Generating Inclusive Health Benefits from Urban Green Spaces: An Empirical Study of Beijing Olympic Forest Park
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research is highly commendable as a very important study for the future of UGS. However, there were some points that were somewhat confusing, as shown below, and I would appreciate your consideration.
1. Please add the title and source of the paper as they are missing in reference 28.
2. Cohen, et al. (1983) and Warttig, et al., 2013 exhibits listed in Table 1 should be added to the References.
3. Line 219: An unusual symbol is used after the number 0.83. Since it is probably a percentage, it should be corrected.
4. You use BMI to assess obesity for all visitors, is this a problem? In general, BMI is an index to evaluate obesity for people over 15 years of age, and I believe the Laurel Index is often used for children under 14 years of age.
5. What was the reason for setting the survey period for 28 days in July? I think people with health concerns would avoid mid-summer, which is hard on the body. Why not spring or fall, when the weather is milder than the hot summer of July?
6. Line 264: Why did you use 747 samples instead of 833 in Figure 3 for the BMI calculation?
7. The greenery, ponds, lawns, and park facilities (benches, restrooms, concession stands, etc.) are also important factors that encourage people to visit parks. Have such factors not been considered?
8. What are the specific questions for PSL calculation?
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
Comment 1: Please add the title and source of the paper as they are missing in reference 28.
Response to Comment 1:
Thank you very much for pointing this out. We apologize for the oversight. The title and source of the paper in reference 28 have been added.
Comment 2: Cohen, et al. (1983) and Warttig, et al., 2013 exhibits listed in Table 1 should be added to the References.
Response to Comment 2:
Thank you very much for pointing this out. We apologize for the oversight. Cohen, et al. (1983) and Warttig, et al., 2013 exhibits listed in Table 1 have been added to the References, and the numbering of the references in the main text has been adjusted accordingly.
Comment 3: Line 219: An unusual symbol is used after the number 0.83. Since it is probably a percentage, it should be corrected.
Response to Comment 3:
Thank you very much for pointing this out. In the revision, the value has been expressed as a percentage, i.e., 0.0083% (R255).
Comment 4: You use BMI to assess obesity for all visitors, is this a problem? In general, BMI is an index to evaluate obesity for people over 15 years of age, and I believe the Laurel Index is often used for children under 14 years of age.
Response to Comment 4:
Thank you for the comment. We apologize for the unclear expression. In the study, a total of 833 respondents were calculated and assessed for BMI, all of whom were 18 years of age or older. In the revision, Figure 4 (also shown below) presents the flow of pre-processing of the whole sample, which, at its last step, shows that people with age below 18 years were excluded for BMI analysis.
Comment 5: What was the reason for setting the survey period for 28 days in July? I think people with health concerns would avoid mid-summer, which is hard on the body. Why not spring or fall, when the weather is milder than the hot summer of July?
Response to Comment 5:
Thank you for the comment. Given the retrospective nature of our study, in order to eliminate the effect of human memory on the responses to survey questions, we have chosen “the past 28 days” as the survey period for respondents. If respondents were asked about their visits to the Park in spring or fall, their recollections may be less accurate, thus affecting the data credibility.
Comment 6: Line 264: Why did you use 747 samples instead of 833 in Figure 3 for the BMI calculation?
Response to Comment 6:
Thank you for the comment. We apologize for the lack of clarity on this issue. In analyzing BMI, this study focused on pairwise comparisons of adjacent BMI classes – binary samples of BMI(underweight/normal), BMI(normal/overweight) and BMI(overweight/obese) were yield after binary conversion. Because the regressions for variables BMI(underweight/normal) and BMI(overweight/obese) did not converge and valid statistical values could not be obtained, this study only presents the result from analyzing the dependent variable BMI(normal/overweight). In total, 747 samples were analyzed.
In the revision, the above elaboration has been added in section 3.3 data analysis (R297-R300, R308-R312).
Comment 7: The greenery, ponds, lawns, and park facilities (benches, restrooms, concession stands, etc.) are also important factors that encourage people to visit parks. Have such factors not been considered?
Response to Comment 7:
Thank you for the comment. We fully agree that features of urban green spaces (UGS) matter in encouraging people’s visits. However, our study only surveyed visitors to the Beijing Olympic Forest Park, that means there are no variations in UGS features in our samples, which makes it impossible to analyze the effect of these factors on the park-visiting behavior.
We acknowledge this is a limitation of the study. The below context has been added to the discussion section (R519-R523):
“…This prevents us from understanding the role of UGS features such as greenery, ponds, lawns, and park facilities in motivating visitation due to lack of variations in UGS features in our samples, as well as an analytical discussion of UGS access and uses at the urban scale…”
Comment 8: What are the specific questions for PSL calculation?
Response to Comment 8:
Thank you for the question. In PSL calculation, respondents rate how often they experience stressful situations on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘very often’. Specific questions for PSL calculation were: 1) In the last month how often have you felt you were unable to control the important things in your life? 2) In the last month how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? 3) In the last month how often have you felt that things were going your way? 4) In the last month how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?
In the revision, the above elaboration has been added as a table note to Table 1 (R237-R243).
Reviewer #2:
Comment 1: The text needs an additional round of proofreading, because there are a few spelling mistakes left.
Response to Comment 1:
Thank you for pointing out this issue. We apologize for the oversight over spelling mistakes. A thorough spell-check on the manuscript has been conducted and the misspellings have been corrected.
Comment 2: Is there any particular reason that areas are given in square hectometres (hm2) instead of square kilometres (km2) (R99 and R102)?
Response to Comment 2:
Thank you for the comment. In the revision, both values are expressed in square kilometres (km2) (R118 and R121).
Comment 3: In Figure 2, I would personally change "enabling resources" into "enabling factors". It seems to fit better the variables listed in the box.
Response to Comment 3:
Thank you for this comment. We fully agree with your observation. In the revision, “enabling factors” has been used instead of “enabling resources”.
Comment 4: The definitions of the four models (R136-150) are interesting as introductory equations, but I think a diagram showing the workings of each model might prove beneficial for a wide variety of readers (I would suggest something similar to Figure 3 as a model for the diagrams dedicated to the four models)
Response to Comment 4:
Thank you for this suggestion. We fully agree that a logic flow-chart of setting up the econometric models would be very helpful for conceptual orientation. In the revision, the figure below has been added in section 3.1.1 econometric models (R173).
Comment 5: I think one of the main contributions of this article are sections 4.3 and 4.4, and especially their treatment in the discussion section. Against this background, I would arrange these findings according to their planning relevance in the conclusions section, while at the same time taking care to phrase them as clear take-home messages for planning practitioners.
Response to Comment 5:
Thank you for this important suggestion. The below context has been added to the conclusion section (R541-R553).
“There are some implications for planning practitioners if we are to leverage health potential from UGS recreation. While distance is one of the most important factors influencing people in making visiting decisions, route friendliness may provide a complementary role in encouraging UGS visits. Creating routes to UGS that are more conducive to non-motorized travel such as walking and cycling could be seen as an important instrument to increase UGS visitation. Secondly, in relieving stress, encouraging visits to different types of UGS should be beneficial, regardless of activity types and not necessary to large green parks. Thirdly, both the incentives to park visitation and stress relieving effect are more pronounced in elder groups, indicating higher potentials of such an approach in cities with an aging population.”
Meanwhile, we also include key messages from sections 4.3 and 4.4 in the abstract, as below:
“…The study also solidifies the mid-term stress-relieving effect of park recreation that increased with visiting frequency, and found that visits to different types of UGS should all be beneficial, not have to be large green parks. While distance is a decisive factor in encouraging UGS visits, route friendliness was found to have a complementing role, implying that creating routes to UGS that are more conducive to non-motorized travel (walking and cycling) could be seen as an important instrument. Both the incentives to park visitation and stress-relieving effect are more pronounced in elder groups, indicating higher potentials of such an approach in cities with an aging population…”
Comment 6: The question of two-way causality must remain open at this stage. Hence, I would clearly underline this issue both in the abstract and in the methodological section, so as not to mislead readers.
Response to Comment 6:
Thank you for this comment. We totally agree that the questions of two-way causality should remain open. The text below has been added to the end of the abstract:
“Limitations of the study includes: 1) given the nature of cross-sectional data, the possibility of two-way causality cannot be ruled out, …”
Above clarification has also been included in section 3.1.1 econometric models (R208-R211).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have personally found the text interesting, especially from an urban planning point of view. Here are my observations:
- The text needs an additional round of proofreading, because there are a few spelling mistakes left.
- Is there any particular reason that areas are given in square hectometres (hm2) instead of square kilometres (km2) (R99 and R102)?
- In Figure 2, I would personally change "enabling resources" into "enabling factors". It seems to fit better the variables listed in the box.
- The definitions of the four models (R136-150) are interesting as introductory equations, but I think a diagram showing the workings of each model might prove beneficial for a wide variety of readers (I would suggest something similar to Figure 3 as a model for the diagrams dedicated to the four models).
- I think one of the main contributions of this article are sections 4.3 and 4.4, and especially their treatment in the discussion section. Against this background, I would arrange these findings according to their planning relevance in the conclusions section, while at the same time taking care to phrase them as clear take-home messages for planning practitioners.
- The question of two-way causality must remain open at this stage. Hence, I would clearly underline this issue both in the abstract and in the methodological section, so as not to mislead readers.
Author Response
Comment 1: The text needs an additional round of proofreading, because there are a few spelling mistakes left.
Response to Comment 1:
Thank you for pointing out this issue. We apologize for the oversight over spelling mistakes. A thorough spell-check on the manuscript has been conducted and the misspellings have been corrected.
Comment 2: Is there any particular reason that areas are given in square hectometres (hm2) instead of square kilometres (km2) (R99 and R102)?
Response to Comment 2:
Thank you for the comment. In the revision, both values are expressed in square kilometres (km2) (R118 and R121).
Comment 3: In Figure 2, I would personally change "enabling resources" into "enabling factors". It seems to fit better the variables listed in the box.
Response to Comment 3:
Thank you for this comment. We fully agree with your observation. In the revision, “enabling factors” has been used instead of “enabling resources”.
Comment 4: The definitions of the four models (R136-150) are interesting as introductory equations, but I think a diagram showing the workings of each model might prove beneficial for a wide variety of readers (I would suggest something similar to Figure 3 as a model for the diagrams dedicated to the four models)
Response to Comment 4:
Thank you for this suggestion. We fully agree that a logic flow-chart of setting up the econometric models would be very helpful for conceptual orientation. In the revision, the figure below has been added in section 3.1.1 econometric models (R173).
Comment 5: I think one of the main contributions of this article are sections 4.3 and 4.4, and especially their treatment in the discussion section. Against this background, I would arrange these findings according to their planning relevance in the conclusions section, while at the same time taking care to phrase them as clear take-home messages for planning practitioners.
Response to Comment 5:
Thank you for this important suggestion. The below context has been added to the conclusion section (R541-R553).
“There are some implications for planning practitioners if we are to leverage health potential from UGS recreation. While distance is one of the most important factors influencing people in making visiting decisions, route friendliness may provide a complementary role in encouraging UGS visits. Creating routes to UGS that are more conducive to non-motorized travel such as walking and cycling could be seen as an important instrument to increase UGS visitation. Secondly, in relieving stress, encouraging visits to different types of UGS should be beneficial, regardless of activity types and not necessary to large green parks. Thirdly, both the incentives to park visitation and stress relieving effect are more pronounced in elder groups, indicating higher potentials of such an approach in cities with an aging population.”
Meanwhile, we also include key messages from sections 4.3 and 4.4 in the abstract, as below:
“…The study also solidifies the mid-term stress-relieving effect of park recreation that increased with visiting frequency, and found that visits to different types of UGS should all be beneficial, not have to be large green parks. While distance is a decisive factor in encouraging UGS visits, route friendliness was found to have a complementing role, implying that creating routes to UGS that are more conducive to non-motorized travel (walking and cycling) could be seen as an important instrument. Both the incentives to park visitation and stress-relieving effect are more pronounced in elder groups, indicating higher potentials of such an approach in cities with an aging population…”
Comment 6: The question of two-way causality must remain open at this stage. Hence, I would clearly underline this issue both in the abstract and in the methodological section, so as not to mislead readers.
Response to Comment 6:
Thank you for this comment. We totally agree that the questions of two-way causality should remain open. The text below has been added to the end of the abstract:
“Limitations of the study includes: 1) given the nature of cross-sectional data, the possibility of two-way causality cannot be ruled out, …”
Above clarification has also been included in section 3.1.1 econometric models (R208-R211).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
