Green Corridors and Social Connectivity with a Sustainable Approach in the City of Cuzco in Peru

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

I decided to review your work because I was curious to see which (scientific) methods you use and further develop for the design process you outlined in the summary - in other words, how exactly knowledge can be translated into a spatial design and how this can be evaluated. I also found it exciting to review a work in the context of my own discipline, architecture, which is all too often judged as alien to science. 

I have read your work with great interest and find both the approach and the description of the results most interesting. However, it does raise the question of scientific rigour. Which research question did you pursue and answer or refute, which methods did you (further) develop, how did you evaluate the design with regard to which criteria and how were they defined? So what distinguishes the work presented from the usual and complex design process in the context of planning? This did not become sufficiently clear for me, which means that I could evaluate the work in terms of its planning and design qualities, but not in terms of its scientific conclusiveness - even though I would have been more than happy to do so. Perhaps there is more science (e.g. research by design) hidden in the work than is evident in the manuscript. I would encourage you to elaborate on this more and look forward to reviewing the revised manuscript. 

Kind regards,

 

PS: you have beautiful imagery!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is an interesting case study. However, as a scientific paper, it has many shortcomings. Please improve the work according to my comments:

- in the title (Systemic/Sustainable), I would choose and put the emphasis on either the system or the sustainable approach,

- this sentence "The methodology was approached through literature review, urban analysis, and climate analysis applying sustainability strategies supported by digital 

tools (AutoCAD, Revit, and SketchUp)" is unclear. The methodology is developed by the authors. Here it is more about methods, not methodology,

- the abstract should more strongly emphasize what is the result of the research? the project?

- in the abstract needs to more strongly emphasize what is a contribution to the current state of knowledge and science, because a case study alone is not enough,

- the name of the city from the case study can appear in the keywords,

- figure 1 is, for me, too laconic and does not contribute anything to the discussion, even could provoke it because it is a bit speculative, I advise you to either remove it from your work or prepare it anew - more in the direction of circular economy.

- Section 2 is "Materials and methods" rather than methodology,

- in the abstract there is mention of revit and other software, and in methods there is not a word about it, then in the article also, how was this software used? Revit is a BIM application, if you use it you should also mention it and explain the acronym BIM, I recommend the latest post: https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies11060176,

- the results themselves are interesting, but it should be more strongly emphasized that this is an urban planning concept.

- the discussion needs to be more strongly supported by high IF literature, otherwise it is also speculative,

- the summary must clearly emphasize what the article's contribution to the state of the art is, and what consequences the realization of this idea could have.

My decision is "major revision." After addressing and taking into account my comments, I recommend a re-review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The wording is generally acceptable, but the language is colloquial at times. Please revise the language.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising the article and replying to my previous comment. Unfortunately, this results in a mismatch for me between the formulated claim and idea and the manuscript as written: 

Your Response: How can green corridors improve social connectivity and sustainability in the city of Cuzco? The work sought to demonstrate how the implementation of green corridors can promote social connectivity and enhance urban sustainability in Cuzco. Methods developed: Urban design methods integrating sustainability and social connectivity concepts were developed. Geospatial data analysis techniques were implemented to identify suitable areas for green corridor creation.

» The stated objective is straightforward. But what methods have been (scientifically) developed? And how does the process differ from conventional planning and design processes? 

Your response: Environmental and social impact studies were conducted to evaluate the potential effect of green corridors on the community and natural environment.

» I couldn't find anything about this in the manuscript. Which studies were conducted utilising which methods? 

Your response: The socio-economic impacts of green corridors were assessed in terms of improving quality of life and community development opportunities. 

» How have these assessed applying which methods? 

Your response: Differentiation of the presented work from the usual design process: 

The presented work stands out for its comprehensive approach that combines urban planning with the promotion of sustainability and social connectivity.

 It is distinguished by the use of innovative spatial analysis methods and impact assessment to develop green corridor designs specific to the needs and characteristics of Cuzco. Additionally, the work is notable for its emphasis on community participation and consideration of local cultural values in the design process, setting it apart from conventional urban planning approaches.

» Even though I very much appreciate the work presented with regard to the design process, which synthesises a number of innovative approaches ( although these are probably already being used in an international context - but this is a possible question that could be addressed), I cannot recognise the scientific approach. 

For this reason, I stand by my assessment and feedback given in the first report. However, I would like to leave it to the editor to decide whether this comprehensive description of an interesting design process and qualitative evaluation with regard to the aspects you have formulated meets the standards of this journal for an article to be published - beyond questions of scientific rigour.

Kind regards,

 

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my comments well, although a few things need further improvement. In order for the article to be accepted, it is crucial to make corrections:  

- The title needs improvement “of Cuzco in Peru” (without the hyphen and 2023),

- full contact information of the authors should be included in the addresses.

- keywords should be separated by semicolons,

- the text lacks periods ending sentences (e.g., after reference #5), or there are too many of these periods, e.g. . [41]. , literature references should look like this: sample text [7]. I ask the authors to correct this throughout the paper, otherwise it looks sloppy.

- still the article does not mention BIM, even though the authors use tools like BIM (Revit), in section 2 it should appear with a reference to literature that shows the possibilities of using BIM in urban design, e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/DWW7AXHGMYDVCUBC4ZMZ/full?target=10.1080/09544828.2024.2303282

After meticulous application of these comments, the manuscript can be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The sentences in English sound acceptable, but I recommend that the language editor take a closer look at some of the wording. There are too many colloquialisms.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx