Regenerating and Developing a National Botanical Garden (NBG) in Khartoum, Sudan: Effect on Urban Landscape and Environmental Sustainability

Comments 1: [The abstract is not structured clearly enough to adequately summaries the core of the research and needs to be recondensed. Literature citations should be avoided in the abstract.]

Response 1: [According to the recommendations of the reviewer, I made a comprehensive modification in the abstract.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [The abstract has been summarized in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number1, paragraph1, and line from 13 to 34]

Comments 2: [introduction needs to be reorganized. The research questions/arguments are not clearly stated and explained, and the logic is not clear enough to enable the reader to quickly grasp the background and significance of the research. Typically, the introduction needs to describe the background of the research, the results of previous research, and the significance of the research, and then lead to the objectives, contents, and aims of this research.]

Response 2: [I have formulated and written the introduction and organized it so that the reader can understand the background, objectives and significance of the research.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [The introduction is organized and er-write in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript this change can be found – page number1 to 3, paragraphs is totally changed, and line from 38 to 125.]

Comments 3: [It is recommended to strengthen the literature discussion section to advance the arguments of this manuscript.]

Response 3: [In accordance with the reviewers' recommendations, the literature discussion section has been enhanced to strengthen the arguments of this manuscript.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [Literature discussion section It has been rewritten with the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript this change can be found – page number1, paragraph is totally changed, and line from 201 to 344.]

Comments 4: [There is a mismatch between the research objectives and the content of this study, which fails to clearly articulate the main theme of the research; and it is recommended that it be rewritten to ensure consistency between the two.]

Response 4: [The research content was rewritten again until the main topic was identified and matched the research objectives to ensure consistency between the main topic and research objectives.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [I was made totally change in abstract and introduction and literature section (research content).]

Comments 5: [The Overview of study area should provide more detailed basic information about climate, hydrology, vegetation, soils, etc. Figure 4 does not show a detailed explanation.]

Response 5: [I have added more detailed information about climate, hydrology, vegetation, plant families, soil, rainfall, etc. In addition to Figure 4, a detailed explanation is given in Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 6.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number5,6,7, paragraph1, and line from 183 to 191.]

Comments 6: [Line 98, NBG, where the abbreviation appears for the first time in the text, its full name and explanation should be provided.]

Response 6: [It has been processed so that the abbreviation NBG appears first time in the introduction with full name and explanation.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number1, paragraph3, and line 39.]

Comments 7: [Lines 167-181 should cite the corresponding literature.]

Response 7: [This paragraph has been removed from the manuscript.]

Comments 8: [Section 2.1.4 "Sample Characteristic" needs to be summarized in appropriate text. The characteristics of the group can be combined with the questionnaire content for a more detailed analysis.]

Response 8: [An appropriate summary in the sample characteristics was done and integrated with the questionnaire content, and i added table explaining that.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [The section 2.1.4 has been summarized in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number11, paragraph3, and line from 384 to 399. And table 3.]

Comments 9: [Tables that should be part of the results appear in the Materials and Methods section, such as Tables.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, as well as the corresponding textual descriptions. It is recommended that these tables be consolidated with clearer descriptions of the results.]

Response 9: [i have been merged these tables in the result section with more descriptions.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [there has been changed in tables number, which are as follows atable3=table 9, table 4= table 11, table 5=table 13, table 6= table 15, table 7=17, and table 8=table 6. Table 9= table 7, the table with new number in page number 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22]

Comments 10: [Is the design of the 20 questions of the questionnaire based on previous research or case studies summarized and condensed? Have they been endorsed by experts or otherwise validated? So that it can be better aligned with the future development of National Botanical Garden in Khartoum-Sudan.]

Response 10: [Yes, first:  the design of the twenty questions in the questionnaire was summarized and condensed based on previous research and case studies in the field of urban renewal and green spaces, but due to the study conditions in an area with special circumstances such as Sudan, the study questions focused on the local and main conditions that play a role in the deterioration of the National Botanical Garden, and to preserve the land of the study area from being sold to investors because it is located in the attractive tourist area of ​​Al-Moqran, as historical landmarks in the same area about a kilometer away were sold to investors, so this study highlighted the importance of renewing the botanical garden, and the impact of its renewal on cities, green building and other gardens in the city because it is considered the main tributary of gardens with plants and provides producers, owners of nurseries and companies with plants, i.e. providing plants to the private and public sectors, and it is the only national garden in the state of Sudan. The study also highlighted the importance of establishing national gardens for the different regions of Sudan and the impact of this on the environment, environmental resilience, environmental sustainability, and climate change. Second: Yes, it has been approved by experts from 3 universities in the field of urban environment and 3 experts from the Ministry of Agriculture and National Forests in Khartoum. And 2 former directors, and the current director of the National Botanical Garden in Al-Moqran so that it can be better aligned with the future development of the National Botanical Garden in Khartoum - Sudan.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [The second point found in – page number13, paragraph2, and line from 447 to 456.]

Comments 11: [The way the NBG was constructed in this research only by means of a popular questionnaire does not seem to be convincing enough, and it is recommended that more robust evidence and explanations be added.]

Response 11: [The questionnaire was distributed to employees of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - Khartoum, which is the entity to the National Botanical Garden Administration is affiliated. Usually, in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, there is movement between different departments, meaning that all participants in the questionnaire, if they have not worked in the botanical garden, may have been trained there during the training period that takes place after the appointment of employees in the ministry, where they are trained in all different departments, meaning that the participants have full knowledge of the current situation of the national botanical garden. There was difficulty in understanding and explaining some of the questions, as in the fourth and fifth sections, but this was addressed after distributing the pilot copies of the questionnaire.]

Comments 12: [A more scientific and in-depth description of the discussion section is required. The discussion does not clearly reflect the main contributions of this study, as well as the research results, and the comparison and analysis with more relevant studies are still lacking. The proposed modifications in the future should be analyzed and discussed in depth in combination with the actual situation of NBG in Sudan and their own characteristics, and the final conclusions and recommendations should be summarized.]

Response 12: [The discussion section has been revised in the same manner as the reviewer recommended, also final conclusions have been summarized, In addition, 5 recommendations have been added to study.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [recommendations been summarized in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number25--26, paragraph4 page 25and paragraph 1page 26, and line from 825 to 841]

Comments 13: [The discussion section should be consistent with the research objectives and provide specific responses.]

Response 13: [The discussion section has been revised to be consistent with the research objectives and to provide specific answers.]

Comments 14: [The contributions, limitations and future prospects of the study should be strengthened.]

Response 14: Additions have been done in the research to explain the future prospects of the study.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have… [Study Contributions, Constraints, and Future Trajectories has been summarized in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number26, paragraph2, and line from 843 to 859]

Comments 1: [the conceptual framework needs improvement. the paper lacks a literature review of botanical gardens and regenerative landscaping. What you provided as literature review is poorly structured and provides sporadic, disconnected concepts. the references and bibliography need to be enhanced.]

Response 1: [I have reviewed the literature again (botanical gardens and landscape) and organized it to improve the conceptual framework and bibliography.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

Comments 2: [Some parts of the manuscript are repetitive and chaotic. The paper needs careful restructuring.]

Response 2: [I made deep changes in the structure of the manuscript to be consistent with the recommendations of the reviewer.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

Comments 3: [The research question, hypothesis and questionnaire sample are unclear until one reads conclusions. There is a need to clarify these aspects under methodology and tackle each of these aspects clearly in the discussion.]

Response 3: [What was mentioned it is addressed again in a clear way and linked it with the results and discussion section.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

Comments 4: [Finally, English language is weak and needs a professional proofreader.]

Response 4: [in the revised manuscript the English language has been reviewed once more and I will work to improving the quality of manuscript English writing continuously.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

Comments 5: [The three research objectives stated in P2 are very well-spelled. The literature review covers objective n.1. Concerning objective n.2, please clarify how the questionnaire "measures the extent to which botanical gardens meet the needs and requirements of users and use of technologies system". With the regards to the questionnaire, the authors mention at P9 " Design of questionnaire was based on 20-questions, questionnaire was created by the researcher to gather data. The questionnaire was designed to capture participants' perceptions and experiences". It is advisable to include the questions in the annex as a reference for readers. In the manuscript, one discovers the questions only under the results section. Moreover, there is a discrepancy in the number of questions since at page 12 the authors mention " The questionnaire consisted of 17 questions". As per objective n.3, it was clearly answered by the fifth section of the questionnaire.]

Response 5: [From the previous results the whole questions is significant except the questions 2, 4 and 11 Which was cancelled in the results section for the following reasons:

question 2 (the NBG total area is very large compared with to the other botanical gardens) Most of the participants in the research questionnaire answered the question 2 with disagreement, due to the NBG small total area Which was explained in the question 1.

(the NBG total area is very small compared with to the other botanical gardens), and Most participants agreed with this question 1.

question 4 (expending National botanical garden area)

Most of the participants in the research questionnaire answered this question 4 with disagreement because the NBG is in a residential area, its expansion is a source of dispute with the local population.

question 11 (preserving and restoring buildings)

Most of the participants in the research questionnaire answered this question 11 with disagreement Because the NBG buildings are very old and cannot be re-establish and it in a risk of   collapse and fall. and we note that most of the participants' answers in the questionnaire agreed with the question 10 (demolish buildings and create new buildings)]

Thank you for pointing this out.

[in the manuscript this can be found – page number13, paragraph3, and line 462 to471.]

Comments 6: [At P.7, the authors pose several relevant questions, namely: "Gardens need to ask themselves some important questions - are they ad-equate in size, are they renovated, are the buildings adequate for the needs of the community and visitors, and are they clear about construction for research? Do they want to change visitors' attitudes and behavior or enhance visitors' well-being? The core values and mission must support what the park wants to achieve and what the community wants to achieve". It is advisable to draw some conclusions from the results of the questionnaire and try to answer these questions in your conclusions.]

Response 6: [The purpose of this study is achieving the well-being of NBG users,this point has been reviewed in the revised manuscript accordance with the reviewer recommendation and the questionnaire results.] Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.