Fostering Urban Cohesion: Exploring Morphological Adaptations in Budapest’s IX District through a Typological Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research analyzes the morphological conditions in an area strategically chosen to undergo renovation in Hungary to address social and spatial segregation, increase urban performance, and promote global resilience. There are some concerns regarding the clarity of the paper after careful evaluation of the manuscript:

1. The abstract is not attractive enough, so it is suggested to reorganize and rewrite it with highlights.

2. The keywords are not enough to facilitate literature dissemination and citation.

3. The discussion part should compare the results worthy of discussion with the existing research in depth and breadth.

4. The limitations of this study should be added and described in more detail and realistic.

5. To reflect the advancement of the research, references of the recent five years in English need to be added if possible, such as

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101405 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02585-5

6. In Figure 3, it is recommended to replace handwritten text.

7. In conclusion, the author should prospect for follow-up research in more detail. 

8. Double-check the manuscript's typos, misprints, and grammatical errors to polish the language.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Double-check the manuscript's typos, misprints, and grammatical errors to polish the language.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to enhance the quality of our work.

In response to your suggestion, we have reorganized and rewritten the abstract, incorporating highlights regarding our most relevant findings to make it more attractive and reader-friendly. We have also expanded and refined the keywords list to facilitate literature dissemination and citation.

Furthermore, we have taken your advice regarding the limitations of the study. We have elaborated on a more detailed and realistic description of the study's limitations. This addition aims to provide transparency and a clearer understanding of the scope of our research.

Moreover, we added relevant references exploring the social effects of urban renewal, particularly in Central Eastern European cities. These references evaluate similar urban structures and renovation strategies implemented in recent years, providing our study with a broader and more nuanced perspective. Concurrently, we incremented our typological findings, incorporating illustrative photographs and descriptions.

We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work, and we believe that these revisions have strengthened the overall quality of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

Best regards,

Gabriel Dantas.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read with interest the article “Adaptation of Historic Buildings for Implementing Urban Green Infrastructure in Ferencváros, Budapest”.

I would propose some changes and additions that can clarify, improve and enhance the manuscript.

 1.Introduction

It is advisable to frame the interesting topic also within the scope of the "UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals".

 2. Materials and Methods

It is suggested to:

- standardize the "Groups" legend in the text and in the table in Figure 2 (1,2,3, 4 / A, B,C,D).

- explain and comment on the contents of Figure 2 (for example numbering the individual entries in the table)

- integrate the graphic diagrams of Figure 3 with the references of Figure 2 and enrich them with explanatory text for greater clarity

- Figure 4: Explain and comment on the figures; use more legible fonts for the text or report it as a note to the figure itself

 3. Typological analysis

- Line 184: typo “Figure number” should be noted

 3.1 Building categories

It is suggested to:

- insert explanatory images or graphic diagrams for each category introduced.

- Insert a territorial classification of the study areas in relation to the city

- Insert, highlight and describe the roads, public spaces and buildings, green areas in the graphic representations shown and possibly take them into consideration in the study together with the other parameters proposed in the research.

- Illustrate the working method and expected results in more detail

- clarify and illustrate in more detail the results obtained especially in relation to the considerations made on the social aspects; the above also in relation to the aforementioned urban transformations

 5. Conclusion

It is suggested to delve deeper into the conclusions by illustrating in more detail the relationship between the social and typological aspects and urban transformations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I trust this message finds you well. I appreciate your thorough review and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have diligently addressed your recommendations, and I am pleased to provide an overview of the main changes made in regard to your comments:

1. Standardization of "Groups" Legend: The "Groups" legend has been standardized better to articulate the text and the table in Figure 3, ensuring a more coherent and correlating presentation.
2. Figure 5 Commentary: We have added comprehensive explanations and comments on the illustrations in Figure 4 to improve overall clarity and interpretation, presenting detailed observations elaborated during the workshop as part of the methodology applied to the study.
3. Minor Typos: We have corrected the minor typographical errors mentioned for enhanced readability.
4. Explanatory Images for Building Categories: In response to your suggestion, illustrative images for each introduced building category have been inserted alongside a critical description to provide visual aid and foster better understanding.
5. Detailed Results Clarification and Illustration: The results, especially those pertaining to social aspects and urban transformations, have been clarified and illustrated in more detail. This includes a deeper exploration of the considerations made in the context of the study's urban transformations. We added relevant references exploring the social effects of urban renewal, particularly in Central Eastern European cities. These references evaluate similar urban structures and renovation strategies implemented in recent years, providing our study with a broader and more nuanced perspective, also in terms of gentrification. 

We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript, aligning it more closely with your expectations. Your constructive feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality of our research.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Gabriel Dantas.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is not clearly described how did you choose the characteristics for typology and why these ones.

T5 - open public place is not building category - it should be changed.

Discussion about the results should be divided from the results in the separate chapter and should consist pro-and-cons argumentation. 

In the Conclusion the contribution of the paper should be stressed. GIS as a method/tool is mentioned in the Conclusion but not in Methodology part of the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor changes are required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to enhance the quality of our work.

In response to your suggestion, we have elaborated the discussion on results, especially regarding social aspects and urban transformations, clarifying and illustrating in more detail. This includes a deeper exploration of the considerations made in the context of the study's urban transformations. We added relevant references exploring the social effects of urban renewal, particularly in Central Eastern European cities. These references evaluate similar urban structures and renovation strategies implemented in recent years, providing our study with a broader and more nuanced perspective, also in terms of gentrification.

Regarding your comment on T5, "Urban Void," we would like to inform you that we have made the necessary adjustments to avoid any potential misunderstandings. However, it's crucial to highlight that the categories outlined in the manuscript were intentionally developed to enclose relevant elements contributing to the constitution of the urban fabric in the given context. Our classification aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the diverse elements shaping the urban environment in the studied area.

We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript, aligning it more closely with your expectations. Your constructive feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality of our research.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Gabriel Dantas.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article delves into the methodology of morphological analysis of a particular district in Budapest, in order to serve as a database for urban renewal. The main problem of the article is its lack of clarity. Initially, it was necessary to present the tested area relative to the whole of Budapest (using a map) to explain the context of the chosen area and why this particular area was chosen. Selected images from within the area, (perhaps compared to the city center) – can also help to understand the urban context. Thus, images of the types of buildings and space found (T1-T5) are also missing. Illustrations relevant to understanding, such as Figure 6, can be found at the end of the article. Figure 3, which is supposed to explain the typology, is missing because the urban morphology of the facades is unclear. Beyond that, the relationship between social data and physical data should have been explained in more detail. This connection – which is the core of the article – is also not clear enough, and in my understanding it is more important than green infrastructure.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

I appreciate your thorough review and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have diligently addressed your recommendations, and I am pleased to provide an overview of the main changes made regarding your comments:

1. Contextual Presentation of the Tested Area: We have included a map that highlights the study area in relation to its district and the entirety of Budapest, providing a visual understanding of the context behind our chosen area alongside relevant analysis concerning its insertion in the referred urban context.
2. Visual Documentation: Images depicting the various building types and spaces (T1-T5) within the studied area have been carefully selected and included to enrich the reader's understanding of the urban context and atmosphere. Accompanying these visuals, detailed descriptions have been incorporated to provide comprehensive insights into the characteristics of each building and spatial type, enhancing the overall narrative.
3. Enhanced Explanation of Social and Physical Data Relationship: In response to your suggestion, we have elaborated the discussion on results, especially regarding social aspects and urban transformations, clarifying and illustrating in more detail. This includes a deeper exploration of urban transformations. We added relevant references exploring the social effects of urban renewal, particularly in Central Eastern European cities. These references evaluate similar urban structures and renovation strategies implemented in recent years, providing our study with a broader and more nuanced perspective, also in terms of gentrification.

We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript, aligning it more closely with your expectations. Your constructive feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality of our research.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Gabriel Dantas.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Not already meeting the standards for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your continued feedback. 
We have carefully addressed your suggestions, refining the paper by incorporating seven reliable references, including those you highlighted earlier, to enlarge the recent discussion on the topic and its repercussions in a comprehensive context. 
We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript, aligning it more closely with your expectations. Your constructive feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality of our research.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
 
Best regards,
Gabriel Dantas.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The updated and revised version of the article is clearer and more complete. The new graphic and photographic contents definitely enrich and enhance the themes presented, making the study even clearer, more interesting and full of new research ideas.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you sincerely for your positive and valuable feedback. Your encouraging comments are deeply appreciated, and your insights have been meaningful in shaping the manuscript.
We extend our gratitude for your time and expertise, and we are thankful for your thoughtful evaluation of our work.

Best regards,
Gabriel Dantas.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I believe that the name of the article should be changed and be more focused. It's not just about urban green infrastructure

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you sincerely for your valuable feedback. Your insights have played a crucial role in shaping the manuscript.
Also, based on your feedback, we have made adjustments, including a change in the title to outline the paper's content more efficiently. Your time and expertise are greatly valued, and we are thankful for your thoughtful evaluation of our work.  

Best regards,
Gabriel Dantas.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Handdrawn and handwritten fonts are allowed in the design scheme, but appearing in scientific research papers is not very rigorous and formal. Passive voice should be used as much as possible in the abstract. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. Following your instructions, we have revised the manuscript by replacing the drawings and handwriting in Figures 4 and 5. Additionally, we have enhanced the writing by incorporating passive voice where appropriate.
Thank you for your thoughtful input.

Best regards,

Gabriel Dantas.