Next Article in Journal
Probabilistic Approach to Transient Unsaturated Slope Stability Associated with Precipitation Event
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of E-Commerce Transformation of Cities on Green Total Factor Productivity
Previous Article in Journal
Local Public Administration in the Process of Implementing Sustainable Development Goals
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urban Green Development and Resilient Cities: A First Insight into Urban Forest Planning in Italy
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Sustainability of Urban Parks: Applicable Methodological Framework for a Simple Assessment

Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15262; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115262
by Teresa González 1, Pia Berger 1,*, Claudia N. Sánchez 1 and Faezeh Mahichi 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15262; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115262
Submission received: 16 August 2023 / Revised: 25 September 2023 / Accepted: 29 September 2023 / Published: 25 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Urban Green Development and Resilient Cities)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Define the parks to which this study applies.

First of all, how large is the park to apply these indicators?  Green spaces are limited in large cities and densely populated areas. For example, there are many small parks of 100-200m2.

In addition, the importance of indicators varies depending on the purpose and characteristics, such as a park that specializes in grounds, a park that is mostly grass, or a park that has a sidewalk around a pond.

Next, I have a question about the definition of indicators.

Indicator: 625 hectares of trees is meaningless, affected by tree height and diameter.

Is it the ecological basis of the park that 80% of native species are good?

How many healthy trees? The health of trees is managed in parks.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

see the attachment 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

You wrote a very interesting article and you created a good study and analysis tool for urban park managers.

Although it is not a closed model, as, in the future, other researchers will adapt it having in mind the development of society and of the planet Earth, as a starting point it is a very good model considering the defined pillars, indicators and criteria.

 

Small remarks

p. 6, 226 - not criteria but criterion

p.11, 467 - not 68.5.0% but 68.5%

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Cited documents for park definitions are reports, not papers. As legal interpretations differ in each country, the definition used in this paper is fine, but it cannot be considered to apply to all parks. There is little evidence that it can be adapted to small parks, lawns, sports parks, waterside parks, etc. If it cannot be shown with evidence, this paper will be limited to large parks.

No answer to comment 3.

In the case of a forest landscape, a DBH of 40 cm, a tree height of 20 m, and 200 trees per ha will have a high visual effect.

There is no evidence for 625trees/hr of national regulations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

incorporated all the comments 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

 Accept in present form.

Back to TopTop