Urban Planning with Rational Green Infrastructure Placement Using a Critical Area Detection Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have had a lot of trouble writing manuscripts, but they need a lot of revision and supplementation.

1. What are the types of GI? In order to use the material of the study for GI, the subject needs to be clarified. An in-depth review of the GI described in various fields is required.

2. Among the elements that make up a city, there are various elements such as buildings and transportation, so why did you focus on GI? Other than GI, elements make up a city more often. Therefore, generalization requires that logical basis.

3. What is the basis for classification that changed the class category to weight? Did you check a separate verification process such as significance verification and consistency verification?

4. NDVI's analysis often uses 3 years' worth of average results, not just for the year. Why did you use 2021 only?

5. What are the criteria for the 8 points of the converted land cover? Is it a value that the authors set arbitrarily? Or has it been verified by other experts?

6. Overall, the data hierarchy is not the same. Of course, the hierarchy may be the same in spatial data, but it is necessary to review the content hierarchy.

7. CADM was built by integrating each Lester value. I don't see any consideration for weights when integrating. I think there will be priorities for data as well. If you integrate without expert review or verification, the result can lose the basis logically.

8. CADM is simply seen as a tool that builds vector data into Leicester or integrated Leicester data.

9. Are there any considerations for other data? The authors used only four data in the study, but the quality of the study can be improved if other data are integrated. If you have considered other data, please describe the review process.

10. The results of the study are too natural (Figure 5). That may make international readers lose interest. As shown in Figure 4, an analysis of the most compositional elements or areas in each of Zones 1 to 6 is needed. Where is this zone really of the highest GI importance? What factors are included in it, and what is its area? What is the population distribution? Is there a transportation facility?

11. How can the results of this study be used in policy? In the case of Liverpool, England, which is an excellent case of GI, the research results are actively used in policies. In addition, Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport has also recognized the importance of GI and is establishing and promoting related policies and systems. Does Saitama City, the study target site, have any policies for GI?

12. Please put a flowchart in the research to make it easier to understand the flow.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of Eng. language required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article details a process of using several GIS type data bases to improve
the strategic placement of green infrastructure (GI).  The integration of these
data sources in this process does not appear in literature and thus the
approach should be considered novel in a research sense.  Due to climate change and
increased population density the significance of identifying correct placement
of GI is extremely critical.  The article does not do a good job of offering
alternatives to this existing approach which is important as it shows why
this approach is so amazing.  Note my comments should be addressed in the
article and not simply be discussed in a separate letter from the authors.
Overall considerations
(1) Could a trained individual produce the same results without the algorithm.
(2) The algorithm appears to have steps - why was this order of steps chosen?
Would a different order have advantages?
(3) The quality of the data being used was never addressed - could lack of
quality define incorrect results?
(4) Lots of long sentences that should be 2 or more sentences
(5) Lots of adding words at start of sentences that are un-necessary example
is line 310 does "However" serve any purpose?
(6) Many long sentences have two major sections in incorrect order.  Line
315-316 is an example.
Line 35 "focusing on" should be "advancing"
Line 55-58 needs to be 2 sentences as 1 sentence it reads very clumsy
Line 70 "at the top of the list." becomes "as the top priority."
Line 121 - what is a "post town" as only people from Japan are familiar with it?
Line 123 "to develop land into cities" is awkward, perhaps "to urbanize"
Line 128 "identify the most to least" to "prioritize"
Line 162 1 km needs a space
Line 163 "basis of the results" not needed
Line 172 criteria "are" weighted
Line 177 "compared with the mean sea level" not required as assumed
Table 3 & 4 contains some text in figures so small it cannot be read.
Table 2 & 4 Influence weight needs to be explained
Line 212 no "in"
Various places - smaller to larger is standard - you say 70 to 50 percent?
Line 218-223 How are these ranges determined it seems very arbitrary?
Line 270 "with" is "which"
Line 307 "law enforcement" implies police, do you mean "policy makers"?
Figure 6 - lots of too small un-readable text
Line 365 "applied based" makes no sense
Line 366-367 "integrate"
Line 366-369 should be multiple sentences

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See my comments in the previous section.  An accomplished English reviewer would really help a lot of the sentence structure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract: The opening sentence should set the stage by providing the current research background and highlighting the existing gap in the literature. The conclusion should be more specific, mentioning findings such as identifying spatial heterogeneity or resource misallocation.
2. Keywords: The current set of keywords lacks appeal. Enhance the list by incorporating terms that are more academically engaging and relevant to the study.
3. Table 1: Before introducing the methods in Table 1, include a discussion explaining the relevance and importance of these methods. This will provide the necessary context and justify their inclusion.
4. Introduction: To strengthen the introduction, add a section outlining the research questions the study aims to address. This will help in guiding the reader through the research objectives and focus.
5. Section 2.1 (Research Concept): A conceptual framework diagram should be included to illustrate the research structure succinctly. This visual aid will help readers understand the study's framework and flow.
6. Section 2.3 (Figures): The figures in section 2.3 currently display too small details. Emphasize the main figures by making them more prominent, while reducing the size of the sub-items.
7. Discussion: The discussion section should be expanded to address the research questions more directly. This will ensure that the study is perceived as comprehensive and thorough.
8. Conclusion: Discuss the limitations of the study in the conclusion. Acknowledging these limitations provides a balanced view and helps to contextualize the findings.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for many of the corrections. The manuscript contains the authors' efforts.

1. If only one year's worth of 2021 is used in the NDVI analysis process, what is the difference between NDVI's index and Land Use? It may be duplicate data. Places with a high NDVI index are considered green spaces such as forests, green areas, and parks according to Land Use data.

2. The authors said that Landuse's weight was based on data from publicly trusted institutions such as JAXA. Why do broad-leaved and conifers have the same weight? Also, why do evergreen and deciduous trees have the same weight?

3. A detailed description of the AHP process shown in Figure 2 is required. I think this is very important in building the reliability of the research methodology. How did you brainstorm? How did previous studies review it? Also, weighting and important weights were selected by what process? It is very important for the flow and validity of the research, such as how the verification was performed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of Eng. language required.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has responded to the comments. The revised version is satisfactory for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: The author has responded to the comments. The revised version is satisfactory for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback and for confirming that the revised version of our manuscript is satisfactory for publication. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our work and providing valuable comments.