of conclusions; they should refer to the usability of the method.
- The titles of particular sections are typical for a scientific article, however the title of subsection 3.2. Functional and spatial analysis of allotment gardens suggests that the reader will be informed about subsequently analyzed gardens and their internal functional and spatial structure. Instead, the analysis of the location of individual gardens in relation to their surroundings is discussed. The title should be changed.
To sum up, I would like to underline that the article may be dedicated mostly to the presentation of the problem of allotments gardens in Poznan or may be oriented to the presentation of the classification method. In the first case, the article requires some minor improvements. In the second case, its aim and parts dedicated to the method, discussion and conclusions should be re-written.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
thank you for reviewers comments and suggestions. We appreciate all notes that have helped to improve our manuscript. We did our best to address all remarks and incorporate suggested changes in the article, as follows:
Response to Reviewer 1 suggestions:
The subject of the article is important not only in relation to Poland but also other countries where allotment gardens are popular and are a part of the urban green infrastructure as well as the urban agriculture idea. But there are some points which need to be taken into consideration. They are as follows:
- The titleof the article is not precise and seems to be too promising, because:
- the presented classification method is not “new” as the “old” one is not mentioned in the article; maybe it would be better to use the phrase “a classification method based on…” or similar;
- sustainable landscape planning is also not mentioned in the text; spatial planning documents are presented instead; maybe “classification for spatial planning purposes” or similar.
Response: Suggestion 2 was applied, we changed the title
- The terminology used in the article may be misleading to some extent due to:
- the use of different terms with similar or the same meaning (green spaces, green areas, urban greenery, green wedges); I would suggest using one term previously defined because in different countries areas included in green spaces (areas) may be slightly different (see the problem of allotment gardens in Poland);
Response: terminology has been unified, a definition for individual terms has been formulated
- the lack of the general definition of the term “green spaces system”; it is presented using the example of Poznan but this may vary in other cities;
Response: general definition of the term “green spaces system” was added (footnote no. 2)
- the use of the term “land use plan” [line 262: Poznan Land Use Plan (2014)] probably for a document called in the Polish system of spatial planning “a study of the conditions and directions of the spatial development of a commune”; it is better to translate it as “the spatial policy of a city” or use the term “study….” (it had been already mentioned in line 95)
Response: term “land use plan” was changed to “study of the conditions and directions of the spatial development of a commune”
- The aim of the article. The first part of the aim is entirely in line with the content of the article. But in order to fulfill its second part, (to present “a universal and simple method” - lines 78-80), the authors should:
- re-write the section entitled “Methods” and introduce the adopted method in a more procedural way which allows repeating it in other cities; at the moment it is too oriented on Poznan;
Response: section entitled “Methods” was re-write, adopted method was presented more clearly in form of table and generalized to the conditions of different cities (lines: 89-150)
- develop the section entitled “Discussion” and elaborate some on the advantages and limitations of the method;
Response: section entitled “discussion” was developed and extended by adding new literature, limitations for the presented study were formulated (lines: 354-359, 389-397, 429-445)
- change the scope of conclusions; they should refer to the usability of the method.
Response: in the conclusions more attention was paid to the usability of the method used (lines: 459-461)
- The titles of particular sections are typical for a scientific article, however the title of subsection 3.2. Functional and spatial analysis of allotment gardens suggests that the reader will be informed about subsequently analyzed gardens and their internal functional and spatial structure. Instead, the analysis of the location of individual gardens in relation to their surroundings is discussed. The title should be changed.
Response: title of subsection 3.2. and 3.4 was changed
To sum up, I would like to underline that the article may be dedicated mostly to the presentation of the problem of allotments gardens in Poznan or may be oriented to the presentation of the classification method. In the first case, the article requires some minor improvements. In the second case, its aim and parts dedicated to the method, discussion and conclusions should be re-written.
Response: The paper was rewritten to orient it more to the presentation of the problem of allotments gardens in Poznan and using method of validation in context of given city with the possibility of using it in other cities
We hope that this elaboration of our manuscript will meet expectations of Editor and Reviewers.
Kind Regards
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
1). First of all, having a hyphen (-) and a full stop (.) together or a full stop (.) alone in the title is not appropriate. I suggest re-titling your paper. Perhaps only “Significance of Allotment Gardens in Green Space Systems for Sustainable Landscape Planning: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland” is enough.
2). The objective of the study in the Abstract: To classify allotment gardens in the urban green space system with a simple and universal method of their valuation, which could be used in urban planning.
While the objectives of the study in the Introduction section:
(1) to examine the significance of allotment gardens in the spatial development of green space system of Poznań (increasing its surface area, improving continuity and accessibility by citizens),
(2) to prepare a classification of allotment gardens in the urban green space system as a universal and simple method of their valuation, which can be used in urban spatial planning.
Seems like the objective of the study in the Introduction is different from the objective of the study in the Abstract.
3). Can you elaborate on the data from Urban Atlas, planning documents: study of conditions and directions of spatial development (SUiKZP) as well as local plans (MPZP) and satellite images from 2001-2016 from the Google Earth Pro platform?
4). Using a table(s) to show the scores and values and their descriptions that you explained in lines 139-184 would be easier for readers to understand your methods.
5). In the results, I think it would be showing better if you design Tables 1 and 2 by putting the letters (descriptions) on the left side and numbers (ha) on the right side.
6). The conclusion is very short—it is just a short summary. The conclusions in a scientific article should describe the usefulness of the results in the field of research and further possible studies that can be conducted. You have to present the limitations of your research in the conclusions as well.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
thank you for reviewers comments and suggestions. We appreciate all notes that have helped to improve our manuscript. We did our best to address all remarks and incorporate suggested changes in the article, as follows:
Response to Reviewer 2 suggestions:
1). First of all, having a hyphen (-) and a full stop (.) together or a full stop (.) alone in the title is not appropriate. I suggest re-titling your paper. Perhaps only “Significance of Allotment Gardens in Green Space Systems for Sustainable Landscape Planning: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland” is enough.
Response: We changed the title according to suggestions of both reviewers
2). The objective of the study in the Abstract: To classify allotment gardens in the urban green space system with a simple and universal method of their valuation, which could be used in urban planning.
While the objectives of the study in the Introduction section:
(1) to examine the significance of allotment gardens in the spatial development of green space system of Poznań (increasing its surface area, improving continuity and accessibility by citizens),
(2) to prepare a classification of allotment gardens in the urban green space system as a universal and simple method of their valuation, which can be used in urban spatial planning.
Seems like the objective of the study in the Introduction is different from the objective of the study in the Abstract.
Response: Objectives have been standardized in the abstract and in the introduction (lines: 23-24)
3). Can you elaborate on the data from Urban Atlas, planning documents: study of conditions and directions of spatial development (SUiKZP) as well as local plans (MPZP) and satellite images from 2001-2016 from the Google Earth Pro platform?
Response: We clarify what kind of data sources have been taken from Urban Atlas, SUiKZP, MPZP and Google Earth platform (footnote no.3)
4). Using a table(s) to show the scores and values and their descriptions that you explained in lines 139-184 would be easier for readers to understand your methods.
Response: scores and values used in section entitled “method” (lines 139 - 184) was presented in table 1 for easier understanding using classification
5). In the results, I think it would be showing better if you design Tables 1 and 2 by putting the letters (descriptions) on the left side and numbers (ha) on the right side.
Response: tables were rebuild
6). The conclusion is very short—it is just a short summary. The conclusions in a scientific article should describe the usefulness of the results in the field of research and further possible studies that can be conducted. You have to present the limitations of your research in the conclusions as well.
Response: conclusions were developed to better describe the usability of the results in the field of research (lines: 459-461). Limitations were formulated and presented in the end of section entitled “discussion” (line: 438-445)
We hope that this elaboration of our manuscript will meet expectations of Editor and Reviewers.
Kind Regards
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Considering second objective of the study I believe that one or two conclusions related to the method itself are needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for reviewers comments and suggestions. We appreciate all notes that have helped to improve our manuscript. We did our best to address all remarks and incorporate suggested changes in the article, as follows:
Considering second objective of the study I believe that one or two conclusions related to the method itself are needed.
Done – we added more conclusions
We hope that this elaboration of our manuscript will meet expectations of Reviewers and Editors.
Kind Regards
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
I can see how you tried to improve your paper according to my comments. But still some points need to be clarified and/or improved.
1). Having a full stop (.) in the title is not appropriate. Thus, I suggest using colon (:) instead of full stop (.). Therefore, the title should be “Significance of Allotment Gardens in Urban Green Space System and Their Classification for Spatial Planning Proposes: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland”.
2). Look at your Abstract:
Almost five thousand allotment gardens divided into one million plots are used by roughly 10% of the Polish society. Several studies have emphasized their social importance and significance for enlargement of the area and integrity of urban spatial greenery systems. However, area of allotment gardens in Polish cities has been decreasing since the changes in the post-communist countries in the 1990s. The aim of the study was to examine the significance of allotment gardens in the spatial development of green space system of Poznań and classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation, which could be used in urban planning.
- Based on your problem statement (highlighted in red), your aim to examine the significance of allotment gardens in the spatial development of the green space system of Poznań can be acceptable because examining their significance can show how they are important clearly, to get attention for keeping or increasing their areas. BUT for your second aim ‘to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation, which could be used in urban planning’, there is no supporting augments (or problem statement) on why do you want to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation?
- Line 17 “The aim of the study was to…” change to “Hence, this study aims to…”
- Study methods are missed in the Abstract.
- Line 21 “The study showed that…” change to “The results showed that…”
- I did not see the results of your second aim (classify allotment gardens allotment gardens in the spatial development of the green space system of Poznań) in the Abstract.
3). Please check the Instructions for Authors whether footnotes are allowed to use. If not, write them down in the text.
4). Tables 2-3 have no title for each column.
5). The results of your second aim (classify allotment gardens allotment gardens in the spatial development of the green space system of Poznań) are not seen in the Conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for reviewers comments and suggestions. We appreciate all notes that have helped to improve our manuscript. We did our best to address all remarks and incorporate suggested changes in the article, as follows:
1). Having a full stop (.) in the title is not appropriate. Thus, I suggest using colon (:) instead of full stop (.). Therefore, the title should be “Significance of Allotment Gardens in Urban Green Space System and Their Classification for Spatial Planning Proposes: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland”.
We changed the title
2). Look at your Abstract:
Almost five thousand allotment gardens divided into one million plots are used by roughly 10% of the Polish society. Several studies have emphasized their social importance and significance for enlargement of the area and integrity of urban spatial greenery systems. However, area of allotment gardens in Polish cities has been decreasing since the changes in the post-communist countries in the 1990s. The aim of the study was to examine the significance of allotment gardens in the spatial development of green space system of Poznań and classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation, which could be used in urban planning.
- Based on your problem statement (highlighted in red), your aim to examine the significance of allotment gardens in the spatial development of the green space system of Poznań can be acceptable because examining their significance can show how they are important clearly, to get attention for keeping or increasing their areas. BUT for your second aim ‘to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation, which could be used in urban planning’, there is no supporting augments (or problem statement) on why do you want to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation?
We added some information in abstract (lines: 28 – 29; 30 – 31; 33 - 34), introduction (lines: 91 - 101) and discussion (line: 466-473)
- Line 17 “The aim of the study was to…” change to “Hence, this study aims to…”
Done
- Study methods are missed in the Abstract.
Done – we added the study methods in the Abstract
- Line 21 “The study showed that…” change to “The results showed that…”
Done
- I did not see the results of your second aim (classify allotment gardens allotment gardens in the spatial development of the green space system of Poznań) in the Abstract.
Done – we added the Results
3). Please check the Instructions for Authors whether footnotes are allowed to use. If not, write them down in the text.
Footnotes are in the text now
4). Tables 2-3 have no title for each column.
Titles of table’s columns were added
5). The results of your second aim (classify allotment gardens allotment gardens in the spatial development of the green space system of Poznań) are not seen in the Conclusion.
Done – we added more conclusions
We hope that this elaboration of our manuscript will meet expectations of Reviewers and Editors.
Kind Regards
Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Congratulations on reaching your goal!
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript and all valuable comments that helped us improve the it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Check my Comment 2 again. You did not address the following point yet:
BUT for your second aim "to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation, which could be used in urban planning" there is no supporting augments (or problem statement) on why do you want to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation?
Also, in line 422 delete "Presented here" it is not good when writing in the conclusion. You can start your conclusion directly:
IV: Classification method based on individual internal and external features of allotment gardens creates a comprehensive valuation...
Author Response
Check my Comment 2 again. You did not address the following point yet:
BUT for your second aim "to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation, which could be used in urban planning" there is no supporting augments (or problem statement) on why do you want to classify them with a simple and universal method of valuation?
We have complemented the Abstract with the sentence supporting our second objective (see below):
‘There is a lack of a simple method of classification and valuation of allotment gardens in relation to their significance in urban green space system that could be used by officials and city planners.’
We hope that at present we have a short by full information on the second objective (problem, aim, method, result) in the Abstract.
Also, in line 422 delete "Presented here" it is not good when writing in the conclusion. You can start your conclusion directly:
IV: Classification method based on individual internal and external features of allotment gardens creates a comprehensive valuation...
We have also changed the Conclusion IV following your suggestion.
