The Potential of Tram Networks in the Revitalization of the Warsaw Landscape
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, thanks for your paper. I have no major comments about it, also because it is more a report, planning description or a chapter book rather than a research paper for an academic journal. But if this type of article is in line with the aim of the journal it is fine for me.
Best regards
Author Response
Review 1
Dear Authors, thanks for your paper. I have no major comments about it, also because it is more a report, planning description or a chapter book rather than a research paper for an academic journal. But if this type of article is in line with the aim of the journal it is fine for me.
Firstly we would like to really thank the reviewer for the comments. We hope that the article is after our corrections ready to be published as the research article.
Authors agree with the Reviewer. The structure of the text was reorganised and improved – the Results part has been supplemented and rearranged and the Discussion expanded. The overly extensive descriptive part at the beginning of the text has been eliminated. We also have introduced more accurate citation of references in the text. We hope that in this way we managed to meet the expected standard of scientific publications.
Reviewer 2 Report
Methodology would have to be described in a way that authors explain have they got statistical informations and with which technique they worked. Park is a term wich defines an area where people have many social functions. Authors should change the name of the explored area or define its own definition for these spaces becauseu otherwise it is considered that besides biodiversity these areas are used for functions of parks (dwelling, walking, playing, recreating - asume that this is not the case).
Author Response
Firstly we would like to really thank the reviewer for the comments. The comments were really useful and absolutely to the point. We hope that we followed all the corrections needed and that the article is now better than before the review.
Methodology would have to be described in a way that authors explain have they got statistical informations and with which technique they worked.
Response 1: Accepted
The authors understand the Reviewer's point of view. However, we would like to clarify that in our publication we do not present results based on quantitative meta-data, which can then be subjected to detailed statistical analysis. Our results are based on the analysis of various data from the literature and our experience from the practice of designing the surroundings of tram routes in terms of green forms, as well as functional and utility or visual quality. A synthesis of these issues is the variant model presented in the Results, which can be used not only in Warsaw, but also in other cities. The aim of development of a model is in general to understand certain problems that may occur repeatedly and then to indicate its practical solution. Of course, we absolutely do not claim that our model is the only and best possible solution to the principles of designing greenery along the tram routes. Nevertheless, it seems to us to be a good overall proposition, on which one can then create detailed solutions adapted to the conditions of the site.
Park is a term wich defines an area where people have many social functions. Authors should change the name of the explored area or define its own definition for these spaces becauseu otherwise it is considered that besides biodiversity these areas are used for functions of parks (dwelling, walking, playing, recreating - asume that this is not the case).
Response 2: Accepted
The authors understand the Reviewer's point of view. However, we’d like to explain that in the practice of landscape architecture and adequate literature there is a type of space known as a linear park. It is, in a way, a contemporary approach to more traditional spatial forms such as a boulevard or a promenade. The authors do not suggest that the entire length of the tram routes is [or should be] surrounded by a linear parks. The authors note, however, that there are certain places in the urban space where, along some selected parts of tram routes, linear parks [greenery + recreational program] can be designed and introduced, which is common practice in eg. european capital cities.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deals with a remarkably interesting topic, namely the potential of tram networks in the revitalization of the urban landscape. The abstract is concise and provides more than sufficient information. The keywords are adequate. Although the research theme can be considered interesting, all the work was still let down by the writing-up process. The structure and reference connection in text should be improved. The authors should improve the literature review and the use of references. Sometimes large amount of text is without references or the authors use direct citations as full sentences in the article. There are some inconsistencies in terms of inaccuracy of references. This should be corrected. The results section is very poor and should present a discussion. The model, detailed assumptions and variant solutions, should appear before the results and conclusions. The work is publishable, but it still needs some major improvements before to be accepted. To improve the quality of the manuscript please reconsider: structure, methodology, discussion of results, better use of the references
Author Response
Firstly we would like to really thank the reviewer for the comments. The comments were really useful and absolutely to the point. We hope that we followed all the corrections needed and that the article is now better than before the review.
The paper deals with a remarkably interesting topic, namely the potential of tram networks in the revitalization of the urban landscape. The abstract is concise and provides more than sufficient information. The keywords are adequate. ¨
Although the research theme can be considered interesting, all the work was still let down by the writing-up process.
The structure and reference connection in text should be improved.
Response 1: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. The structure of the text was changed and improved – the Results part has been supplemented and the Discussion expanded. We also have introduced more accurate citation of references in the text.
The authors should improve the literature review and the use of references.
Response 2: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. Currently, the selection of references has been significantly expanded. The text has corrected and supplemented the citation of the literature in the text was corrected and improved.
Sometimes large amount of text is without references or the authors use direct citations as full sentences in the article.
Response 3: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. The problem has been solved by now. The corrected text contains adequate references attached directly to separately presented and discussed issues.
There are some inconsistencies in terms of inaccuracy of references. This should be corrected.
Response 4: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. The list of cited sources of literature has been verified and supplemented, and references in the text have been corrected.
The results section is very poor and should present a discussion.
Response 5: Accepted
The authors understand the Reviewer's point of view. However, we would like to clarify that our results are based on the analysis of various data from the literature and our experience from the practice of designing the surroundings of tram routes in terms of green forms, as well as functional and utility or visual quality. A synthesis of these issues is the variant model presented in the Results, which refers in first place to Warsaw [as it is a case study], but also to other cities. The aim of development of a model is in general to understand certain problems that may occur repeatedly and then to indicate its practical solution. Of course, we absolutely do not claim that our model is the only and best possible solution to the principles of designing greenery along the tram routes. Nevertheless, it seems to us to be a good overall proposition, on which one can then create detailed solutions adapted to the conditions of the site. Following the Reviewer‘s suggestion - the Results part has been rearranged and supplemented and the Discussion adequate expanded.
The model, detailed assumptions and variant solutions, should appear before the results and conclusions.
Response 6: Accepted
The authors try to understand the Reviewer's point of view, but - as has been stated previously - the model is the result of our research on the arrangement and application of greenery along the tram routes. So it is presented in the Result section.
The work is publishable, but it still needs some major improvements before to be accepted. To improve the quality of the manuscript please reconsider: structure, methodology, discussion of results, better use of the references
Response 7: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. The structure of the text was rearranged and individual parts of the publication have been corrected. We hope to fulfill Revewer’s expectations.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents an interesting topic concerning urban mobility. It is structured from the point of view of those who already selected a "Solution": the tram, more than a research investigating alternatives addressing the issue of sustainable urban mobility ("hypothesis that the tramway is a necessary and 94 environmentally friendly form of urban public transport")
This approach is not a weaknesses but requires to identify and declare the feasibility criteria concerning the potential context of application. Some basic questions: what about the size of the cities (does a minimum threshold exist?) How long the tram network has to be in order to gain the urban regeneration effects? How many cities in Europe may be interested in this process? How many citizens? etc.
The products of this research are 3 version of a modular greening for tram lines. It is valuable but, probably, not really new. It will be interesting to see (also on a map) the potential benefits of the application of such solutions in Warsaw estimating the effective extend of greeening affects.
Additionally I recommend to change to structure of the paper and also the title in order to put in value the work in assessing Warsaw case study more than to have the ambition to present a new model transferable in other context and suitable for sustainable cities issues.
Conclusions has to bee improved. It is not acceptable have a 4 points list of affirmation weakly connected with the previous discussions.
Lines 48-49 - "Modern cities have exceeded the optimal development thresholds: spatial, natural, humanistic, technical and economic" I don't know if an optimal development thresholds exists, I believe not. Please be more critics in affirming such concept and refer to qualified urban planning literature in order to define your position avoiding such general words that results meaningless
Lines 120-122 this affirmation is not supported by literature.
The section 2.1 is good in presenting selected practices.
Line 305 - the concept of city greenery is discussed, addressing to the potential of nature based solution on tram lines and the closest urban space the issues connected to climate change adaptation/mitigation, reducing pollution, improving water management etc. Of course such effects are attended according to the intervention categories but you should provide some measures according to a case study. Differently it remains a qualitative description without any contribution to technical identification of variables connected with the design of such solutions at urban scale.
Line 317 - The environmental impact of tram line is presented in a very generic way. I suggest to refer to eminent studies comparing the impacts of different transportation means deriving the benefit of tram line as an urban transportation alternative without trying to add generic words out of any critical scientific analysis. If you intend to maintain this part of the work it has to be rewrited according to a systematic appraisal of env. impacts
Author Response
Firstly we would like to really thank the reviewer for the comments. The comments were really useful and absolutely to the point. We hope that we followed all the corrections needed and that the article is now better than before the review.
The paper presents an interesting topic concerning urban mobility. It is structured from the point of view of those who already selected a "Solution": the tram, more than a research investigating alternatives addressing the issue of sustainable urban mobility ("hypothesis that the tramway is a necessary and 94 environmentally friendly form of urban public transport")
This approach is not a weaknesses but requires to identify and declare the feasibility criteria concerning the potential context of application. Some basic questions: what about the size of the cities (does a minimum threshold exist?) How long the tram network has to be in order to gain the urban regeneration effects? How many cities in Europe may be interested in this process? How many citizens? etc.
The products of this research are 3 version of a modular greening for tram lines. It is valuable but, probably, not really new. It will be interesting to see (also on a map) the potential benefits of the application of such solutions in Warsaw estimating the effective extend of greeening affects.
Response 1: Accepted
The authors understand the Reviewer's point of view. The correction of the text let us improve individual parts of the publication. At the beginning of the Results part, there are basic data from EU and Polish statistics showing the great importance of tram systems for the everyday movement of people. We hope that the briefly outlined issue is a good background for further considerations on Warsaw - a case study.
Additionally I recommend to change to structure of the paper and also the title in order to put in value the work in assessing Warsaw case study more than to have the ambition to present a new model transferable in other context and suitable for sustainable cities issues.
Response 2: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. After the text was corrected, Warsaw was indicated as the main research and problem area – case study.
Conclusions has to bee improved. It is not acceptable have a 4 points list of affirmation weakly connected with the previous discussions.
Response 3: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. Taking into account the amendments and changes in the text, the content of the Conclusions has also been changed and supplemented. We hope it meets the reviewer's expectations.
Lines 48-49 - "Modern cities have exceeded the optimal development thresholds: spatial, natural, humanistic, technical and economic" I don't know if an optimal development thresholds exists, I believe not. Please be more critics in affirming such concept and refer to qualified urban planning literature in order to define your position avoiding such general words that results meaningless
Response 4: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. The sentence was awkward and was rewritten.
Lines 120-122 this affirmation is not supported by literature.
Response 5: Accepted
The authors understand the Reviewer's point of view. We tried to solve the problem by now. The corrected text contains adequate references attached directly to separately presented and discussed issues.
The section 2.1 is good in presenting selected practices.
Line 305 - the concept of city greenery is discussed, addressing to the potential of nature based solution on tram lines and the closest urban space the issues connected to climate change adaptation/mitigation, reducing pollution, improving water management etc. Of course such effects are attended according to the intervention categories but you should provide some measures according to a case study. Differently it remains a qualitative description without any contribution to technical identification of variables connected with the design of such solutions at urban scale.
Response 6: Accepted
The authors understand the Reviewer's point of view. However, we would like to clarify that our results are based on the analysis of various data from the literature and our experience from the practice of designing the surroundings of tram routes in terms of green forms, as well as functional and utility or visual quality. A synthesis of these issues is the variant model presented in the Results, which refers in first place to Warsaw [as it is a case study], but also to other cities. The aim of development of a model is in general to understand certain problems that may occur repeatedly and then to indicate its practical solution. Of course, we absolutely do not claim that this model is the only and best possible solution to the principles of designing greenery along the tram routes. Nevertheless, it seems to us to be a good overall proposition, on which one can then create detailed solutions adapted to the conditions of the site.
Line 317 - The environmental impact of tram line is presented in a very generic way. I suggest to refer to eminent studies comparing the impacts of different transportation means deriving the benefit of tram line as an urban transportation alternative without trying to add generic words out of any critical scientific analysis. If you intend to maintain this part of the work it has to be rewrited according to a systematic appraisal of env. impacts
Response 7: Accepted
The authors understand the Reviewer's point of view. Currently, the structure of the text was changed and improved. So the environmental impact of tram lanes was presented in a more synthetic way but still basing on adequate references to literature and data. We hope this new version better meets the Reviewers’s expectations.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have reviewed the work, which has been improved, thus can be published as it is.
Author Response
We really appreciate the comments from the reviewer and we are glad that we were able to improve our article based on the comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper slightly improved.
the most of suggested review has been adopted.
I read the response carefully and I can share better the authors point of view. It means that my expectations are not satisfied but in a different perspective the paper can be valued according to the proposed improvements.
What i strongly suggested to finalize are the conclusions. The list 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ..... is really an ungenerous way to close a research.
i report her my previous comments and your reply:
Conclusions has to bee improved. It is not acceptable have a 4 points list of affirmation weakly connected with the previous discussions.
Response 3: Accepted
Authors agree with a Reviewer. Taking into account the amendments and changes in the text, the content of the Conclusions has also been changed and supplemented. We hope it meets the reviewer's expectations.
Please take care of it and really improve this final part of the paper.
I believe that this interaction improved your work.
Good luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We do appreciate your suggestions concerning the last but not least part of the text, which is the Conclusions. Our first approach was to present a synthesis formulated as bullet points sentences. In many publications, this form is quite popular in various scientific journals and lets the occasional reader quickly glance at it to formulate their own opinion. Following your suggestions, we developed a more descriptive form of conclusions addressing the main problems in the text and presenting a brief summary. We explained, e.g., our point of view concerning the application meaning of the achieved model of developing greenery forms along tram lines basing on Warsaw as a case study. We tried to highlight the idea of introducing linear parks along tramways and establishing on our own experience we’d like to show the importance of public consultations in this field. In this way, we do hope to fulfil the Reviewer’s expectations concerning the shape of the Conclusions part. Thank you very much for your careful approach and valuable remarks.
