Urban Greening Management Arrangements between Municipalities and Citizens for Effective Climate Adaptation Pathways: Four Case Studies from The Netherlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written manuscript that uses four case studies across four cities in the Netherlands that range in different approaches for green space management. The management ranged from municipal-based to community-based initiatives. This research will be useful for urban planning techniques for green spaces and it was informative to get the perspective ranging from municipal departments to citizens. Overall the authors conclude with a summary of a range of management styles for green spaces and some recommendations. 

I recommend accepting the manuscript after these minor suggestions and edits. I would like to thank the authors for their research and contribution.

 

1. Introduction

Line 43-44: Please further clarify what examples are intended for “low-carbon local mobility”. It is not immediately clear to make the connection with green spaces.

Line 73: I would suggest using “technical-expert criteria”. “Techno” seems to imply electronic.

Line 174: Please clarify what is meant by “resource invasion”, as in does it include monetary reasons or otherwise? This will be helpful to clarify for readers not in this field.

 

2. Materials and Methods

Line 234: “a kind of dimensions that require” should be “a kind of dimension that requires”

Table 1: Line 283 – Heading could be clearer with “surface size (Hectares)”

Table 2: It would be helpful to list the range of years explicitly when the data was collected (e.g. from the interviews).

 

3. Case studies: Urban green spaces configuration and organisational structures

General comment about the case studies – Since each case study is from a different city in the Netherlands, I suggest citing the population sizes of each city for each case study, or perhaps at the district level if it’s available. It will be important for setting the context for the urban pressure and green space management, especially on public versus private land. For example, it was useful in the case study EVA-Lanxmeer (Culemborg) that there are over 800 residents – thank you for providing that useful information.

Figure 3: The ellipses are slightly unclear as to what they represent in the figure. Under City of Council Utrecht, the first ellipses box is not connected. With the two ellipses boxes connected to the Development Organization Space, it is unclear why there are two and what they could represent. Please further clarify what they could represent. For consistency of capitalization with the rest of the figure, it could be “Sponsor Entities”.

Figure 5: The ellipses are slightly unclear as to what they represent in the figure. Under City Council Rotterdam, the first ellipses box is not connected. With the two ellipses boxes connected to the Planning, Landscape & Urban Development, it is unclear why there are two and what they could represent. Please further clarify what they could represent. For consistency of capitalization with the rest of the figure, it could be “Sponsor Entities”. For consistency of capitalization with the rest of the figure, it could be “Green Group”, and “Farm Sheep”. The plural of sheep is still “sheep”.

Figure 7: In the cluster of TOPLA, Water, Cleaning, there is a floating unconnected box with ellipses and its intent is unclear. Please clarify the ellipses. Primary School is floating without any orange line connecting to it.

Figure 9: “Thematic clusters” and “Common issues Association” can all be capitalized for consistency. 

 

4. Results and discussion of case comparison 515

Line 715: “City” does not need to be capitalized as it is not immediately clear which municipality it’s referring to as a legal entity unless it is clarified.

 

5. Conclusions and practical implications

Line 899:  “Cities” should be lower-case.

Please note that Appendix A was not available for download. I have not reviewed the appendix material. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted for review is very well written and presents an interesting and important qualitative study of the relationship between local authorities and residents in the context of green space management processes. The text is quite long (31 pages) and hence one might consider writing Section 3 (case studies descriptions) in a more synthetic way, while devoting a little more attention to the discussion of the results. The authors justify the combination of the description of the results and the discussion with the specificity of the presentation of ethnographic research, but again, perhaps it would have been possible to show the obtained results more clearly against the background of other studies. Also referring to the title, there should be more references to climate change adaptation measures in the cases studied..

 

Regardless of the above comments, it should be noted that the text is written efficiently, and the tables and figures are clear. Only I was unable to access the supplementary materials on Google Drive (a message about the need for permission appears).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to land. I have provided some comments and feedback on your work. Please consider incorporating these suggestions when revising your manuscript.

 

The manuscript titled 'Urban Greening Management Arrangements Between Municipalities and Citizens for Effective Adaptation Pathways: Four Case Studies from The Netherlands explores various approaches to urban greening management. While the article's structure is fairly consistent, the language needs to be more cohesive, and the logical flow should be better organized to enhance the clarity of the research question. The discussion section does not sufficiently address the research questions, and although related topics are summarized, the manuscript lacks a conclusive evaluation.

 

Abstract 

To strengthen the abstract, begin with a background sentence that highlights the research gap. The abstract currently lacks specific details that convey the significance of the findings, which are essential for helping the reader quickly understand the study's importance. It should offer a clear introduction to the key issues addressed in the paper. Consider using subheadings to enhance the clarity of the abstract. Additionally, before stating the study's purpose, it is recommended to articulate the importance of the research and the reasons for undertaking the study.

 

Introduction

It is recommended to identify the research gaps before presenting the research questions. Additionally, include a literature review on the impact of green spaces on urban residents' lives to support the study. The specific objectives of the study or the research questions should be clearly formulated before being introduced.

 

Materials and methods

Please clarify the rationale for selecting these specific cases and explain their representativeness. Additionally, explore whether there is any connection between the cases. The MATERIALS AND METHODS section lacks detailed explanations of the cases, which are necessary to provide a deeper understanding of the topic under investigation.

 

Results and discussion of case comparison

The RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CASE COMPARISON section should focus on presenting the findings from the four cases and analyze the significance of these results. To demonstrate the relevance of the four cases, consider organizing the information into a table. Additionally, there is a lack of critical interpretation of the findings. The section would benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the significance and practical implications of the results.

 

Conclusions and practical implications

The CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS section should offer specific recommendations based on the study's findings and explicitly address the study's limitations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions are accepted.