A Reflection on the Implementation of a Waterfront Greenway from a Social–Ecological Perspective: A Case Study of Huangyan-Taizhou in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The words used in the title should not be repeated as keywords.

More current references must be used.

Homogenize in-text citations. e. g. Reyers et al., 2018.

Improve the cartographic edition of figure 1.

Figures 6, 7 & 8 should be an average of the observations made. If they remain as they are, explain why there are presented in this way.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

The words used in the title should not be repeated as keywords.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised our keywords and avoided using the words in the title as keywords. Please kindly find it highlighted.

 

Comments 2:

More current references must be used.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have incorporated more recent studies in Section ‘3. An understanding of greenways from social and ecological interactions’ and enriched the references in Section ‘6. Findings and discussion’. The added references are closely related to our studies in terms of social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, and greenways. Please kindly find them highlighted in the manuscript.

 

Comments 3:

Homogenize in-text citations. e. g. Reyers et al., 2018.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We went through the whole manuscript thoroughly and homogenized them, ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript.

 

Comments 4:

Improve the cartographic edition of figure 1.

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We replaced Figure 2 (previous Figure 1) with a higher-resolution image to improve its clarity and readability.

 

Comments 5:

Figures 6, 7 & 8 should be an average of the observations made. If they remain as they are, explain why there are presented in this way.

Response 5:

Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. The authors found it very useful. We think the average of the observations is very critical and can support revealing the key questions we proposed. However, in practice, we found it very hard to define the average by weeks or months. Therefore we took the peak hours of use instead to reflect on the key issues. Please kindly find the elaborations added in Section ‘2.3. Mixed methods and data obtain’, Line 176-181. And it is also listed below:

Empirical evidence obtained from these methods was later supported by the mapping reflecting everyday use of the YRG, specifically focusing on the commons and differences of various types of formal use as well as informal use that changes the plots of space in the greenways. The mappings emphasise revealing the diversity in uses, therefore, the peak hours of use of different sections are identified via field investigations and presented in the research (i.e., case study) to support further analysis.

Additional clarifications

Please kindly find the extensive revision of our manuscript, strengthening the logic, emphasizing the analysis, and sharpening the discussion. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting paper concerning green infrastructure planning in urban areas with strong emphasis on the connection / coherence between social and ecological functions / role /ecosystem cultural services. This "shot" is very intersting and partly innovative. The paper concerns, more broadly speaking, the important problem of planning green and blue infrastructure in strict connection with the quality of ecosytem services and meeting various needs of residents, including an increase of social cohesion. The Authors, by this presented research, prove a special validity of greenways along riversides, also especially liked by resisdents. The results encourage the decision-makers / planners to arrange such waterfront greenways with rich equipment giving possibilities to practice different activities by dwellers (not only recreational activities). However, the research results are easy predictible, but confirming the importance of such social-ecological solutions. Furthermore, this is a very interesting methodical study concerning multifaceted analysis of a greenway (it may inspire other scientists much).

Detailed comments:

Ad ABSTRACT - no aim of research directly formulated; additionally, put emphasis on specific approach: socio-ecological system (merging social and ecological functions by riparian greenway)

Ad METHODOLOGY - I suggest to add methodical frame - scheme (FIGURE), because methodical approach is a strong attribute of this paper

Ad structure of the paper - such parts as RESULTS, DISCUSSION should not be hidden as subchapters, but should be main chapters.

Line 18 - rather: "should be reflected" (not: should reflected)

Line 212 - "summary" (not: summery)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is OK. Minor corrections (2 items) indicated in the BOX for Authors

Author Response

Comments 1:

Ad ABSTRACT - no aim of research directly formulated; additionally, put emphasis on specific approach: socio-ecological system (merging social and ecological functions by riparian greenway)

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have thoroughly revised our abstract according to your suggestions. The revised abstract now clearly formulates the aim of the research and emphasizes the proposal of nature- and culture-base solutions, which merges social and ecological functions through the riparian greenway socio-ecological system. The abstract is listed below：

In recent years, awareness has grown of the vital importance of ecological systems, provoking increased research into how to improve their resilience. Here one popular new technical/management solution is the creation of greenways along riversides. In practice, however, the practical outcomes of such greenways have sometimes been disappointing due to an excessive focus on technical solutions at the expense of insufficient consideration of the social impact. This study intends to reflect on the problem by looking at the dynamics of land use for ecosystem functions at the macro scale as well as the relationship between the implementation of greenways and the local demand for diverse everyday activities, in particular recreation opportunities, at the micro-scale. Based on this, it aims to reveal practical solutions to bridge ecological usages and everyday needs that reach better preservation and services of ecosystems. Taking the greenways along the Yongning River (YRG), which runs through the urban-rural areas and the urban-rural interface of Huangyan-Taizhou, as a case study, GIS analysis and anthropology approaches were applied. The results show that the YRG systematically improved the riparian ecosystems by better connecting the eco-land use and preserving the waterfront. At the same time, it needs to improve its ability to fulfil the great potential for leisure and recreation services. Residents living in different parts of the city had disparate requirements depending on their patterns of daily behaviour. We conclude that the successful implementation of greenways in cities will not only consider technological and nature-based solutions but also consider the socio-cultural background. The diversity of local needs regarding everyday activities and recreation will lead to an equivalent diversity in riparian landscape design.

Comments 2:

Ad METHODOLOGY - I suggest to add methodical frame - scheme (FIGURE), because methodical approach is a strong attribute of this paper

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We find it very useful. The methodical frame scheme and elaboration are added to clarify and enhance our approach. Please kindly find it highlighted in Section ‘2.2. Methodical Framescheme for trans-scaled research’.

 

Comments 3:

Ad structure of the paper - such parts as RESULTS, DISCUSSION should not be hidden as subchapters, but should be main chapters.

Response 3: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have restructured the manuscript to present RESULTS and DISCUSSION sections as main chapters rather than subchapters. Accordingly, we also strengthened the logic in the connection as well as enriched the content so that they could fit as the main chapters. For further details, please refer to Section ‘5. Results’ and ‘6. Findings and discussion’.

 

Comments 4:

Line 18 - rather: "should be reflected" (not: should reflected)

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the grammar issue. We have corrected it and went thoroughly through the whole manuscript for grammar-checking

 

Comments 5:

Line 212 - "summary" (not: summery)

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the grammar issue. We have corrected it and went thoroughly through the whole manuscript for grammar-checking.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response: The manuscript has undergone English language editing by our English-native colleague.

Additional clarifications

Please kindly find the extensive revision of our manuscript, strengthening the logic, emphasizing the analysis, and sharpening the discussion. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

After reading your paper I have to make an overall conclusion that the topic is interesting and worth reading, but your paper firstly needs big technical improvements so that it can be more readable. You have to follow the journal’s instructions for the authors. You haven’t referred to references properly, the list of references isn’t written adequately, and your paper doesn’t have a clear structure divided through important chapters - Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion, etc. Please, read the instructions for the authors; first do that and then start to remodel the text again.

The Abstract is very confusing and written upside down. As the text, the abstract should have all the above-mentioned parts, but a short review of them.

The Introduction chapter is much longer than you have circled. It compounds Chapter 3 and partly Chapter 5 as well. Please quotation marks use when quoting an author. In that case, it is necessary the bracket, near the author's name, to indicate the page of the source where the quote was taken (Lines 28, 29, 37, 82). Do better distribution of referred authors in the text (e.g. lines 57-68). You should better explain the scientific problem and before the research question mention the aim of the paper to follow those questions.

The methodology chapter isn’t visible. Chapter 2 is not an explanation of the methodology. The methodology should tactfully list steps that helped you to collect the data and how those data were processed. Also, the methodology should explain the study area. In the case of this paper partially that should be chapter 4. It is just mentioned in Lines 111 and 112 what are methodologies but without explanations. What about the interviews, GIS inputs, etc.?

The Results chapter is more like a conclusion. Please remodel it due to the remodeled methodology.

The Discussion has been left out entirely. Please include the Discussion in the paper by making the parallel between your research and others.

 

 

Kind regards

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Comments 1:

The Abstract is very confusing and written upside down. As the text, the abstract should have all the above-mentioned parts, but a short review of them.

Response 1:

Thank you for your suggestion regarding the Abstract. We have thoroughly revised its structure, summarizing each part of the paper concisely and comprehensively according to your comments. Please kindly find it highlighted in the manuscript and also listed below:

In recent years, awareness has grown of the vital importance of ecological systems, provoking increased research into how to improve their resilience. Here one popular new technical/management solution is the creation of greenways along riversides. In practice, however, the practical outcomes of such greenways have sometimes been disappointing due to an excessive focus on technical solutions at the expense of insufficient consideration of the social impact. This study intends to reflect on the problem by looking at the dynamics of land use for ecosystem functions at the macro scale as well as the relationship between the implementation of greenways and the local demand for diverse everyday activities, in particular recreation opportunities, at the micro-scale. Based on this, it aims to reveal practical solutions to bridge ecological usages and everyday needs that reach better preservation and services of ecosystems. Taking the greenways along the Yongning River (YRG), which runs through the urban-rural areas and the urban-rural interface of Huangyan-Taizhou, as a case study, GIS analysis and anthropology approaches were applied. The results show that the YRG systematically improved the riparian ecosystems by better connecting the eco-land use and preserving the waterfront. At the same time, it needs to improve its ability to fulfil the great potential for leisure and recreation services. Residents living in different parts of the city had disparate requirements depending on their patterns of daily behaviour. We conclude that the successful implementation of greenways in cities will not only consider technological and nature-based solutions but also consider the socio-cultural background. The diversity of local needs regarding everyday activities and recreation will lead to an equivalent diversity in riparian landscape design.

Comment 2:

The Introduction chapter is much longer than you have circled. It compounds Chapter 3 and partly Chapter 5 as well.

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment and we find it very useful. We have thoroughly revised the Introduction chapter accordingly. Please kindly find it highlighted.

 

Comments 3:

Please quotation marks use when quoting an author. In that case, it is necessary the bracket, near the author's name, to indicate the page of the source where the quote was taken (Lines 28, 29, 37, 82). Do better distribution of referred authors in the text (e.g. lines 57-68).

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We have added quotation marks for direct quotes from authors and included page numbers in brackets next to the author's name to indicate the source of the quote. We have also redistributed the cited authors to improve readability. For details, please refer to the manuscript and find them highlighted.

 

Comment 4:

You should better explain the scientific problem and before the research question mention the aim of the paper to follow those questions.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have thoroughly restructured the Introduction. According to your comments, we have added an explanation of the scientific problem (see lines 43-69 highlighted in the manuscript). Additionally, we have explained the aim of the paper before discussing the research question (see lines 80-87 highlighted in the manuscript).

 

Comments 5:

The methodology chapter isn’t visible. Chapter 2 is not an explanation of the methodology. The methodology should tactfully list steps that helped you to collect the data and how those data were processed. Also, the methodology should explain the study area. In the case of this paper partially that should be chapter 4. It is just mentioned in Lines 111 and 112 what are methodologies but without explanations. What about the interviews, GIS inputs, etc.?

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comments regarding the methodology. We have enriched the Methodology section as suggested (please refer to 2. Case Selection and Methodology). To better illustrate our methodological approach, we have included a technical framework diagram (please refer to Figure 1). In this chapter, we have elaborated on the different research methods, content, reasons and the inter-logic for the two scales of our research. For more details, please refer to the manuscript and find them highlighted.

 

Comments 6:

The Results chapter is more like a conclusion. Please remodel it due to the remodeled methodology

Response 6: Thank you for your constructive comments. We have revised the Results chapter to better align with the remodeled methodology. The revised Results section now presents the findings clearly. For more details, please refer to the manuscript and find it highlight in the chapter.

 

Comments 7:

The Discussion has been left out entirely. Please include the Discussion in the paper by making the parallel between your research and others.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have thoroughly restructured the manuscript, strengthening the structure. The Discussion section has now been included as a main section. Please refer to Section ‘6. Findings and Discussion’ for details.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response: The manuscript has undergone English language editing by our English-native colleague.

Additional clarifications

Please kindly find the extensive revision of our manuscript, strengthening the logic, emphasizing the analysis, and sharpening the discussions. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you very much for your effort to improve the text and to consider my comments as much as possible. I have a few more in the following lines.

Line 36 – the reference „Berkes et al., 2000, P3, Line 10-14” is very odd written. What is “P3, Line 10-14”?

Lines 44 and 45 - again very odd references “Lefebvre, 2003 44 [1970], P.17, Line 1-4”. Please clear it.

Line 121 – you do not need to indicate that something is your creation in the work. When it is not indicated, then it is implied. Please see the title for Figure 1. You do not need to demonstrate the source since it is your own creation.

Line 127 – just Methods and data obtained, without Mixed methods. It will be clear after reading the text.

Line 134 – not sure why you put the reference "Wu et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2023". Please explain.

Lines 134 to 142 – I didn’t understand how the study of these references influenced your further work, creation of methodology, and time frame. It is obligated to study relevant law acts in the pre-work process.

Line 145 – it should be written “questionnaire “

Lines 168 to 175 – how did you observe the results of these conducted workshops? It should be written here the methodological framework for observing those data.

In the Discussion chapter, there is still no visible compression between the results of this work and previous results. You just added the results of previous works. Please compare them.

 

“Greenways can be powerful makers and shapers of urban form at both macro- and 515 micro-scales (Walmsley, 1995). From the macro scale, even though the green space and 516 capacity of ecosystem services decreased in general in Huangyan district, YRG is a green 517 “Green Ribbon” which links urban and rural, people and nature. As elaborated in the 518 President’s Commission of American Outdoors: greenways work as a living network that 519 facilitates people's access to open spaces in their daily lives while also linking rural and 520 urban spaces (American Outdoors,1987).”

 What about the greenways in your research? Compare your observed data with the above.

 Kind regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

To improve reading and understanding of the text, minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Comments 1:

Line 36 – the reference „Berkes et al., 2000, P3, Line 10-14” is very odd written. What is “P3, Line 10-14”?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing it out. We have changed it in the right form: (Berkes et al., 2000, p.3). Please kindly find the change being highlighted.

Comments 2:

Lines 44 and 45 - again very odd references “Lefebvre, 2003 44 [1970], P.17, Line 1-4”. Please clear it.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing it out. We have changed it in the right form: (Lefebvre, 2003 [1970], p.17). Please kindly find the change being highlighted.

Comments 3: Line 121 – you do not need to indicate that something is your creation in the work. When it is not indicated, then it is implied. Please see the title for Figure 1. You do not need to demonstrate the source since it is your own creation.

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. We have deleted the source for Figure 1. Please kindly find the changes being highlighted.

Comments 4:

Line 127 – just Methods and data obtained, without Mixed methods. It will be clear after reading the text.

Response 4: Thank you for the comment, we find it very useful. The subtitle has been changed. Please kindly find the it is highlighted.

Comments 5:

Line 134 – not sure why you put the reference "Wu et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2023". Please explain.

Lines 134 to 142 – I didn’t understand how the study of these references influenced your further work, creation of methodology, and time frame. It is obligated to study relevant law acts in the pre-work process.

Response 5: Thank you for the question. We use the reference to support our selection of time frame. We moved the reference to the accurate space, please find it highlighted in the revised manuscript. The change is also listed below:

We specifically chose the time frame (1992-2020) for two reasons: one is the data availability, and another, more importantly, it reflected the era of rapid urbanization (Wu et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2023) mainly in the form of land transformation.

 

Comments 7:

Line 145 – it should be written “questionnaire “

Response 7: Thank you for pointing it out. We have corrected this typo and gone through the manuscript again to do the check.

 

Comments 8:

Lines 168 to 175 – how did you observe the results of these conducted workshops? It should be written here the methodological framework for observing those data.

Response 8: Thank you for your comments. We added the elaboration at the end of the paragraph, and please kindly find it from Line 189 to Line 193. It is also listed below:

The authors respectively took the roles of moderators to make sure the key questions were delivered, participants to help them clearly express their opinions, and recorders to take notes and draw sketches. In doing so, this helped further understand their everyday routine and pinpoint the reasons for some of the activities and formal/informal use of land identified in the observations.

Comments 9:

In the Discussion chapter, there is still no visible compression between the results of this work and previous results. You just added the results of previous works. Please compare them.

“Greenways can be powerful makers and shapers of urban form at both macro- and 515 micro-scales (Walmsley, 1995). From the macro scale, even though the green space and 516 capacity of ecosystem services decreased in general in Huangyan district, YRG is a green 517 “Green Ribbon” which links urban and rural, people and nature. As elaborated in the 518 President’s Commission of American Outdoors: greenways work as a living network that 519 facilitates people's access to open spaces in their daily lives while also linking rural and 520 urban spaces (American Outdoors,1987).”

What about the greenways in your research? Compare your observed data with the above.

Response 9: Thank you for your comments, and we found it very valuable. The discussion part has been extensively rewritten, focusing on the comparison of our work and existing studies we referred to in this section. Please find it highlighted in Section 6 'Findings and Discussion' in the manuscript.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

To improve reading and understanding of the text, minor editing of the English language is required.

Thank you for the comments, we thoroughly rechecked the manuscript to improve the quality of the English language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf