Mapping and Assessing Green Infrastructure Connectivity in European City Regions

Lines 123-124 and   table 1. Here the authors said that land cover classes were reorganized to   better represent green and blue spaces. This step is fundamental for the   analysis. Please, provide some more details.

Added explanation:

In summary, we combined the classical green   urban areas (land use class 14100) with water elements (40000 and 50000) and   also more agricultural land uses (21000 to 33000).

Lines 126-130   please, justify your methodological approach. For example, why did you choose   100m and 500m for critical thresholds?

Added explanation 1:

This reflects our understanding of focusing   on the “urban” green. Using the 100 metres for example ensures that we do not   include pure suburban leapfrog developments. In combination with the minimum   size we exclude also small settlement areas that have a different   characteristic than more urban neighbourhoods.

Added explanation 2:

The buffer size reflects a commonly used   approximation of a 15-minute walk [24], which we use to delineate daily   activity spaces of urban dwellers.

Line 136. What do   you mean for fresh air supply?

Replaced “supply”   with “corridors”

Figure 5. Figures   and tables should be stand alone. This cart is related to hexagon analysis   but it is not clear from the caption. Please, improve the caption.

Added „hexagon“ in   the caption.

Discussion section   is too short. More references should be added. It could be improved adding   some more arguments. Authors should focus on relations between connectivity   and ecosystem services and the potential use of your method in ecosystem   services management. Also, the match between ecosystem services potential   supply and demand in urban areas should be stressed. Please, I suggest to   read and discuss relevant papers as the following:

-          Maragno,   D., Gaglio, M., Robbi, M., Appiotti, F., Fano, E. A., Gissi, E. (2018).   Fine-scale analysis of urban flooding reduction from green infrastructure: An   ecosystem services approach for the management of water flows. Ecological   Modelling, 386, 1-10.

-          Baró,   F., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Mismatches   between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative   assessment in five European cities. Ecological indicators, 55,   146-158.

Added a few sentences   on potential of using connectivity in small scale modelling and analysis.

Added few sentences   on the potential for connectivity to help in bridging ES supply and demand.

Included both   references.

- The research   question ought to be presented in a more clear and unambiguos way in   connecton with the research goals.

Added a direct   reference to research goals:

… to be able to answer our research question   on how to properly measure different degrees of green infrastructure   connectivity in urban spaces

- In Table 1 ''   Urban green infrastructure'' should be changed into : elements of green   infrastructure.

Done.

- There is lack of   consistence between Tab.1 and and Fig.1 , i.e. Table one lacks the division   into green and blue infrastructure whereas this division is presented in   Fig.1 without any reference to it  in the text. 

Added a brief   explanation:

Here, green and blue spaces are shown   separately to follow mapping standards. Nevertheless, in our indicator   analysis, they are both treated as UGI.

- Both    research approaches  should be decribed more precisely : 1. Isolation of   green spaces ( lines 171 - 181) , 2. Conectivity hexagons ( lines 183 - 194   ).

Added few more   sentences of explanation.

More precisely, the isolation is centred   around the spatial linkage of one element of green infrastructure to another.   In the case of a green space that is far away from the nearest next green   space, the indicator is high and vice versa for plots in which green spaces   directly connect to another one.

For instance, a hexagon in which the dominant   land use is commercial areas, will be defined as settlement area. In contrast   to this there are green area hexagons, if the dominant land use (over 50 % of   the hexagon area) is of any of the UGI land use types.

- The   interchangeable use of  ''green space '' and '' open space '' is   misleading ( e.g.  lines 191 and 192 ) 

Changed to green   space in all cases.

- For each ''grid   cell'' the dominating land use type needs to be more precisely established (   line 190 - 191 )

See above.

 -  The   reference to ''planning families'' ( lines 103 - 117 ) is interesting and   relevant here but needs to be more developed and exploited in the discussion   section.

Done by adding a   whole paragraph in  the discussion   section.

However, although I   am not well aware of the three areas used as case studies, I believe that the   Copenhagen and Manchester areas are metropolitan areas, while the Ruhr area   is a network of medium-sized cities. If it is correct, in this assessment the   comparison between Manchester and Copenhagen is acceptable, but it seems to   me abusive to make comparisons of these metropolitan areas with the Ruhr   area.

Especially the now   expanded discussion on planning culture gives reference to our logic.

Although the regions   are different in their type (mono versus polycentric), we want to focus on   the measurement of UGI in different regions. For this, it is crucial for us   to use contrasting case studies. Especially in context with planning research   we wanted to highlight different understandings of urban green and how this   links to our indicators.

Line 73: Please   replace “belief” [16]shared” by belief” [16] shared”

Done.

Line 88: Please   replace “chapter” by “section”.

Done.

The paragraph   corresponding to lines 122 to 130 must be moved to line 119, i.e. Table 1   should appear after the line 124.

Done.

The authors should   improve the quality and resolution of figures 1, 2 and 3.

Will be done in the   publication progress.

Figure 5: the   vertical scale is unnecessary and promote confusion. Please redraw   this bar chart.

Vertical axis deleted.