The Role of Public Space in Building the Resilience of Cities: Analysis of Representative Projects from IFLA Europe Exhibitions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript sought to analyse whether and to what extent contemporary newly designed public spaces respond to current challenges and whether they can participate in mitigating the effects of climate change. It’s helpful to know how the designed public spaces respond to climate change and to mitigate the effect of climate change. The sources of project are reliable and the methods are suitable to answer research questions. It still needs some minor revision.
1) To rehearse abstract with more conclusions about the research.
2) To summarise the result section in each mitigating effects from Page 6 to Page 20.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful comments on our manuscript titled "The role of public space in building the resilience of cities. Analysis of the representative projects from IFLA Europe Exhibition" We appreciate your feedback and will address the minor revisions as suggested. We carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure clarity, coherence, and consistency throughout the text. Additionally, we paid special attention to any areas where further explanation or detail was needed to improve the overall readability and comprehension of the manuscript.
Underneath, we provided our detailed responses to your feedback:
1. Comment:
Reviewer: To rehearse abstract with more conclusions about the research.
Response: We appreciate your insightful idea and concur that a more thorough summary of the findings from our research should be included in the abstract. As a result, we updated the abstract to incorporate concise explanations of the main conclusions and their significance.
2. Comment:
Reviewer: To summarise the result section in each mitigating effects from Page 6 to Page 20.
Response: We agree with your suggestion to organise the results section by categorising the mitigating effects. In response, we summarised the research findings into distinct paragraphs for each category (mitigate, protect, reuse, recover, and educate). By adopting this approach, we aim to enhance the clarity and accessibility of the results, enabling readers to quickly grasp the key insights related to each mitigation strategy.
In conclusion, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We are confident that the revisions prompted by your insights have bolstered the scientific integrity and influence of our study. We remain committed to addressing any further concerns or suggestions you may have and look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge in this field.
Sincerely,
Urszula Forczek-Brataniec and Katarzyna Jamioł
Chair of Landscape Architecture
Faculty of Architecture, Cracow University of Technology (CUT)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I think your article needs a thorough revision in order to consolidate the literature review, to define what the starting hypothesis is and what the objective is - as in the conclusion and discussion you refer to 'broad' concepts that are not directly related to the results obtained.
Furthermore, I think the results are also unclear, due to a too 'generalist' approach in defining the study parameters.
Moreover:
It is recommended that the author pay attention to the vocabulary used, many times it is more colloquial than scientific.
There are too short sentences that do not make sense - "Resilience of urban areas." - is it a title in the middle of the text?
Figure 1. Visual diagram of the research conducted and its goals. I consider that it is not clear.
The text consists of relatively few bibliographical references, as it is believed that the analysis of the literature review should be expanded to include whether similar studies to yours have been written recently. An example: Dal Cin, F.; Hooimeijer, F.; Matos Silva, M. Planning the Urban Waterfront Transformation, from Infrastructures to Public Space Design in a Sea-Level Rise Scenario: The European Union Prize for Contemporary Architecture Case. Water 2021, 13, 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020218
So in conclusion, I feel that this article is too generalist - and although it starts from a defined case, it lacks the depth of analysis that allows it to be applied (as a method) to other similar contexts.
This is why I believe that in parallel with a thorough literature review, it is important to review the chart explaining the methodology used.
In discussions and conclusions, it is important to present the results in comparison with other contexts or explain how your study is useful for other contexts.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful comments on our manuscript titled "The role of public space in building the resilience of cities. Analysis of the representative projects from IFLA Europe Exhibition" We understand the need for a more concise literature review and clearer articulation of our study's hypothesis and objectives. We thoroughly revised the literature review to synthesise relevant research findings and theories cohesively. Additionally, we explicitly stated the research hypothesis and objectives in the introduction to guide readers. To improve clarity, we refined the results section by providing detailed descriptions of variables, methodologies, and findings. This focused approach aims to enhance understanding of our study outcomes and their significance. Thank you for your valuable feedback; we are committed to these revisions to strengthen our manuscript.
Underneath, we provided our detailed responses to your feedback:
- Comment:
Reviewer: I think your article needs a thorough revision in order to consolidate the literature review, to define what the starting hypothesis is and what the objective is - as in the conclusion and discussion you refer to 'broad' concepts that are not directly related to the results obtained.
Response: In response, we conducted a comprehensive revision of the literature review section to provide a more cohesive synthesis of relevant research findings and theoretical frameworks. Additionally, we explicitly stated the research hypothesis and objectives in the introduction section to establish a clear roadmap for the study. This ensured that the conclusions and discussion were directly linked to the research outcomes and aligned with the stated objectives.
- Comment:
Reviewer: Furthermore, I think the results are also unclear, due to a too 'generalist' approach in defining the study parameters.
So in conclusion, I feel that this article is too generalist - and although it starts from a defined case, it lacks the depth of analysis that allows it to be applied (as a method) to other similar contexts.
Response: We understand your concern regarding the perceived "generalist" approach in defining the study parameters. It's important to clarify that our intention was indeed to take a holistic view and analyse all relevant features of urban space that influence city resilience. While we acknowledge that a more detailed analysis could be beneficial, we believe that a general assessment is also valuable in understanding the overall impact of public space design on urban resilience. However, we recognize the need to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and specificity.
- Comment:
Reviewer: It is recommended that the author pay attention to the vocabulary used, many times it is more colloquial than scientific.
Response: We acknowledge your recommendation regarding the vocabulary used in our manuscript. It's worth noting that the language of the study did not raise any concerns from other reviewers. Nonetheless, we carefully re-evaluated the vocabulary based on your suggestion and made local corrections where necessary. However, it's important to maintain a balance to ensure inclusiveness of the text, especially when communicating complex concepts to a diverse audience. As a result, while some adjustments were made, the linguistic character of most terms was retained to accommodate a broader readership.
- Comment:
Reviewer: It is recommended that the author pay attention to the vocabulary used, many times it is more colloquial than scientific.
Response: We appreciate your keen observation and apologise for the oversight. The error you mentioned is indeed editorial in nature, and we have taken corrective action to address it. The sentence has been revised to ensure coherence and clarity within the text.
- Comment:
Reviewer: Figure 1. Visual diagram of the research conducted and its goals. I consider that it is not clear.
This is why I believe that in parallel with a thorough literature review, it is important to review the chart explaining the methodology used.
Response: We appreciate your feedback on the clarity of Figure 1. Following your advice, we have made the necessary corrections to enhance its legibility. The diagram has been revised to ensure that it effectively depicts the research process.
- Comment:
Reviewer: The text consists of relatively few bibliographical references, as it is believed that the analysis of the literature review should be expanded to include whether similar studies to yours have been written recently. An example: Dal Cin, F.; Hooimeijer, F.; Matos Silva, M. Planning the Urban Waterfront Transformation, from Infrastructures to Public Space Design in a Sea-Level Rise Scenario: The European Union Prize for Contemporary Architecture Case. Water 2021, 13, 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020218.
Response: We agree with your suggestion to expand the analysis of the literature review to include recent studies relevant to our research. Following your recommendation, we have implemented minor supplementations to enhance the breadth and depth of the literature review. Additionally, we thank you for bringing the article by Dal Cin et al. to our attention. It proved to be very pertinent to our research context, and we have included it in the bibliography.
- Comment:
Reviewer: In discussions and conclusions, it is important to present the results in comparison with other contexts or explain how your study is useful for other contexts.
Response: Your insightful suggestion to explain the utility of our study for broader applications was taken into consideration. The paragraph related to the applicability of the method is included in the conclusions
In accordance with your recommendation, we have divided the chapter into two parts: discussion and conclusion. This division will allow us to provide a comprehensive analysis of our findings, including comparisons with relevant studies and explanations of the broader implications of our research for other contexts.
In conclusion, we extend our sincere gratitude to you for your thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in identifying areas for improvement and enhancing the overall quality of our research. We have carefully considered each suggestion and have implemented revisions accordingly to address the concerns raised. We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We remain committed to further refining our work and welcome any additional feedback or suggestions from the reviewer.
Sincerely,
Urszula Forczek-Brataniec and Katarzyna Jamioł
Chair of Landscape Architecture
Faculty of Architecture, Cracow University of Technology (CUT)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work is very valuable because it responds to the contemporary needs of building the resilience of cities by using greenery and the profession of a landscape architect to design public spaces
Thanks to the analysis of projects submitted to two editions of the IFLA competition, the main location conditions regarding the NEDS 3 regions and the design decisions of the project authors are indicated. This allows the authors of the article to indicate the current characteristics of 5 types of design approaches: 1)Mitigate, 2)Protect, 3)Recover, 4)Reuse, 5)Educate correlated with the areas of European climate zones and their needs in building urban resilience. The results of the research are actual indications and design guidelines for public spaces in specific European areas and a justification for the presence of a landscape architect in an interdisciplinary design team.
The work requires some additions and transformations:
-it is more readable for the work to explain the abbreviation NUTS in line 87, not in line 103
-in Fig. 3, Ukraine is mentioned, while in Fig. 4, the place of the Ucrainian project submitted to the competition is not marked. Do countries such as Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc. not belong to IFLA Europe, or were no projects submitted to the competition from these countries? - because on the Fig. 3 has no markings.
- in the reviewer's opinion, the discussion of results should be separated from the conclusions. This will improve the readability of the work logic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful comments on our manuscript titled "The role of public space in building the resilience of cities. Analysis of the representative projects from IFLA Europe Exhibition" We deeply appreciate your thoughtful assessment of our work and your recognition of its value in addressing contemporary needs for building urban resilience through greenery and landscape architecture in public space design. Your insightful analysis of the projects submitted to the IFLA competition underscores the significance of our research in highlighting the main location conditions and design decisions associated with different European climate zones. Thank you for your valuable feedback; we are committed to these revisions to strengthen our manuscript. We carefully reviewed the article to ensure clarity.
Underneath, we provided our detailed responses to your feedback:
- Comment:
Reviewer: It is more readable for the work to explain the abbreviation NUTS in line 87, not in line 103.
Response: We have taken your feedback into consideration and made the necessary adjustments. In accordance with your recommendation, we have applied concise and consistent explanations throughout the text, including addressing the abbreviation "NUTS" at an earlier point in line.
- Comment:
Reviewer: In Fig. 3, Ukraine is mentioned, while in Fig. 4, the place of the Ukrainian project submitted to the competition is not marked. Do countries such as Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc. not belong to IFLA Europe, or were no projects submitted to the competition from these countries? - because on the Fig. 3 has no markings.
Response: Member associations of IFLA Europe submitted projects to the exhibition, which were executed by landscape architects affiliated with their respective countries. In two instances, projects were submitted from outside Europe's borders. The project submitted by Ukraine is located within Azerbaijan, while one project submitted by France is situated outside Europe on the island of La Reunion. We appreciate your attention to detail in pointing out this discrepancy, and we have included a clarification in the text of the article to address this issue.
Regarding the absence of projects from countries such as Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and others, it is indeed the case that these countries did not submit any projects to the exhibition in any of the previous editions.
- Comment:
Reviewer: In the reviewer's opinion, the discussion of results should be separated from the conclusions. This will improve the readability of the work logic.
Response: In accordance with your recommendation, we have divided the chapter into two parts: discussion and conclusion. This structural adjustment aims to improve the readability and logical flow of the work, ensuring that the analysis of results is distinct from the final conclusions drawn from them. Your valuable input has enhanced the clarity and coherence of our work. We remain committed to upholding these standards in our research endeavours. Should you have further insights, we welcome them eagerly.
Sincerely,
Urszula Forczek-Brataniec and Katarzyna Jamioł
Chair of Landscape Architecture
Faculty of Architecture, Cracow University of Technology (CUT)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I consider that the comments I had made to you were only answered in the cover letter and not truly in the text.
The changes you made are minimal and not supported by evidence compared to the cover letter in which you claim to have drafted a thorough revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate revision
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Upon receiving the re-review, we have reanalyzed the article. We find it difficult to agree with your esteemed opinion that our revisions do not align with the cover letter in Round 1. Changes have been implemented within the scope that appeared constructive for our research.
As highlighted in the Round 01:
1. We conducted a re-evaluation of the literature review, supplementing it with sources that we deemed valuable. Additionally, we considered it suitable in its current form for the scope of the conducted research. We also re-examined the assumptions, objectives, and achieved results, deeming them appropriate.
2. Regarding the second comment, we clarified that the alleged general approach was our objective. We aimed to present a wide spectrum of features that contribute to urban resilience and analyze their occurrence in public space projects whose selection was precisely defined. Only such a comprehensive approach allowed us to conduct a multifaceted analysis of the selected public spaces.
3. Concerning the vocabulary used, it was re-evaluated, and changes were made where deemed appropriate.
4. The editorial note was taken into account, and the error was corrected.
5. The illustration titled "Visual Diagram of the Research" has been revised and now appears to be fully legible.
6. The bibliography has been supplemented with the indicated reference.
7. Division into discussions and conclusions has been made in accordance with the recommendation. We compared our research with another indicated context, which we found to be very interesting, especially since we found confirmation of the validity of our research therein. Furthermore, possibilities for the development and adaptation of the research in other contexts were explained.
In light of the implemented changes and in accordance with the suggestions in Round 02, we have further refined more deeply the article in the following areas:
1. Research status: We have taken into account the recurrent comments pertaining to the scope, which enriched the context of our research.
2. Bibliography has been supplemented with more references.
3. Discussion has been expanded. Simultaneously, we compared our research with other comparable analyses and common trends in designing resilient cities.
4. Conclusions have been formulated with greater precision, specifying the utility and potential development of the research.
We respectfully ask for a thorough review of the implemented modifications, considering our original authors’ approach. We appreciate very much your engagement.
Sincerely,
Urszula Forczek-Brataniec and Katarzyna Jamioł
Faculty of Architecture, Cracow University of Technology (CUT)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
