Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Urban Green Spaces in Response to Rapid Urbanization and Urban Expansion in Tunis between 2000 and 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work seems to have been carefully completed and gave some detailed results. However, the manuscript still contains many points and needs to be revised.

1.       The abstract should generally include the research background and purpose(i.e., what is the research gap?), research methods, research results(preferably with some numerical results), research importance and potential impact. The number of words should be controlled to about 200-400. It should be modified to show the academic contribution and achievement of the manuscript more clearly.

2.       The authors should increase the number of keywords. It is appropriate to arrange from 5 keywords to 7 keywords.

3.       The author's introduction needs to be optimized, and we suggest that the author evaluate what needs to be improved in the introduction according to the following criteria.

·       What is the problem to be solved?

·       Are there any existing solutions?

·       Which is the best?

·       What is the main limitation of the best and existing approaches?

·       What do you hope to change or propose to make it better?

·       How is the paper structured?

4.       Generally, a review should include the history and fundamental concepts of the theme, the different kinds of main methods and their results, and their advantages and disadvantages. And the following questions should be answered: What is the problem to be solved? Are there any existing solutions? Which is the best or the comparison of the advantages and disadvantages? What is the main limitation of the best and existing approaches? How to change or propose to make it better? What is the future of this theme?

5.       The conclusion of this manuscript needs to be optimized. The authors may give the details of their manuscript's novelty with short descriptions. It is suggested that the author add some comparisons with previous work, advantages and disadvantages of the author's method, and prospects for future research directions.

 

6.     The introduction must be enriched by recent published articles. It is strongly recommended that the references should be renewed, most of the references should be published within 5 years, as the domain develops rapidly. Several new publications could not be ignored, which should be added in the revised form such as: 10.3390/land11050652；10.1177/21582440231208851.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of your manuscript should be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a potentially interesting paper. The comments at the beginning of the paper about urban change in Tunis should be embedded in a wider world context. This should be returned to in the conclusion.

The paper needs to spatially focus only on Tunis city rather than Greater Tunis.  The result is that the arguments about urban expansion are diluted.  In fact the paper spends too much time on describing all the changes in the wider study area rather than using an urbanisation/expansion framework to discuss the results.  I am unclear why the amount of green space has not changed – explanation?

In other words considerable editing is needed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

OK but a few glitches.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript title: Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Urban Green Space in Response to Rapid Urbanization and Urban Expansion in Tunis between 2000 and 2020

Manuscript Id: land-2782191

Abstract: include data source and their resolution. A technique used in land cover classification is missed. The rate change in built-up area can be introduced in the abstract section.

Under introduction the sub-heading 1.1 background can be removed (line 27).

Literature review section line 87 to 145 can me merged with introduction without reputation. Thus, the authors can structure the whole manuscript as Introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and conclusions.  The sub-section research objective is also not mandatory. The author can introduce the aim of the study at the end of the introduction section in short statement.

Results are fine but dissection section is too weak. The authors can discuss the implication of their results on one side and compare and contrast their findings with the existing literature.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf