Citizen Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Urban Green Infrastructure in the Pilot Sponge Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer appreciates the authors' contribution to developing and exploring the topic of sponge cities in terms of their social financing. 

Please complete the following questions in the text of the paper:

In the introduction, the authors describe in detail the results of the pilot study. Please consider whether it is too detailed in this chapter, such a presentation of the results fits more into the discussion. In e introduction, more general information about the study is enough.

Please provide additional commonalities as to the choice of cities? It seems that the different climatic conditions cited by the authors are not a common feature but rather a differentiating one.

Please explain what was the sampling? The article lacks this information.  

Please point to specific/practical advice related to the application of the research results in practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: forests-2192339

Title: Citizen willingness to pay for the implementation of urban green infrastructure in the pilot sponge cities in China 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The topic and the idea of the study is interesting and valuable. The study design is generally clear and based on quantitative approach. The manuscript is well divided into sections, however, the order and scope of presented material in some of them needs improvement/reorganization.

1. Abstract is well organized, main elements of the study are included. One suggestion - in the line 16 it could be better to use the wording ‘selected influencing factors’ than only ‘influencing factors’, in my opinion. Key words are well selected.

2. Introduction is rather clear and create interesting and wide background for the presented study.

The aim of the study is presented, however it could be more precise/detailed. Taking into account the obtained results, it would be more valuable to formulate the hypotheses that selected factors (such as age, gender, monthly family income and educational level... etc.) have impact on WTP, and also that selected of them may be crucial for understanding the need to pay for UGI thus increasing the WTP, etc. Addition of hypotheses may also better organize the presentation of results and discussion more systematic in my opinion.

At the same time, the factors used for the study could be called more precise such as ‘social factors’ to highlight more the main characteristics and direction of presented research, also they should be a bit more argue as most important for this kind of research.

line 54: America should be replaced by the United States (if it was an intention of the Authors)

3. Material and methods – the subsection ‘3.1. Socio-demographic information and WTP of respondents for urban green infrastructure’ is a part of main data collection related to respondents’ demographic and socioeconomic information (presentation of their main characteristics). This data is a part of ‘Material’ and should be presented in this section with Table 1 (should be moved from the ‘Results’ section).

The presentation of data in Table 1 is not clear in some elements, especially the column of Education level is waving between lines. The Mean value related to the Age factor is not very precise and sounds as a kind of simplification, but it may be acceptable for a pilot study.

Also the information included in subsection ‘2.2.2. Field trip’ is rather related to the main data of respondents and should be combined with above-mentioned part related to socio-demographic information, etc.

The methods used in the study are not complicated but must be more clear presented step by step and described with sufficient details, starting with the questionnaire-based survey through face-to-face interviews, and developed by data analysis and their scope, etc. – the presentation of ‘Material and methods’ needs better order and must be revised in my opinion.

4. Results – the subsection ‘Results of correlation analysis’ should be the firs part of this section. Main presentation of collected data in this subsection is well organized. Table 2 needs some improvement, e.g. Number of cases is not needed to be repeated to each column if it is the same. The explanation of used * and ** is needed in the table’s caption.

The results presented in the subsection ‘Results of binary logistic regression’ are rather clear. Most important differences could be bolded in Table 2 to make more clear the obtained differences.

5. Discussion – this part is not very deep but includes main interpretation of results in the perspective of previous studies, also the aspects selected for discussion are quite well selected. However the division into subsections should result from the order and scope of formulated hypotheses, thus this part needs revision. Some future research directions could also be mentioned in this section.

The limitation of the study should be listed in the section of Discussion in my opinion, not in Conclusions.

6. Conclusions – regarding the differences related to presented cities, the conclusions are too general. The values of conducted research are not much highlighted by Authors, especially the role of such studies for individual cities which may help to initiate activities increasing the inhabitants’ awareness and their WTP for green infrastructure development, etc. 

Summing up, the manuscript needs some revision to increase the scientific soundness of presented material.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate all works done by Authors, the main suggestions listed by the reviewer has been implemented in all sections. The aim is more clearly described. The presentation of all elements and parts of the study is better organized, also some small changes implemented to the section of Results and Discussion increased their value. Generally, the improvements make the manuscript more valuable in the scientific context.
I can recommend publication of the manuscript in its present form.