Network Text Analysis of Visitors’ Perception of Multi-Sensory Interactive Experience in Urban Forest Parks in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper used network text data to investigate visitors’ preferences of multi-sensory interactive experience in urban forest parks. The topics and research methods have certain novelty.

1.What tools are used to collect network text data should be explained in the Researchframework.

 

2.The users of these websites are mostly young and middle-aged groups, and they may not be able to represent the perceived experience of children and the elderly, so they should be more rigorous in the presentation of research conclusions.

 

3.In the design strategy part of the discussion, some strategies for enhancing multi-sensory interaction should be proposed, not only for one sense.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:     

       We have made revisions following the reviewers’ comments and suggestions closely. Please see our point-by-point responses in the Word document. Our responses are in blue. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The article investigated perceptions of users of an urban forest by using a text analysis of data obtained via social media. The information gain of the study seems low, as the authors did not elaborate on what is new in their research.

While the authors argue that the traditional tools of social empirical research are severely limited (L 49-53), they do not address the many limitations of their study. They indirectly claim that their data are representative (L 69), without stating this.

The literature review is brief and does not include a comprehensive review of visitor preferences for urban forests.

The platforms used need to be much better described. Why these four online platforms? Are there existing studies on platform users? Are there differences in the target audiences of the platforms? Are there access restrictions to the platforms, such as age limit, fees...

How representative is this sample for urban forest visitors? Is it right to talk about tourists? Isn't it much more likely to be the local urban population? How often do they use the forest? Is therefore not much data from the same person? I also miss a chapter on data protection. Was individual data collected about the platform? Is the data completely anonymous?

The urban forest should be described a little better (e.g. area size, free access).

The authors have measured perceptions. However, they often talk about preferences! How were these measured? A word can be meant in a positive or negative sense (good or bad air). Why were disservices (crowding, waste...) not measured?

The results chapter is a mix of presentation of results and discussion. The discussion, on the other hand, largely lacks integration with the literature. The management recommendations are partly not derived from the results (e.g. the Natural Museum, L 386). This study has a lot of limitations with a low information content at the same time. 

Quotations e.g. on page 3 are incomplete. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:     

       We have made revisions following the reviewers’ comments and suggestions closely. Please see our point-by-point responses in the Word document. Our responses are in blue. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Many of my suggestions have been incorporated. In particular, the presentation of the platforms is helpful. However, I had great difficulty in understanding the new writing. Sometimes there are only half-sentences, some things are duplicated (for example P 2, L 92; P 7, L 260), sometimes the transition between sentences is missing. A native speaker check is absolutely necessary!

The assignment of references to numbers is sometimes incorrect, especially in chapter 2.3. Figure 3: The legend is sometimes not visible. What is an "authoritative" platform? (P 7, L 245) I would delete the term.

The discussion (Chapters 5.1/5.2) is still very descriptive and does not integrate the international literature enough. The content innovation content of the study is not clearly stated, as the authors have not sufficiently synthesised existing knowledge.  This makes the study more descriptive.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

        We have made revisions following the reviewers’ comments and suggestions closely. Please see our point-by-point responses in the document. Our responses are in blue. The page and line numbers in the original and revised versions are all indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx