Assessment of the Greenery Content in Suburban Multi-Family Housing Models in Poland: A Case Study of the Poznań Metropolitan Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents a compelling investigation into urban greenery in urbanized areas of Poland. It is a well-structured and well-written piece that satisfactorily meets the publication requirements. The contributions are significant and offer the possibility of reproducing the work in other territorial contexts. It would be beneficial to include a figure summarizing the entire methodological process undertaken.

As a suggestion, there was an opportunity to incorporate an urban greenery indicator for the geographical areas using satellite imagery (e.g., Sentinel) and calculating indices like NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). Additionally, it would be insightful to know the resident population living in each selected study area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the time you have invested in assessing our work and suggesting improvements.

The methodological process is now represented in Figure 14.

Thank you infinitely for the suggestions concerning the use of remote sensing like NDVI. In this study we assessed relatively small patches, for this reason the manual approach was possible and reliable. We will definitely consider using the NDVI index in the future for assessing larger metropolitan areas.

We have now provided information about the demographic situation in the six case studies (sections 2.1.1-2.1.6.). As we explain in the text (section 2.1), the exact number of residents is unavailable even to the administration of the housing communities because the residents do not always fulfill their registration obligation. For this reason we preferred to provide the number of residential units and multiply it by the median index of habitants per flat in the area.

We hope that the revisions we made are satisfactory.

Sincerely yours,

the authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a significant amount of work. The main idea of the article is well-defined. The study's results are novel and scientifically formulated. The results unequivocally corroborate the presented conclusions.

The introduction should not be long and divided into several parts. It would be better to divide it into separate structural parts, shorten it, and form a traditional part with a literature review.

It is unclear from the literature review if similar studies were conducted in other territories. Additionally, it is unclear if the methodology used was entirely original.

The goal must be clearly defined. What exactly did the authors want to establish? Could you please clarify what the research hypothesis was?

The authors should have provided and compared the estimated population density for the selected six housing estates. They are important when analyzing green spaces.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your valuable suggestions that helped us to revise our work. We definitely agree that the Introduction was lengthy and diverted from the main topic. The reason is it reflected the entire journey we made from the observation that we (architects) care a lot about how we build but sometimes we overlook the role of nature. Following your advice, we have condensed the Introduction, reducing it to a third of the original version. Following the suggestions of another reviewer, however, we have added a new section relevant to the indices concerning green area ratio and urban greenery assessments. This new section (1.2) briefly discusses similar studies that have been done in different countries.

When it comes to the methodology, we have tried to explain more clearly (section 2.2) that the Indicators we used are grounded in the existing state of knowledge, but their joint application is new. The formulas are our own elaboration, and the methodology was used for the first time in this work in its integrity.

Section 1.3. informs about the research goals and it was amended. We have highlighted our goals by stating four research questions.

The information regarding the demographic profile of the six case studies is now added in their descriptions (sections 2.1.1-2.1.6.), and a general commentary on the demographic situation was included in section 2.1.

We hope that the revisions we made are satisfactory.

Sincerely yours,

the authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors present a very interesting research on the importance and presence of greenery (with ecological value) in suburban multi-family housing context.

The main concern is related to the introduction section: paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 are not relevant for the comprehention and the description of the research. Thay can be summirize (if authors consider them fundamental) in a very brief section. In Introduction, it is better to underline the Polish legislative framework on the BAA, linking it with the international background; and highlight the already existing examples as the Berlin's Biotope Area Factor (just to cite one out of many).

Moreover, it is important to specify if the BAA has a target value set by the government (mandatory for new development areas, with specific thresholds for each urban function) or it is a way to assess the existing ecological value in an already built area as a starting point for further urban policy implementations.

Minor issues:

1) Figure 1: please localize Poznan in the entire Poland/Europe;

2) Figures 2-7: please add a more general map of the context of each lot;

3) move Figure 4 after section 2.1.3

4) move Figure 5 after section 2.1.4

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the time you sacrificed to evaluate our work and help us improve it through your suggestions.

We agree that the Introduction diverted from the main topic. It was indeed one of our concerns too. By including the section about the AEC design paradigm, we intended to emphasize this gap in the current approach: we (architects) care a lot about how we build (e.g., energy efficiency), but do we equally care about where we build? And do we provide sufficient outdoor space for nature?  We considered removing this section entirely. It was a tough decision to make because some other reviewers were satisfied with this broad and interdisciplinary combination. Finally, we decided to shorten the introduction, as you recommended. The sections considering AEC were reduced to a third of the original version, and new paragraphs were written to deal with the greenery assessment methods and global trends in this respect (new section 1.2), as you recommended. The subdivision of the Introduction has been modified, and the secondary headings (conform with MDPI standards) were used to orientate the reader within the content of each part.

Section 1.2. also informs about the BAA standard requirements in Poland, as you recommended. They are also referred to in section 2.1.1., where the use of the BAA indicator is described. You posed a very good question, whether BAA is a target standard or a way to assess existing greenery levels. Legally, it is the required standard, but it can also be used for evaluating the existing situation. We tried to explain this better in the section 2.1.1.

Figure 1 now shows the study area in continental and national contexts.

Each lot has a new illustration, showing it in a wider context on the same scale (graphical scale provided at the bottom line of the image).

Figures were moved so that they appear after the relevant section of the text.

We hope that the revisions we made meet your expectations.

Sincerely yours,

the authors

Reviewer 4 Report

I consider the paper can be published in the present form.

1 - The theme of the manuscript is a current issue on the scientific research of assess the greenery content and its environmental importance in housing districts.

2 - The abstract includes enough and informative messages to give an overview of this paper.

3 - The literature review is comprehensive and many related studies are discussed in the paper.

4 - This paper was submitted as a technical paper. However, the research method is relatively simple but admissible in the research subject.

5 - The technical contribution of the proposed method is clearly highlighted.

6 - The presentation of the model results are significant but can be improved with more figures and tables that visualize the data would.

7 - The conclusions are clear and useful to summarize all the content of the research.

8 - The references are updated and cover all the subjects of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for the time you sacrificed to evaluate our work and to help us get it better.

Following one of your remarks that the presentation of the model results could be improved with more figures and tables that visualize the data, we have added graphs that summarise and explain the results.

Several revisions were made to the original manuscript. Following other reviews, we modified the Introduction and added more illustrations concerning case studies. Also, we have added a diagram that presents the methodological approach undertaken (Figure 14).

We have also added information about the population in each of the six districts (sections 2.1.1-2.1.6.).

We hope that the revisions we made are satisfactory.

Sincerely yours,

the authors

Reviewer 5 Report

I suggest rewriting the abstract as a paragraph and doing a grammar check for the whole manuscript.

Rewrite the abstract as a paragraph and do a grammar check for the whole manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for the time you sacrificed to evaluate our work and to help us get it better.

The abstract is one paragraph, and it is constructed in accordance with the publisher's requirements. They include the numbering that appears within the abstract to link with subsequent parts of the manuscript.

Concerning the use of the English language, the manuscript was checked by the MDPI Authors Services.

We hope the revisions are satisfactory.

Sincerely yours,

the authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I really thank the authors for the kind responses and the effort to explain their decisions about the review process. Considering all the modifications and the real improvement of their research and paper, in my opinion the text is now ready to be published.