Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 24;19(7):e0307518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307518

The spatial heterogeneity of urban green space distribution and configuration in Lilongwe City, Malawi

Odala Nambazo 1,*, Kennedy Nazombe 2
Editor: Saeid Norouzian-Maleki3
PMCID: PMC11268670  PMID: 39047019

Abstract

Urban green spaces provide several benefits related to the quality of urban life. The existence and spatial arrangement of these spaces within neighbourhoods and functional land uses have significant implications for the well-being of urban dwellers. Previous studies on green spaces in urban areas of Malawi have focused on a broader and macro-level perspective, offering insightful information on general trends in different cities. However, there is a significant research shortage in localised understanding, which requires carrying out micro-level assessments concentrating on land use zones and neighbourhoods within these cities. In this study, we used remote sensing data and landscape metrics to understand the distribution and configuration of urban green spaces in the city’s neighbourhoods and functional land uses and their relationship with urban form. The study revealed that 20% of neighbourhoods fail to meet the WHO-recommended standard of 9 m2 of green space per person, with a predominant concentration of these undersupplied areas in high-density and quasi-residential zones. In addition, 56.2% of Lilongwe City’s total green area was contained under functional land uses. Particularly, high-rise residential, medium-density residential, low-density residential, quasi-residential, high-rise flat area, commercial class, high-rise commercial, heavy industry, light industry, and government land use zones contained 17.3%, 12.0%, 22.2%, 12.0%, 4.1%, 6.4%, 6.1%, 5.0%, 1.6%, and 13.3% of the total green spaces in functional land uses, respectively. Importantly, this research found significant correlations between urban form metrics, namely building coverage, building density, building perimeter area ratio, road density, and the distribution and configuration of urban green spaces. This necessitates an integrated approach to urban planning and design, emphasising the importance of balancing development with green space preservation.

Introduction

Urbanisation is the key characteristic of the twenty-first century, as people migrate to cities worldwide in search of better living conditions and employment opportunities [1]. However, there are several consequences of rapid urbanisation, including increased environmental degradation, increased socioeconomic disparity, and the loss of natural areas that are essential to the well-being of urban residents [1,2]. The design and distribution of urban green spaces (UGS) become increasingly important factors that impact the quality of life as cities expand and evolve [3,4].

The equitable distribution and use of UGS are becoming more important for the sustainability of cities. However, UGS are not always evenly and equitably distributed among city dwellers [5]. Urban green spaces can be anything from parks and gardens to greenways. Urban green spaces offer multiple benefits to city dwellers. These include; improving air quality [6], providing recreational opportunities [7], fostering ecological balance in densely populated areas [8], enhancing the aesthetic appeal [9], providing educational opportunities [10], and enhancing psychological well-being [11]. To harness the benefits of UGS, urban planners are now interested in harmonious coexistence between the natural and built environments. Healthy and happy city dwellers are the fundamental goals of city design [12].

Numerous studies have linked the variability of UGS across different land use zones and neighbourhoods to several factors. For instance, urbanisation, population density, and land value play pivotal roles in the availability of UGS in various locations [1315]. In addition, environmental factors, governance, regulatory policies, and zoning restrictions affect the distribution of green areas within different zones [1618]. Socioeconomic factors, such as race and income disparities, also influence the availability and quality of UGSs [1922]. Since the distribution of green space in urban areas tends to be uneven due to numerous factors, mapping the current state of green space is necessary for urban planners to create sustainable cities.

Previous research on green space and land use/land cover in cities and towns has mostly provided a macro-level perspective in Malawi [2326]. These studies offered insightful information on general trends in different cities and towns. However, localised assessments within Lilongwe´s diverse neighbourhoods and functional land uses remain scarce, hindering targeted urban planning initiatives. Both formal and informal settlements with a varied range of densities and distinct socioeconomic diversity among their inhabitants characterise the urban fabric of Lilongwe City [27]. Compared to cities in developed regions, these distinct attributes might have a very different effect on the supply and demand for UGS. Such a localised approach is essential because it recognises that the dynamics of green spaces can differ significantly within a city’s boundaries, depending on a variety of variables such as historical development, changing land-use regulations, community-driven initiatives, and social-economic factors [13,18,19,21,28]. This knowledge gap underscores the need for studies examining the specific settings of neighbourhoods or communities, providing a deeper understanding of how green spaces are distributed in different areas of the city.

The present study investigates an aspect of urban green space management and planning in Lilongwe City. Our focus was on the composition and configuration of UGSs in the city’s neighbourhoods and functional land uses, and how the urban form affects these factors. According to the city´s urban structure plan, the following functional land uses were included in the study: commercial, industrial, government, and residential areas. The residential areas were further classified into high-density, medium-density, low-density, quasi-residential, and high-rise residential areas. The objectives of the study were to analyse (1) the distribution of urban green spaces in the city’s neighbourhoods and functional land uses; (2) the configuration of urban green spaces in functional land uses; and (3) the relationship between urban form and green space distribution and configuration. We used remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) techniques to map the distribution and configuration of UGS. Remote sensing and GIS have proven to be efficient and effective means to characterise UGS in terms of abundance, spatial distribution, and species composition [26,2932]. Geospatial techniques facilitate precise mapping and assessment of spatial patterns and configurations of UGS [26,32]. The findings of this study may have an impact on urban planning strategies and policies and aid in the creation of more efficient plans for the distribution and management of UGS.

Materials and methods

Study area

Lilongwe was declared the capital city of Malawi in 1975, after relocating from Zomba City. The city lies between 13°45′S and 14°3′ S latitude, 33°41′E and 33°53′ E longitude in the central region of Malawi (Fig 1). It is the largest city in Malawi with a population of 989,318 [33] and covers approximately 727.8 km2. The city was designed based on the garden city concept and has abundant greeneries within the central part of the city [27]. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in conjunction with the Malawi Government prepared the Urban Development Master Plan in 2010 to guide the city’s development. According to the city’s plan, about 22,000 ha of land was zoned for nature sanctuary, parks and recreation, greeneries, agriculture, and forestry land uses. The city is abounding in natural beauty and environmental resources, including rivers, streams, flowers, and natural trees. However, the city is experiencing rapid urbanisation compared to other cities in Malawi, which is estimated at 4% annually [34]. Like many other cities, Lilongwe is experiencing many challenges including those caused by rapid urbanisation. Environmental deterioration, pollution, deforestation, uncontrolled development in ecologically sensitive, and weak regulatory frameworks are among the other challenges facing the city.

Fig 1. Location and areas of Lilongwe city (Malawi) and the green spaces within it.

Fig 1

Data

We used a 10-metre-resolution Sentinel Level-2A imagery acquired on September 5, 2022 (Product ID: L2A_T36LXK_A028718_20220905T080208). A satellite image covering the entire city of Lilongwe was obtained from the Copernicus Open Access Hub (https://scihub.copernicus.eu/). To minimise haze and acquire cloud-free satellite images of the study area, the image was acquired during the dry season. The image was then projected onto the World Geodetic System 1984, the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 36S. The Sentinel Level-2A products are already subjected to atmospheric and geometric corrections. The acquired satellite images were clipped to extract study areas using the Lilongwe city boundary shapefile layer obtained from the Lilongwe City Council. We used Microsoft building footprint data, which were downloaded from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/maps/building-footprints. The city’s neighbourhood’s boundary shapefile was obtained from the National Statistical Office (NSO), which was based on census tract data. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of a neighbourhood and most studies have used census boundaries [35]. The population census data for the neighbourhoods were extracted from the 2018 Malawi Population and Housing Census Report [33]. This study adapted the four main functional land use categories outlined in the city’s urban structure plan [27] (Table 1). The general methodology is outlined in Fig 2.

Table 1. Descriptions of the functional land use categories used in the study.

Functional land use categories Description
Residential (High-Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low-Density Residential, Quasi Residential, and High-Rise Flat Area) Land primarily dedicated to housing, such as single-family homes, apartment complexes, and residential neighbourhoods.
Commercial It encompasses areas where businesses and retail activities take place, such as small shops, shopping malls, restaurants, banks, and office buildings.
Industrial (Heavy/Large Scale Industry and Light Industry) Areas where manufacturing, warehousing, and other industrial activities occur.
Government Government land use includes government office buildings where various government functions and public services take place and includes state residences.

Fig 2. Methodological framework applied for this study.

Fig 2

Methods

Normalised difference vegetation index

We used the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) to identify green spaces in the study area. NDVI is one of the most used indicators of the presence of vegetation [22,2932]. The NDVI has a range of -1 to +1. A negative NDVI indicates non-green areas, such as deserts, water, rivers, and built-up areas, whereas a positive value denotes green areas [36] and increased NDVI value suggests more vegetation on the ground. The NDVI can also be used to assess the conditions of plants and vegetation [37]. This is because healthy plants have greater NDVI values than stressed plants. Eq (1) was used to calculate the NDVI in ArcGIS 10.6 software as follows:

NDVI=NIR[Band8]RED[Band4]NIR[Band8]+RED[Band4] (1)

where,

NIR [Band 8] and RED [Band 4] denote the reflectance in the near-infrared and red bands, respectively, of the Sentinel-2A imaging product.

Per Capita Green Space (PCGS) and Urban Green Space Index (UGSI)

To understand green space allocation for every inhabitant of a neighbourhood, we calculated per capita green space (PCGS). The PCGS is widely used to assess the quality of urban environments and their impact on residents’ well-being [13,26,32,38,39]. Eq (2) was used to calculate the PCGS:

PCGSi=GiPNi (2)

where PCGSi denotes per capita green space in neighbourhood i, Gi denotes total green space coverage in neighbourhood i, and PNi denotes the total population of neighbourhood i. We used population census data for neighbourhoods for the year 2018 [33].

Furthermore, the Urban Green Space Index (UGSI) was adopted to measure the quantity of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) in each neighbourhood. The index denotes the availability of UGS as a percentage and provides a standardised way of comparing UGS in different neighbourhoods [32]. The UGSI is computed as follows:

The UGSI for ith neighbourhood can be expressed as in the Eq (3):

UGSIi=GiAi (3)

Where, Gi = UGS in the neighbourhood i, Ai = area of the ith neighbourhood (where i = 1 to n).

The total UGS (expressed as a percentage) in a particular neighbourhood is calculated as in the Eq (4):

UGSIT=tnGitnAi×100 (4)

Urban green space landscape metrics

Guided by previous studies [5,40,41], the composition and configuration of urban green spaces were assessed using the following seven landscape metrics: number of patches, largest patch index (LPI), mean Euclidean Nearest Neighbour distance (ENN_MEAN), mean shape index (SHAPE_MN), number of patches (NP), and patch density (PD). We used FRAGSTATS 4.2 software to calculate the selected metrics of green spaces at the class level. A detailed description of the metrics is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. A detailed description of the landscape metrics.
Category Landscape Indices Description
Composition Number of Patches (NP) Quantifies the number of green patches existing in a particular study unit. The higher NP suggests more fragmentation.
Largest Patch Index (LPI) The proportion of the largest green patch with a study unit. It indicates the level of dominance and concentration in a study unit.
Configuration Mean Euclidean
nearest neighbour
distance (ENN_MEAN)
It measures the average distance from one green space patch to the nearest green space patch. It indicates the level of dispersion or clustering of green spaces.
Mean shape
Index (SHAPE_MN)
The average shape complexity of green space patches in a study unit. More irregular shapes are associated with higher shape index values.
Patch Density (PD) It quantifies the total number of green space patches distributed across an area. It shows the extent of spatial distribution, connectivity, and fragmentation.

Urban form metrics

Several studies have shown significant impacts of urban form on the spatial distribution and configuration of UGS. The relationship between urban form and green spaces has implications for the overall sustainability, liveability, and well-being of a city. Weighted density, density gradient slope, density gradient intercept, compactness, and street connectivity urban form metrics were used to understand the impact of urban form on green space accessibility in 462 metropolitan areas globally [42]. To understand the associations between urban morphology and green spaces, building coverage ratio, building perimeter, the number of buildings, road coverage ratio, road intersections, and road length ratio metrics were employed [43]. Similarly, the urban form indicators of address density, building density, and household density were correlated with the biodiversity potential and ecosystem performance indicators in five UK cities [44]. The perimeter-area ratio (PARA), road density (RD), and compound terrain complexity index were used to evaluate the impact of urban form on the UGS structure [45]. In Sheffield, road length, building density, and building area, among other factors, are predictors of the extent and quality of green spaces [29]. Therefore, four urban form metrics were employed in the study, namely: building coverage (BC), road network density (RD), the mean perimeter area ratio (PARA_MN) of buildings, and building density (BD) (Table 3). The calculation of the urban form metrics was performed in ArcGIS 10.6 software.

Table 3. A detailed description of the urban form metrics used in the study.
Metric Description Relevance
Building Coverage (BC) The proportion of the ground area covered by buildings to the total area of the plot and usually expressed as a percentage. Provides an idea of the compactness and intensity of development.
Road Network Density (RD) The total length of roads in an area divided by the total land area of that area. It is typically expressed in kilometres per square kilometre. Gives insights into an area’s accessibility and connectivity.
Mean Perimeter Area Ratio (PARA_MN) of Buildings The average ratio of the perimeter of buildings to their area. Highlights the complexity and configuration of building shapes.
Building Density (BD) The number of buildings per unit area. Usually measured in buildings per hectare or square kilometre. Measures the intensity of built-up development. A higher building density can indicate a more compact urban form, possibly leading to more efficient land use.

Urban planners and designers use building coverage (BC) as an indicator to quantify the total area of land occupied by buildings. The amount of land covered by buildings provides information about how intensively an area is developed and how much of the land area is undeveloped. Lower building coverage enhances the preservation of open spaces, parks, and natural areas. Using Microsoft building footprint data, BC was calculated using the following Eq (5):

BC=BATA (5)

where BC, BA, and TA are building coverage, the total area covered by all buildings, and the total area occupied by a particular functional land use category, respectively.

The road network density (RD), which is the ratio of an area’s total road network’s length to its land area, was determined using freely available road network data accessed from the OpenStreetMap (OSM) website (www.openstreetmap.org). The RD is calculated as in Eq (6).

RD=LA (6)

where RD is the road density, L is the total length of roads in a particular land use, and A is the total land area of a particular land use.

The mean perimeter-area ratio (PARA_MN) of buildings is one of the urban form indicators used to understand the efficiency and compactness of urban development. A lower PARA_MN value indicates the compactness of buildings in an area. Compact urban forms are frequently linked to effective land use, lower infrastructure costs, and increased walkability. PARA for each building is calculated using the Eq (7):

PARABuilding=PbuildingA (7)

Where PARA is the perimeter-area ratio of each building, Pbuilding is the perimeter of each building, and Abuilding is the total area covered by the building. The mean perimeter-area ratio (PARA_MN) of buildings within a particular functional land use area was computed using the following Eq (8):

PARA_MNBuildings=i=1nPARABuildingin (8)

where n is the total number of buildings in a particular functional land use category.

In addition, building density (BD), which is used to measure the concentration of buildings in a particular area was adopted as an indicator of urban form. BD has an impact on the distribution and composition of urban greenery. Land for green spaces may be scarce in high-density areas, while low-density areas may provide space for greenery. However, low-density environments may encourage urban sprawl. BD is calculated using the Eq (9) below. It is then expressed as the number of buildings per given area:

BD=NBA (9)

where BD is the building density, NB is the number of buildings in each area, and A is the total land area.

Statistical analysis

To understand an association between urban green space metrics and urban form metrics, bivariate Pearson correlation analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 20.0, and the relevant tables were prepared. The bivariate Pearson correlation indicates the statistical significance, degree, and direction (increasing or decreasing) of a linear relationship between two continuous variables. A correlation coefficient of 1 indicates a positive correlation between the variables; a coefficient of -1 indicates a negative correlation; and a correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no association [46].

Results

The per capita distribution of urban green space in neighbourhoods in Lilongwe city

The analysis of UGS per capita distribution showed significant variations in the availability of green space in the Lilongwe City neighbourhoods (Table 4). The study found that 20% of the neighbourhoods have UGS which is less than the World Health Organisation (WHO) requirement of 9 m2 per person. The majority of the neighbourhoods (54.5%) are provided with over 100 m2 of green space per inhabitant. The remaining 25.5% of neighbourhoods had between 9 and 100 m2 of green space per person, falling between these two extremes.

Table 4. Urban green space per capita distribution in the neighbourhoods/areas in Lilongwe City (Note: Two areas were not included due to the lack of population data).

Per Capita UGS (person/ m2) Area Numbers (arranged in ascending order based on the PCGS) No of Areas % of Areas Remarks
Less than 9 57, 33, 50, 28, 36, 8, 24, 7, 23, 21 and 22 11 20.0 9 m2/person is the WHO standard
9–20 56, 51, 1 and 25 4 7.3
21–40 48, 49 and 38 3 5.5
41–60 18, 31 and 39 3 5.5
61–100 53, 29, 39 and 44 4 7.3
Above 100 2, 4, 5, 6, 46, 54, 58, 27, 26, 47, 55, 30, 35, 41, 17, 15, 45, 9, 43, 52, 3, 37, 10, 20, 12, 34, 11, 13, 14, and 32 30 54.5
Totals 55 100.0  

Urban green space index (UGSI) of different areas/neighbourhoods in Lilongwe City

A further analysis of the distribution of UGS in the neighbourhoods indicated different percentages of coverage (Table 5 and Fig 3). The results show that 43.9% of neighbourhoods have less than 10% of their area covered by green space, 33.3% have between 10% and 20%, 14.0% have between 21% and 30%, and 8.8% have between 30% and 33%.

Table 5. Distribution of UGSI in Lilongwe city at the area/neighbourhood level.

Urban Green Spaces Area Numbers (arranged in ascending order based on the percentage of green space) No of Areas % of Areas
Less than 10% 57,54, 50, 28, 8, 24, 38, 27, 1, 23, 7, 21, 36, 55, 49, 48, 22, 25, 45, 26, 2, 4, 29, 39, 33 25 43.9
10–20% 56, 46, 19, 51, 16, 39, 5, 6, 35, 41, 17, 52,53, 18,58,30, 43, 44, 47 19 33.3
21–30% 9, 31, 3, 37, 12, 34, 11 and 13 8 14.0
31–43% 15, 14, 32, 10 and 20 5 8.8
Totals 57 100.0

Fig 3. Urban green space distribution.

Fig 3

(a) Urban Green Space at area level (NDVI derived from publicly available Sentinel-2 images) (b) Urban Green Space Index expressed in percentage at the area level.

The relationship between population density and urban green space

We used Pearson’s correlation analysis to determine the relationship between population density and the indicators and metrics of urban green spaces (Table 6 and Fig 4). The study revealed that the population density was weakly negatively correlated with the number of patches (-0.286*). This implies that areas with high population density have a low number of patches of green space. Population density was also significantly correlated with PCUGS and UGSI, with correlation coefficients of -0.367** and -0.383**, respectively. This implies that an increase in population density results in a reduction in urban green spaces. Additionally, there was a moderate negative correlation that was significant (-0.398**) between population density and mean shape index.

Table 6. Pearson correlation between population density and urban green space metrics.

Variables Population density NP PD PCUGS UGSI LPI SHAPE_MN ENN_MN
Population density Pearson Correlation 1 -.286* -.069 -.367** -.383** -.235 -.398** .147
Sig. (1-tailed) .033 .332 .008 .006 .067 .005 .176
N 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Fig 4. Relationship between population density and PCGS.

Fig 4

(a) Population density map of Lilongwe City prepared from the Malawi population and housing census report [26] by the authors, (b) Per Capita Green Space distribution of Lilongwe City.

Distribution of urban green space in functional land uses in Lilongwe city

The study has shown variations in the distribution of urban green spaces in functional land uses in Lilongwe City (Table 7). The study revealed that 59.7% of Lilongwe City’s total green area was contained under functional land uses. In contrast to other functional land uses, the largest proportion of green spaces were found in residential neighbourhoods. In addition, 67.6% of UGS were found in residential zones. Particularly, 17.3%, 12.0%, 22.2%, 12.0%, and 4.1% of UGS were found in high-rise flat areas, medium-density residential areas, low-density residential areas, quasi-residential areas, and low-density residential zones, respectively. Similarly, green spaces covered 12.5%, 6.6%, and 13.3% of the area in commercial, industrial, and government land uses, respectively.

Table 7. Distribution of urban green spaces in functional land uses in Lilongwe City.

  Functional Land Use Types Land Area (ha) Land (%) UGS Area (ha) UGS Area (%)
1
Residential Class
1.1 High Density Residential 6608.27 28.0 490.99 17.3
1.2 Medium Density Residential 1892.32 8.0 340.01 12.0
1.3 Low Density Residential 2651.61 11.2 627.66 22.2
1.4 Quasi Residential 6026.44 25.5 339.51 12.0
1.5 High Rise Flat Area 1145.82 4.9 117.36 4.1
2
Commercial Class
2.1 Commercial Area 1600.44 6.8 180.48 6.4
2.2 High Rise Commercial 214.58 0.9 173.84 6.1
3
Industrial Class
3.1 Heavy/Large Scale Industry 1324.83 5.6 141.45 5.0
3.2 Light Industry 427.00 1.8 45.07 1.6
4 Government Class 1733.35 7.3 375.41 13.3
Totals 23624.66 100.0 2831.78 100.0

Landscape metrics analysis for the UGS for four land use classes

The spatial patterns, compositions, and configurations of the nine land use classes varied according to the results of the landscape metric (Table 8). The number of green space patches (NP) found within each functional land use area varied significantly, with the highest number of patches recorded in the residential land use zones (10,226 patches). This indicates that NP in residential areas made up 71.6% of all patches in the study area, with high-density residential areas having the most patches and low-density residential areas having the fewest patches. For the PD, high-rise commercial areas had the greatest PD (133.8), followed by medium-density residential areas (PD of 110.3), and high-rise flat areas had the lowest PD (43.6). In terms of the largest patch index (LPI), low-density residential land use areas had the highest index of 9.81 and the quasi-residential class was the land use category with the smallest patch size, with a value of 0.35. A higher LPI rating for low-density residential areas denotes the presence of larger and better-connected green spaces in the landscape. On the other hand, lower LPI values imply that the green space is more fragmented, with smaller patches dispersed over the landscape. A higher LPI rating for low-density residential denotes the presence of larger and better-connected green spaces in the landscape.

Table 8. Composition and configuration of UGS in functional land use in Lilongwe City.

  Land Use Types NP PD LPI SHAPE_MN ENN_MN
1 Residential Class          
  1.1 High Density Residential 3584 63.9 0.51 1.17 41.5
  1.2 Medium Density Residential 1976 110.3 2.30 1.25 28.3
  1.3 Low Density Residential 1387 82.5 9.81 1.32 26.5
  1.4 Quasi Residential 2779 55.3 0.35 1.17 45.5
  1.5 High Rise Flat Area 500 43.6 1.60 1.26 41.3
2 Commercial Class
  2.1 Commercial Area 1301 89.3 0.71 1.20 35.0
  2.2 High Rise Commercial 287 133.8 3.99 1.25 28.54
3 Industrial Class
  3.1 Heavy/Large Scale Industry 679 51.3 1.31 1.21 39.92
  3.2 Light Industry 217 50.8 2.04 1.22 35.73
4 Government Class 1568 90.0 4.40 1.25 31.22

In addition, the mean shape index (SHAPE_MN), an indicator of spatial configuration, showed the high complexity of the shapes of urban green spaces in all the functional land uses. The low-density residential areas had greenery that was more complex and irregular in shape (SHAPE_MN = 1.32) than the other functional land use categories. In contrast, the lowest green space shape complexities were observed in the quasi-residential areas (SHAPE_MN = 1.17).

The analysis of the mean Euclidean nearest neighbour distance (ENN_MN) indicated that quasi-residential areas had the highest value of 45.54; similarly, quasi-residential and high-rise flat residential areas had high values among the other functional land use types in the study area. This indicates that green spaces in quasi-residential areas are more dispersed or farther apart than those in areas with other land uses. The high value of ENN_MN indicates low clustering or concentration of green areas in the quasi-residential land use zones. On the other hand, low-density residential areas had the lowest ENN_MN value of 26.53.

Relationship between landscape metrics of urban green spaces and urban form metrics

The UGS metrics showed some significant relationships with the urban form metrics (Table 9). For instance, RD was strongly negatively correlated with SHAPE_MN (-0.663*). BD was strongly positively correlated with NP (0.714*), SHAPE_MN (0.681*) and ENN_MN (0.651*). This suggests that as building density increases, the number of patches (NP) in green spaces tends to increase as well. In addition, in areas with higher building density, the green spaces are farther apart from each other on average. MN_PARA had a strong negative correlation with PD (-0.785**), implying that areas with buildings that have a higher mean perimeter area ratio (indicating more irregularly shaped buildings or less open space) have lower patch density in terms of green spaces.

Table 9. Correlations between urban green space and urban form metrics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 NP 1
2 PD -.076 1
3 LPI -.230 .353 1
4 SHAPE_MN -.484 .335 .874** 1
5 ENN_MN .326 -.779** -.744* -.754* 1
6 RD .269 .189 -.445 -.663* .276 1
7 BD .714* -.336 -.424 -.681* .651* .471 1
8 MN_PARA .111 -.785** -.260 -.207 .480 -.347 .097 1
9 BC .410 .113 -.335 -.557 .309 .435 .734* -.322 1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Discussions

Urban green space distribution in Lilongwe City

Lilongwe City is one of the cities with abundant greenery. Despite having abundant greenery, there are disparities in the distribution of greenery among neighbourhoods and functional land uses. The study revealed that 20% of the neighbourhoods did not meet the minimum WHO-recommended value of 9 m2 of green space per individual [47]. This means that the available green spaces contribute little to the positive living in these neighbourhoods. It is worth noting that most of these neighbourhoods are in high-density and quasi-residential areas. These neighbourhoods contain approximately 50% of the total population of the city [48]. This shows how serious the disparities are in the distribution of UGS in the city. Unequal accessibility to urban green space among urban dwellers is recognised as an environmental justice issue [49].

In addition, the study revealed that population density was negatively correlated with urban green space. Numerous factors, such as a shortage of adequate land in densely populated neighbourhoods or encroachment on areas allocated for greenery, may contribute to this [27]. The quasi-residential areas, which are informal settlements, and some of these areas have encroached on environmentally sensitive areas with little space to provide them with green space. These results are consistent with those of Bille et al. [13], who investigated how population density affects patterns in urban green space around the world. They found a rapid decline in UGS coverage in areas with high population densities. Other authors have also observed the opposite effect of population on urban green spaces [50,51].

In Lilongwe City, most of the people who live in these undersupplied areas (quasi and high-density residential neighbourhoods) are low-income residents. In Lilongwe City, 73% of the residential land is composed of informal settlements and low-income neighbourhoods [48]. Disparities in green space distributions were also found in Southeast Asia [52], South Africa [21], Guangzhou, China [22], and Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney, Perth, and Melbourne [53], with low availability of greenery found in low-income neighbourhoods. Similarly, the poorest neighbourhoods in Hong Kong were observed to have limited access to green and blue spaces [54].

Urban dwellers who are deprived of the many benefits of UGS may be concerned about uneven distribution and a lack of UGS. The results highlight the challenges and need for sustainable urban planning and development to ensure equity in the distribution and accessibility of UGS to all city residents. Lack of access to green spaces in these densely populated areas can exacerbate already-existing health and environmental injustice disparities.

Urban green composition and configuration

Regarding the composition of UGS in functional land uses, the study has revealed that approximately 59.7% of UGS in Lilongwe City are found in functional land uses. Of this, 67.6% of UGS were found in residential zones. A high proportion of UGS in the residential areas was due to their relatively large areas. In functional land uses, residential usage accounts for about 77% of the total area.

In addition, the mean shape index (SHAPE_MN), which is one of the indicators of spatial configuration, showed the high complexity in the shapes of urban green spaces in all the functional land uses. The green spaces in low-density residential areas were more complex and irregular in shape compared to other functional land use categories. In comparison, the lowest green space shape complexities were observed in the quasi-residential areas. The complexity of green spaces in low-density residential areas may be attributed to the abundance of greenery in these areas, hence providing a variety of shapes. Studies have shown that more complex and irregularly shaped green spaces may provide higher aesthetic, recreational, ecological and health benefits since they interact well with the surrounding area [5557]. This implies that people who live in the low-density residential areas are more advantaged than those in the informal/quasi-residential areas of Lilongwe City.

Additionally, the study revealed that the largest patch index values were comparatively low across all functional land uses. Most of the functional land uses had LPIs of less than 3.0. Again, densely populated areas showed the lowest LPIs, which may be attributed to more structures and people living in these places leading to fragmentation. The low LPI also highlight the possibility of disparities in how different land use classes are supplied with green spaces.

The analysis of the mean Euclidean nearest neighbour distance (ENN_MN) indicated that quasi-residential areas had the highest value of 45.54; similarly, quasi-residential and high-rise flat residential areas are more dispersed or farther apart than other land uses. A high value of ENN_MN indicates that green areas are sparsely clustered or concentrated within quasi-residential land use zones. On the other hand, low-density residential areas had the lowest ENN_MN values.

The composition and configuration of urban green spaces in functional land uses highlight the challenges and underscore the need for sustainable urban planning and development to ensure equity in the distribution and accessibility of UGS to all city dwellers. Urban dwellers who are deprived of the many benefits of UGS may be concerned about uneven distribution and a lack of UGS. Furthermore, insufficient green spaces in densely populated areas can worsen already-existing health and environmental injustice disparities.

The association between urban green space and urban form metrics and implications for urban planning

The study revealed significant correlations between urban green space and urban form. For instance, BD is strongly positively correlated with NP, SHAPE_MN, and ENN_MN. This suggests that as building density increases, the number of patches (NP) of green spaces tends to increase as well. In addition, in areas with higher building density, the green spaces are farther apart from each other, with their shapes becoming more complex. The severity of fragmentation increases with the number of green space patches [58]. The high dispersion and isolation of UGS patches may be associated with the increase in building density. This finding agrees with the finding of Yeh et al. [59], who found that the distances between green spaces in highly urbanised areas were higher than those in less urbanised areas in the Taipei Metropolitan, Taiwan.

BC was strongly positively correlated with LPI. This implies that as the areas within the city become more urbanised and built-up (increased building coverage), larger and more connected green spaces may be present. Similarly, the building perimeter area ratio (MN_PARA), which is a measure of the complexity of the built-up area, showed a significant negative relationship with the PD of green space. We found that areas with compact building forms were less fragmented. This could be due to urban planning interventions that prioritise larger green areas within the central areas of the city [27]. Lilongwe City was built on the garden city concept and has abundant large patches of green space, such as nature sanctuaries, botanic gardens, and golf courses within the central part of the city [27]. In contrast to the findings of Huang et al. [45] and Bereitschaft & Debbage [40], who found that cities with complex urban areas (higher PARA values) had highly fragmented UGS. Compact building forms such as high-rise buildings and mixed-use developments may improve UGS efficiency since they use land more effectively and free up more space for green spaces [60]. This is accomplished by checking urban sprawl and maximising land usage, which increases the overall green space per capita in denser neighbourhoods. However, compact building forms may result in higher population densities, which may lead to the loss of existing greenery to pave the way for buildings and infrastructure to accommodate large populations. Compact building forms can cause UGS fragmentation.

The relationship between the distribution and availability of UGS and urban form and design can be bidirectional. Urban green space is significantly correlated with urban form, which suggests that urban form is crucial to understanding the distribution and configuration of UGS. Urban development plans should incorporate green spaces and consider their significance. Smart growth strategies that prioritise compact and mixed-use development can help with this [60,61]. These strategies seek to preserve or improve green spaces while increasing the density of roads, and both density and coverage of buildings. Integrating UGS into urban fabric improves cities’ aesthetic appeal and supports biodiversity and ecological conservation [62]. The purpose of the present research was to establish relationships between UGS and urban form. Future research should consider establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between urban form and UGS.

Our study not only highlights the challenges in the provisioning of UGS in this specific urban context of Lilongwe City, but it also echoes broader global trends in environmental justice and urban planning studies that have developed over time. By cross-referencing our findings with those from other regions, we contribute to a more robust validation of core principles of urban planning, particularly the need for equitable access to green spaces. This cross-contextual validation demonstrates the universality of challenges such as inequitable green space distribution and the impact of urban form on the quality and accessibility of UGS.

Conclusions

This study revealed that urban green spaces are distributed unevenly among different neighbourhoods and functional land uses in Lilongwe City, despite the city’s abundance of green spaces. A sizeable fraction of the populace resides in places with inadequate access to the recommended amounts of green space per person. The study also showed that population density is one of the factors influencing the availability and distribution of UGS as low green space coverage was observed in highly populated neighbourhoods. A low supply of UGS in low-income, high-density and informal settlements may raise concerns about environmental justice. Therefore, deliberate efforts should be undertaken to establish green areas in neighbourhoods with lower urban green space coverage to enhance the liveability and inequities in the distribution of UGS in Lilongwe City. The study has also shown that the spatial composition and configuration of UGSs are complex and differ with land use class. However, low-density and quasi-residential land uses were found to have more complex green spaces. It was also revealed that urban form had an impact on the composition and configuration of UGS. Urban form indicators such as building coverage, building density, and road density had significant associations with the distribution and configuration of urban green spaces. The study integrated urban form metrics with UGS metrics, a topic that is less explored in the context of developing cities like Lilongwe thereby bringing a novel perspective to the literature on urban planning. Urban form and green space have a complicated and multifaceted interaction. Therefore, urban planning and designs that consider the built environment as well as green spaces as essential elements are necessary to achieve sustainability and liveability in the city. To ensure that there is equitable distribution and accessibility, green spaces should be integrated into the urban fabric. This can be achieved by promoting urban smart growth strategies and policies, which can help strike a balance between development and the preservation of open space while promoting compact and mixed-use development.

Data Availability

The data can be accessed on a public repository via the following link: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/rfkv3y4237/1.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Tonne C, Adair L, Adlakha D, Anguelovski I, Belesova K, Berger M, et al. Defining pathways to healthy sustainable urban development. Environment International. 2021;146: 106236. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sinha BRK. Introduction: An Overview of the Concept of Quality of Life. In: Sinha BRK, editor. Multidimensional Approach to Quality of Life Issues. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019. pp. 3–23. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-6958-2_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Khoshkar S, Balfors B, Wärnbäck A. Planning for green qualities in the densification of suburban Stockholm–opportunities and challenges. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2018;61: 2613–2635. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1406342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sikorska D, Wojnowska-Heciak M, Heciak J, Bukowska J, Łaszkiewicz E, Hopkins RJ, et al. Rethinking urban green spaces for urban resilience. Do green spaces need adaptation to meet public post-covid expectations? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2023;80: 127838. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127838 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Woldesemayat EM, Genovese PV. Urban Green Space Composition and Configuration in Functional Land Use Areas in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Their Relationship with Urban Form. Land. 2021;10: 85. doi: 10.3390/land10010085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Junior DPM, Bueno C, Da Silva CM. The Effect of Urban Green Spaces on Reduction of Particulate Matter Concentration. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2022;108: 1104–1110. doi: 10.1007/s00128-022-03460-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Terkenli TS, Bell S, Živojinović I, Tomićević-Dubljević J, Panagopoulos T, Straupe I, et al. Recreational Use of Urban Green Infrastructure: The Tourist’s Perspective. In: Pearlmutter D, Calfapietra C, Samson R, e L, Krajter Ostoić S, Sanesi G et al., editors. The Urban Forest. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 191–216. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9_16 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Semeraro T, Scarano A, Buccolieri R, Santino A, Aarrevaara E. Planning of Urban Green Spaces: An Ecological Perspective on Human Benefits. Land. 2021;10: 105. doi: 10.3390/land10020105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lindemann-Matthies P, Brieger H. Does urban gardening increase aesthetic quality of urban areas? A case study from Germany. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2016;17: 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chang L-S, Bisgrove RJ, Liao M-Y. Improving educational functions in botanic gardens by employing landscape narratives. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2008;86: 233–247. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wortzel JD, Wiebe DJ, DiDomenico GE, Visoki E, South E, Tam V, et al. Association Between Urban Greenspace and Mental Wellbeing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a U.S. Cohort. Front Sustain Cities. 2021;3: 686159. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.686159 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Addas A. The importance of urban green spaces in the development of smart cities. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11: 1206372. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1206372 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bille RA, Jensen KE, Buitenwerf R. Global patterns in urban green space are strongly linked to human development and population density. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2023;86: 127980. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127980 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen J, Kinoshita T, Li H, Luo S, Su D, Yang X, et al. Toward green equity: An extensive study on urban form and green space equity for shrinking cities. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2023;90: 104395. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104395 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Colding J, Lundberg J, Folke C. Incorporating Green-area User Groups in Urban Ecosystem Management. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 2006;35: 237–244. doi: 10.1579/05-a-098r.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bush J. The role of local government greening policies in the transition towards nature-based cities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 2020;35: 35–44. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Garcia-Garcia MJ, Christien L, García-Escalona E, González-García C. Sensitivity of green spaces to the process of urban planning. Three case studies of Madrid (Spain). Cities. 2020;100: 102655. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102655 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gulsrud NM, Hertzog K, Shears I. Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research. 2018;161: 158–167. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Csomós G, Farkas JZ, Kovács Z. Access to urban green spaces and environmental inequality in post-socialist cities. HunGeoBull. 2020;69: 191–207. doi: 10.15201/hungeobull.69.2.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Richards DR, Passy P, Oh RRY. Impacts of population density and wealth on the quantity and structure of urban green space in tropical Southeast Asia. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2017;157: 553–560. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Venter ZS, Shackleton CM, Van Staden F, Selomane O, Masterson VA. Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2020;203: 103889. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103889 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang W, Yang R, Zhou S. The spatial heterogeneity of urban green space inequity from a perspective of the vulnerable: A case study of Guangzhou, China. Cities. 2022;130: 103855. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103855 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mawenda J, Watanabe T, Avtar R. An Analysis of Urban Land Use/Land Cover Changes in Blantyre City, Southern Malawi (1994–2018). Sustainability. 2020;12: 2377. doi: 10.3390/su12062377 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mungai LM, Messina JP, Zulu LC, Qi J, Snapp S. Modeling Spatiotemporal Patterns of Land Use/Land Cover Change in Central Malawi Using a Neural Network Model. Remote Sensing. 2022;14: 3477. doi: 10.3390/rs14143477 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Munthali MG, Davis N, Adeola AM, Botai JO, Kamwi JM, Chisale HLW, et al. Local Perception of Drivers of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Dynamics across Dedza District, Central Malawi Region. Sustainability. 2019;11: 832. doi: 10.3390/su11030832 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nazombe K, Nambazo O. Monitoring and assessment of urban green space loss and fragmentation using remote sensing data in the four cities of Malawi from 1986 to 2021. Scientific African. 2023;20: e01639. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01639 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.JICA. The Study on Urban Development Master Plan for Lilongwe in the Republic of Malawi. 2010. Available: https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12003752_01.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chen Y, Jones CA, Dunse NA, Li E, Liu Y. Housing Prices and the Characteristics of Nearby Green Space: Does Landscape Pattern Index Matter? Evidence from Metropolitan Area. Land. 2023;12: 496. doi: 10.3390/land12020496 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Davies RG, Barbosa O, Fuller RA, Tratalos J, Burke N, Lewis D, et al. City-wide relationships between green spaces, urban land use and topography. Urban Ecosyst. 2008;11: 269–287. doi: 10.1007/s11252-008-0062-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Park J-H, Cho G-H. Examining the Association between Physical Characteristics of Green Space and Land Surface Temperature: A Case Study of Ulsan, Korea. Sustainability. 2016;8: 777. doi: 10.3390/su8080777 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Robinson JM, Mavoa S, Robinson K, Brindley P. Urban centre green metrics in Great Britain: A geospatial and socioecological study. Ustaoglu E, editor. PLoS ONE. 2022;17: e0276962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shekhar S, Aryal J. Role of geospatial technology in understanding urban green space of Kalaburagi city for sustainable planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2019;46: 126450. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126450 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.NSO. 2018 Malawi Population and Housing Census. 2018. Available: https://malawi.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/2018%20Malawi%20Population%20and%20Housing%20Census%20Main%20Report%20%281%29.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Malawi Government. National Urban Policy. 2019. Available: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlw205526.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Li Q, Peng K, Cheng P. Community-Level Urban Green Space Equity Evaluation Based on Spatial Design Network Analysis (sDNA): A Case Study of Central Wuhan, China. IJERPH. 2021;18: 10174. doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Viana CM, Oliveira S, Oliveira SC, Rocha J. Land Use/Land Cover Change Detection and Urban Sprawl Analysis. Spatial Modeling in GIS and R for Earth and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier; 2019. pp. 621–651. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815226-3.00029–6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chung S, Breshears LE, Yoon J-Y. Smartphone near infrared monitoring of plant stress. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2018;154: 93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2018.08.046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.You H. Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International. 2016;56: 176–180. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.05.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Nero BF. Urban green space dynamics and socio-environmental inequity: multi-resolution and spatiotemporal data analysis of Kumasi, Ghana. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2017;38: 6993–7020. doi: 10.1080/01431161.2017.1370152 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bereitschaft B, Debbage K. Regional Variations in Urban Fragmentation Among U.S. Metropolitan and Megapolitan Areas. Appl Spatial Analysis. 2014;7: 119–147. doi: 10.1007/s12061-013-9092-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Guan Y, Li X, Li S, Sun H, Liu H. Effect of Urban fringes green space fragmentation on ecosystem service value. Ustaoglu E, editor. PLoS ONE. 2022;17: e0263452. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rezaei N, Millard-Ball A. Urban form and its impacts on air pollution and access to green space: A global analysis of 462 cities. Mosa AM, editor. PLoS ONE. 2023;18: e0278265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Margaritis E, Kang J. Relationship between green space-related morphology and noise pollution. Ecological Indicators. 2017;72: 921–933. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tratalos J, Fuller RA, Warren PH, Davies RG, Gaston KJ. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007;83: 308–317. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Huang C, Yang J, Jiang P. Assessing Impacts of Urban Form on Landscape Structure of Urban Green Spaces in China Using Landsat Images Based on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing. 2018;10: 1569. doi: 10.3390/rs10101569 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Faizi N, Alvi Y. Correlation. Biostatistics Manual for Health Research. Elsevier; 2023. pp. 109–126. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-18550-2.00002–5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Russo A, Cirella G. Modern Compact Cities: How Much Greenery Do We Need? IJERPH. 2018;15: 2180. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Habitat UN. Malawi: Lilongwe Urban Profile. 2011. Available: https://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/medioambiente/onu/issue06/1136-eng.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jennings V, Johnson Gaither C, Gragg RS. Promoting Environmental Justice Through Urban Green Space Access: A Synopsis. Environmental Justice. 2012;5: 1–7. doi: 10.1089/env.2011.0007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li F, Wang X, Liu H, Li X, Zhang X, Sun Y, et al. Does economic development improve urban greening? Evidence from 289 cities in China using spatial regression models. Environ Monit Assess. 2018;190: 541. doi: 10.1007/s10661-018-6871-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zhang W, Randall M, Jensen MB, Brandt M, Wang Q, Fensholt R. Socio-economic and climatic changes lead to contrasting global urban vegetation trends. Global Environmental Change. 2021;71: 102385. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102385 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Vaz AS, Kueffer C, Kull CA, Richardson DM, Vicente JR, Kühn I, et al. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem Services. 2017;23: 94–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Astell-Burt T, Feng X, Mavoa S, Badland HM, Giles-Corti B. Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities. BMC Public Health. 2014;14: 292. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Liu D, Kwan M-P. Integrated analysis of doubly disadvantaged neighborhoods by considering both green space and blue space accessibility and COVID-19 infection risk. Mazzeo D, editor. PLoS ONE. 2022;17: e0273125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Alcock I, White MP, Wheeler BW, Fleming LE, Depledge MH. Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48: 1247–1255. doi: 10.1021/es403688w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sodoudi S, Zhang H, Chi X, Müller F, Li H. The influence of spatial configuration of green areas on microclimate and thermal comfort. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2018;34: 85–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Vos CC, Berry P, Opdam P, Baveco H, Nijhof B, O’Hanley J, et al. Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate‐proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2008;45: 1722–1731. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01569.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Rahimi E, Barghjelveh S, Dong P. Using the Lonsdorf model for estimating habitat loss and fragmentation effects on pollination service. Ecol Process. 2021;10: 22. doi: 10.1186/s13717-021-00291-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yeh C-T, Cheng Y-Y, Liu T-Y. Spatial Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Human Health: An Exploratory Analysis of Canonical Correlation. IJERPH. 2020;17: 3227. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Fan P, Lee Y-C, Ouyang Z, Huang S-L. Compact and green urban development—towards a framework to assess urban development for a high-density metropolis. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14: 115006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4635 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Balikçi S, Giezen M, Arundel R. The paradox of planning the compact and green city: analyzing land-use change in Amsterdam and Brussels. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2022;65: 2387–2411. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2021.1971069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Haaland C, Van Den Bosch CK. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2015;14: 760–771. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Saeid Norouzian-Maleki

26 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-36331The spatial heterogeneity of urban green space distribution and configuration in Lilongwe City, MalawiPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nambazo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewer #1: It seems that the study is structured and coherent, and the process from question to answer has been logically progressed in the direction of the research. The only problem is the lack of tables that show some of the analysis and results more clearly, and it is recommended to fix this deficiency in the comments of the attached file.

Reviewer #2: This work started with an interesting concept but was not very well executed or presented. I would like to kindly ask the authors to make further efforts to revise their manuscript based on the following comments:

Notwithstanding the manuscript's endeavor to delineate functional land use categories, it either parallels pre-existing literature or falls short of introducing profound novel insights. Scholarly manuscripts are esteemed for their novelty and seminal contributions. Redundancies with extant literature or the absence of innovative perspectives diminish its perceived value.

The field of management of green spaces offers a variety of methodologies and strategies. Attempting to encapsulate or categorize these within a single manuscript is commendably ambitious but poses a quandary—the balance between comprehensiveness and depth. While the manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive perspective, it risks compromising depth, critical assessment, or intricate explication of specific methodologies. The hallmark of academic literature lies in its depth, rigorous analysis, and groundbreaking revelations. Overextension risks diluting these attributes, offering only superficial overviews without profound insights into specific subjects or methodologies.

The findings remain mostly generic and descriptive. Some interesting considerations are reported in the concluding section, but these are not adequately articulated and backed by data.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 11 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please include the reference section of your manuscript.

5. We note that Figure(s) 1, 2 and 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1, 2 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It seems that the study is structured and coherent, and the process from question to answer has been logically progressed in the direction of the research. The only problem is the lack of tables that show some of the analysis and results more clearly, and it is recommended to fix this deficiency in the comments of the attached file.

Reviewer #2: This work started with an interesting concept but was not very well executed or presented. I would like to kindly ask the authors to make further efforts to revise their manuscript based on the following comments:

Notwithstanding the manuscript's endeavor to delineate functional land use categories, it either parallels pre-existing literature or falls short of introducing profound novel insights. Scholarly manuscripts are esteemed for their novelty and seminal contributions. Redundancies with extant literature or the absence of innovative perspectives diminish its perceived value.

The field of management of green spaces offers a variety of methodologies and strategies. Attempting to encapsulate or categorize these within a single manuscript is commendably ambitious but poses a quandary—the balance between comprehensiveness and depth. While the manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive perspective, it risks compromising depth, critical assessment, or intricate explication of specific methodologies. The hallmark of academic literature lies in its depth, rigorous analysis, and groundbreaking revelations. Overextension risks diluting these attributes, offering only superficial overviews without profound insights into specific subjects or methodologies.

The findings remain mostly generic and descriptive. Some interesting considerations are reported in the concluding section, but these are not adequately articulated and backed by data.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-36331_reviewer_1.pdf

pone.0307518.s001.pdf (1.8MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 24;19(7):e0307518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307518.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Jun 2024

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

Response: We have carefully checked the PLOS ONE style templates and we have adjusted throughout the manuscript to fulfill the requirements.

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

Response: We believe this is not applicable in our case since we did not do any coding.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

Response: We have created an account and uploaded our datasets to Mendeley Data. This is an open-access repository. The data can be accessed through the following doi: 10.17632/rfkv3y4237.1

4. Please include the reference section of your manuscript.

Response: A reference section has been added.

5. We note that Figure(s) 1, 2 and 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1, 2 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Response. In our revised manuscript we added a different Figure (Fig 1) on page 5, which shows the location of the study area. The data used to prepare the maps is publicly available. We properly referred to the data sources of the map within the map’s labels. Figures 2 and 3 have been removed.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: All necessary information has been included within the main manuscript.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Response: We have included a methodological framework of the manuscript to better connect all the elements of our study on page 5 as Figure 2. We have also included Table 6 on page 12 showing detailed statistical results that supports further our observed results with our conclusions.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Response: As already stated in the response to the Academic Editor, we have made all underlining data fully available in the Mendeley Data open-access repository. The following is the doi: 10.17632/rfkv3y4237.1

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Response: The English grammar of the revised version has been greatly improved.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It seems that the study is structured and coherent, and the process from question to answer has been logically progressed in the direction of the research. The only problem is the lack of tables that show some of the analysis and results more clearly, and it is recommended to fix this deficiency in the comments of the attached file.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We introduced Table 3 on page 8 to provide an overview of the urban form metrics used. To further elucidate the relationship between population density and green space configuration, we added Table 6 on page 12. A diagram of the process has also been included on page 5.

Reviewer #2: This work started with an interesting concept but was not very well executed or presented. I would like to kindly ask the authors to make further efforts to revise their manuscript based on the following comments:

Notwithstanding the manuscript's endeavor to delineate functional land use categories, it either parallels pre-existing literature or falls short of introducing profound novel insights. Scholarly manuscripts are esteemed for their novelty and seminal contributions. Redundancies with extant literature or the absence of innovative perspectives diminish its perceived value.

The field of management of green spaces offers a variety of methodologies and strategies. Attempting to encapsulate or categorize these within a single manuscript is commendably ambitious but poses a quandary—the balance between comprehensiveness and depth. While the manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive perspective, it risks compromising depth, critical assessment, or intricate explication of specific methodologies. The hallmark of academic literature lies in its depth, rigorous analysis, and groundbreaking revelations. Overextension risks diluting these attributes, offering only superficial overviews without profound insights into specific subjects or methodologies.

The findings remain mostly generic and descriptive. Some interesting considerations are reported in the concluding section, but these are not adequately articulated and backed by data.

Response: We appreciate the insightful comments and constructive critiques you provided. We recognize the importance of emphasising the unique contributions of our study, especially in a well-researched field. To address this concern, we have revised the introduction and discussion sections to better highlight the unique aspects of our research. We clarified that our study is one of the first to comprehensively analyse urban green space distribution in Lilongwe, providing new data and insights from a lesser-studied geographical context where UGS research is scarce (page 3 line 68). We expanded on how our work integrates urban form metrics with UGS analysis, which is less explored in the context of developing cities like Lilongwe, adding a novel perspective to urban planning literature (page 20 line 447). In addition, we emphasised our findings on the inequities in green space distribution and how they contribute to discussions on environmental justice in urban settings, particularly in developing countries like Malawi (Page 26 Line 326). Further, by cross-referencing our findings with those from other regions, we contribute to a more robust validation of core principles of urban planning, particularly the need for equitable access to green spaces. This cross-contextual validation demonstrates the universality of challenges such as inequitable green space distribution and the impact of urban form on the quality and accessibility of UGSs (Page 20 Line 425 and throughout the discussion). We have added a new table to better support our claims and provide clearer, more detailed insights into the relationship between population and urban greenspaces in Lilongwe (Table 6 on page 12).

Decision Letter 1

Saeid Norouzian-Maleki

17 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-36331R1The spatial heterogeneity of urban green space distribution and configuration in Lilongwe City, MalawiPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nambazo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewer #1: The added tables and especially the prepared diagram helped me understand the topic better. However, figures 2 and 3 would have been better if they had not been deleted because they better showed the population distribution and green space.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. All comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The added tables and especially the prepared diagram helped me understand the topic better. However, figures 2 and 3 would have been better if they had not been deleted because they better showed the population distribution and green space.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. All comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 24;19(7):e0307518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307518.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Jul 2024

Reviewer #1: The added tables and especially the prepared diagram helped me understand the topic better. However, figures 2 and 3 would have been better if they had not been deleted because they better showed the population distribution and green space.

Response: We have reinstated figures 2 and 3, now figures 3 and 4 respectively. These figures have been prepared by the authors. Figure 3 is derived from sentinel 2 images. These images have no restrictions on reuse, sale, or redistribution. They only require that the author include a statement of the data source in their manuscripts. Figure 4 was prepared from the public report, the Malawi population and housing census 2018.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0307518.s002.docx (16.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Saeid Norouzian-Maleki

8 Jul 2024

The spatial heterogeneity of urban green space distribution and configuration in Lilongwe City, Malawi

PONE-D-23-36331R2

Dear Dr. Nambazo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Saeid Norouzian-Maleki, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Saeid Norouzian-Maleki

15 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-36331R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nambazo,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Saeid Norouzian-Maleki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-36331_reviewer_1.pdf

    pone.0307518.s001.pdf (1.8MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0307518.s002.docx (16.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data can be accessed on a public repository via the following link: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/rfkv3y4237/1.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES