Resident Preferences for Urban Green Spaces in Response to Pandemic Public Health Emergency: A Case Study of Shanghai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Since the current manuscript is a re-submission, the review will be based on the comments in the previous round of review. 

1) Even though the introduction limits the focus to COVID-19, the reviewer still believes the term PHE is too broad. Please limit the scope of this study.

2) The methods adopted by this study have tremendous improvements, but not all new methodology is included and clearly explained in the methodology section.

No issue was detected.

Author Response

Thank you for your interest in this study and for your suggestions. The attached PDF is a specific response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Resident Preferences for Urban Green Spaces in Response to Public Health Emergency: A Case Study of Shanghai

Thank you for sharing your findings on investigating the demands and preferences for urban green spaces among Shanghai residents affected by the pandemic and prolonged lockdowns and quarantines in 2022. This is a practical topic. Upon reviewing the manuscript, some issues have come to my attention, and I will elaborate on them below:

Abstract

The abstract needs to be improved. The abstract only describes the background of the study but does not identify the research gaps. It should explicitly outline the specific research gaps addressed by the study and clearly state the research objectives.

Although the abstract is quite lengthy, the data collection process, data analysis and theoretical implications of the study to the field of urban green spaces and public health are not clear. The authors can briefly discuss how the study findings align with relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Introduction

Although the introduction highlighted the critical role of urban parks in promoting health benefits during Public Health Emergencies (PHEs), it would benefit from a more explicit description of the supported theories or conceptual frameworks that underpin the study.

The significance of the study and its main contributions are not sufficiently elaborated in the introduction. The authors need to clearly articulate how addressing the identified research gaps will advance the current understanding of urban green spaces, particularly in the context of post-pandemic recovery.

While discussing the role of urban parks in ensuring health benefits is important, the introduction should balance this information with a focused discussion on the specific research gaps addressed by the study. Some aspects of the literature review weaken the study's significance by presenting findings that are already known or expected, such as the correlation between higher education levels and frequenting green spaces.

The authors need to include a more robust justification for selecting Shanghai as the study area in the introduction. Considering the global literature on pandemic influences on park usage patterns, highlighting unique aspects of Shanghai's urban environment, pandemic response strategies, or demographic characteristics would strengthen the rationale for choosing this location.

Given the period of 2021 to 2024, during which numerous literature reviews have explored the pandemic's influence on park usage patterns globally, it is crucial to highlight the study's novelty and specific contributions, especially within the context of Shanghai's urban green spaces and residents' preferences.

Methods

Section 2.1. Study Area: The section mainly introduces Shanghai city; however, the description of urban green spaces in Shanghai could be more detailed, considering the title includes the keyword "Urban Green Spaces." The authors needs to enhance this section by providing specific details about the types, distribution, accessibility, and amenities of urban green spaces in Shanghai. Including information on the size of green spaces, their ecological features, and public usage patterns would enrich the readers' understanding.

Section 2.2. Survey Instruments and Procedure: The sentence "The survey specifically targeted individuals with a long-term work or residency history in Shanghai" lacks clarity regarding how potential participants were identified. It is important for the authors to elaborate on the methods/strategies used to identify and recruit participants for the survey.

The authors should also explicitly explain the process of developing the questionnaire items. This should include details on the rationale for selecting specific questions, sources, any pilot testing or validation procedures conducted, and considerations for cultural or linguistic appropriateness in the Shanghai context.

Results

The authors need to provide additional details regarding the criteria used to classify participants into the "low-income," "middle-class," and "affluent" groups. Given that the study was conducted in Shanghai, a city with a relatively high economic status in China, defining these groups based on specific income thresholds, socioeconomic indicators, or other relevant criteria would add clarity and context to the findings. Moreover, discussing how these criteria relate to socioeconomic realities in Shanghai and their potential implications for other similar metropolitan areas would strengthen the study's generalizability and applicability.

While Tables 7.1 to 7.3 provide important information, it is noted that they occupy significant space in the Results section. Considering the emphasis on differences in park preferences across group characteristics as highlighted in the introduction section and research gaps, the authors need to present the information from these tables more concisely. This could involve summarizing key findings in the text and using tables to highlight critical comparisons or patterns.

Discussion

The Discussion section appears relatively thin and lacks depth in the presentation of research findings. There is a need for a more robust discussion that goes beyond simply restating the results. Authors should compare their findings with existing research results, highlighting similarities, differences, and novel insights generated by the current study. Explicitly stating what the study has achieved and how it contributes to solving specific problems or advancing knowledge in the field is crucial for a comprehensive discussion.

While acknowledging that numerous studies have explored the pandemic's influence on park usage changes, the Discussion section should provide a detailed comparison with previous literature reviews to highlight the unique contributions and implications of the current study's findings. This comparative analysis will contextualize the study within the broader research landscape and emphasize its significance.

In section 4.1 and throughout the discussion, it's important to ensure a balance between referencing relevant literature reviews and clearly articulating the study's own findings. Avoid relying too heavily on literature reviews to drive the discussion, and instead, emphasize the insights derived directly from the study's findings and analysis.

Care should be taken to formulate recommendations or conclusions rigorously and sensitively, especially regarding social equity considerations. Avoid making blanket statements such as prioritizing certain socioeconomic groups without justification or consideration of broader societal impacts. From the perspective of urban green spaces’ social equity, it is not appropriate to suggest that "UGS strategies should primarily consider the 'middle class' and 'affluent' groups" simply because of the "low-income" group reduced pandemic sensitivity.

The Discussion section should start by highlighting the study's strengths before discussing limitations and prospects. It is important to provide a clear overview of what the study does well, such as methodological rigor, novel insights, or contributions to theory or practice. The study lacks details of the strengths.

Conclusion

The Conclusion section currently contains a lot of text similar to the background and recommendations, detracting from a concise description of the conclusions derived from the study. It should effectively close the loop by confirming the extent to which the work has fulfilled its aims and objectives. Focus on summarizing the main findings related to residents' preferences for urban green spaces during and post-pandemic, highlighting any significant trends or patterns observed across different socioeconomic groups.

Clearly state how the study has fulfilled its aims and objectives as outlined in the introduction. Discuss whether the research questions were adequately addressed and how the study has contributed to advancing understanding in the field of urban green spaces and public health emergencies, particularly in the context of Shanghai.

Author Response

Thank you for your interest in this study and for your suggestions. The attached PDF is a specific response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thanks for revising the manuscript and providing a response to previous review comments. The reviewer did not detect any new issues in the manuscript.

No issue detected.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. A PDF file of the responses to the review comments has been sent to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Author,

Thank you for sharing the revised manuscript and for taking into consideration my comments. I appreciate the effort you've put into addressing them. However, I have some suggestions for refinement:

Introduction

To improve coherence and emphasize subsequent research gaps, it is recommended to further streamline and consolidate the information in the first three paragraphs.

2. Methods

2.2. Survey Instruments and Procedure.

The framework of the questionnaire is comprehensive, but in order to improve its academic rigor and precision, it is recommended to state whether the questionnaire content was designed or/and developed with relevant references.

3. Results

3.4.1 Population Segmentation.

While the classification of different populations is relative and lacks official standardization, it is suggested that the authors briefly describe how the classification was determined according to the Shanghai Statistical Yearbook. This addition would enhance the scientific of the methods.

4. Discussion

4.1. Adaptable Quarantine Policies Considering Urban Green Spaces.

The discussion section should primarily focus on highlighting the research findings. Suggestions for discussing limitations could be moved to section 4.4 "Shortcomings and Prospects" to enhance the clarity and organization of the manuscript.

‘In the realm of public health policy, a protracted adherence to a "one size fits all" …………consequently, a quarantine model centered around UGS emerges as a more effective strategy for pandemic management.’

The discussion in this passage does not clearly demonstrate the specific contributions of this study to the existing literature. It is suggested that the authors revise this statement to better articulate how their research builds upon existing studies and contributes new insights to the field.

Although this study suggests a recommended frequency of 1-2 times per week for visiting green spaces, derived from the desired post-outbreak frequency outlined in Table 2, there is no direct evidence within this study to prove the link between weekly park visitation frequency and the reduction of adverse outcomes or the overarching goal of curbing viral spread. To enhance the scientific validity of this viewpoint, it is recommended to include additional relevant literature research results to support the scientific and rational nature of this viewpoint.

4.2. Green Space Preferences Across Diverse Social Groups Amidst Public Health Emergencies.

The study's innovative aspects and unique findings could be further emphasized. While the manuscript acknowledges the unique population classification used in the study, it could more effectively highlight the novel insights generated by this classification, particularly within the context of Shanghai. Existing literature provides a strong basis for understanding different population groups' preferences for parks, especially during the pandemic, and numerous studies have explored the association between demographic characteristics and park visitation. To enhance the study's value, the authors are encouraged to underscore their findings in relation to existing literature, particularly emphasizing the unique contributions of their study within the Shanghai context.

4.4. Shortcomings and Prospects

Considering the waning impact of COVID-19, no longer classified as a pandemic event, it is advised that the authors include a concise statement regarding the current COVID-19 background and the significance of this paper within this context in the "Strengths" section. This addition would enable future readers to comprehend the historical background and the importance of this study even upon subsequent readings of the article.

5. Conclusion

The conclusion effectively underscores the study's importance in Shanghai, a densely populated metropolis. However, it lacks clarity in articulating the specific problems addressed, the unique findings uncovered, and the objectives achieved by the research.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. A PDF file of the responses to the review comments has been sent to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I am happy with the changes made to the revised manuscript.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       Overall, the manuscript is poorly written, with little attention to detail. For example, in the abstract paragraph, this on line 22 is in bold; the semicolon after “additionally” should be replaced by a colon, and there is no end period. In line 28, the semicolon is in a different font. In addition, in many places, the term usage and expression in this manuscript are not scientific or are hard to understand. Please consider editing the whole manuscript in detail.

2.       Starting from line 174, Please add related references in the materials and methods sections.

3.       In the introduction, the authors stated that GI can alleviate psychological distress during a pandemic by referring to UK studies, etc. However, the method section stated that Shanghai was under stringent lockdown procedures, with residents without access to normal outdoor activities. How could the role of GI under this circumstance be determined? Is GI related to residents’ well-being or other factors? What is the time duration this study is focused on? Moreover, in the limitation section, the authors indicated that the data was collected while Shanghai was still under partial lockdown. Though I appreciate the authors’ frankness, it was hard to convince the readers that post-pandemic data had real meaning.

4.       Although the authors put . for example, starting from line 121

5.       Figure 1, the number of districts 1-7 is hard to find and read. Please edit.

6.       Line 205, “using public green spaces over indoor ones” – what are indoor ones? This is confusing. And I cannot find relevant information in your reference here.  

7.       Line 237, what is the variance comparing? Do you mean the variance for the same GI characteristics pre- and post-outbreak? If so, what is the difference between the so-called two approaches?

8.       Line 245: Please edit all formulas in the manuscript to be well formatted.

9.       Line 273 indicates that the scale for GI needs ranges from 1 to 5. However, with 2 being no need rather than 1, the scale is not linear. Would this lead to confusion and, thus, potential bias in data collection? Please explain why the questionnaire was designed in such a way and the potential results from such a design.

10.   Line 321, it was questionable how the authors determined “ideal mandatory quarantine time.” Please also detail when the data was collected.

11.   From line 372 onwards, why are all P values zero?

12.   Figure 3 is confusing. I assume the authors would like to show a zoom-in view of the original figure. However, the axis labels were either unreadable or not labeled. It is hard to tell which label corresponds to the data point.

13.   Table 7: is this a table or a figure? Labels are too small and hard to read, which affects readers understanding of the following content.

14.   Across the tables presented in this manuscript, some data was highlighted in bold. Is this intentional?

15.   Line 500, please edit.

General comments:

16.   The planning of GI or the potential implementation of changes in GI are long-term in time scale. Extend the scope of the study to examine the long-term impacts of GI preference changes. How do these changes persist post-pandemic, and what are the implications for future urban planning?

17. Regarding frequency, the occurrence of a pandemic seems low when fitted into the discussion of infrastructure planning. Is there any example of such changes in GI that are already implemented? Do you foresee any changes in planning or related policy post-pandemic?

18.   While the manuscript touches upon the psychological impacts of PHEs, a more detailed exploration of how GI can specifically address mental health issues during such times and in the long term would be beneficial.

19.   Clearly articulate the current study's limitations and suggest areas for future research. This might include longitudinal studies, broader demographic sampling, or exploring the impact of different types of GI.

Extensive editing is needed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The presented work is original and demonstrates significant academic interest. Overall, I believe the figures could be improved. Some graphs are not adequately visible, especially figures 5, 6, and 7. Similarly, while the discussion section is highly rich, the same cannot be said for the conclusions. In this regard, it would be beneficial to provide more specific points in the conclusions, enumerating the main achievements.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current manuscript investigates an interesting topic of GI needs in response to the pandemic lockdowns. The writing is generally OK, and the reviewer has the following comments:

1) Introduction: In the manuscript, it appears to equalize “PHE” to the pandemic. However, the scope of PHE can be much larger. Therefore, the relationship between GI benefits and PHE might not be completely true.

2) Line 37: The term “GI” is not properly defined in the manuscript. GI appears to be defined as any green space in the manuscript, but this definition is not always true.

3) Line 111: The term “fast response” does not read right…is something like “short-term influence” more appropriate? Besides, the long-term effect should also be discussed.

4) Line 166: Haven’t this been discussed in the introduction (lines 142-158)? The authors should address the issues with literature studies that call for the emergence of the current study.

5) Lines 167-168: The introduction should address the findings from literature studies first. Only after understanding the “voids” in the literature, the need for the current study can become apparent.

6) Line 178: Please provide a reference when using superlatives. For example: https://www.worldshipping.org/top-50-ports

7) Line 223: Please provide sample questions of the survey in an appendix.

8) Line 224: Please spell out “WJX” and provide appropriate references.

9) Line 235: Should this be in bold?

10) Lines 237-241: The distinctive and necessity of these two approaches should be disclosed. Also, the following paragraphs should clearly refer to which approach that is being employed.

11) Lines 280-289: There is apparently some bias in the collected results. The results cannot truthfully reflect the opinions of the population as a whole. What measures have the authors employed to correct for the bias?

12) Table 3: Please utilize statistical tests to verify whether the changes in S is significant.

13) If p<0.0001, please say so (don’t provide p-value as 0.000.)

14) Most statistical tests employed in the current study are not clearly specified. Please revise the whole manuscript for this issue.

15) Line 422: This is bad writing.

16) Line 500: Missing link.

Generally OK

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf