Understanding the Role of Visitor Behavior in Soundscape Restorative Experiences in Urban Parks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses an important and relatively underexplored topic, investigating the interaction between soundscapes and human behavior in urban parks, with a specific focus on their restorative effects. The study is methodologically rigorous and employs both survey data and statistical models to provide insights. However, several aspects require further clarification, elaboration, and refinement to improve the overall quality of the paper.
1. Research Gap and Contribution:
The introduction adequately sets the stage for the study, but the research gap could be more clearly defined. While the role of human behavior in soundscape experiences is mentioned as underexplored, the specific novelty of this study compared to prior research should be better emphasized. Consider positioning the study more explicitly in relation to recent literature, particularly with regard to methodological advancements or unique case studies.
2. Methodology – Sample and Context:
The choice of urban parks in Fuzhou, China, is interesting, but the rationale behind their selection is somewhat vague. While criteria such as popularity and environmental characteristics are mentioned, a more detailed explanation of how these parks represent a typical or exceptional case for soundscape research would be beneficial. Were there any other factors influencing the choice of these specific parks (e.g., cultural or acoustic uniqueness)?
The demographic breakdown of the respondents is useful, but the representativeness of the sample should be discussed. For example, does the sample composition in terms of age, gender, or socioeconomic background reflect the typical user base of these parks?
3. Behavioral Classification:
The study uses three behavioral categories—static, dynamic, and moving—based on selfreported activities. However, these categories might overlap in certain scenarios (e.g., walking could be seen as dynamic or moving). Clarifying how the distinctions between these categories were made during data collection and their relevance to soundscape perception would enhance the validity of the behavioral framework.
4. Statistical Analysis and Model Validity:
The use of conditional process analysis is wellsuited for this study, but some details regarding model validation are missing. It would be helpful to include a discussion of any potential multicollinearity issues, model fit indices (e.g., RMSEA, CFI), and how outliers or nonnormal data were handled. Additionally, more detailed descriptions of the steps in hypothesis testing and modelbuilding would allow readers to better understand the analytical process.
The mediating and moderating effects are insightful but could benefit from further discussion. For instance, why does static behavior have a mediating effect while dynamic behavior does not? Expanding on possible reasons behind these findings and drawing connections to existing theories in environmental psychology or acoustics would strengthen the interpretation of results.
5. Theoretical Integration:
The discussion section could benefit from a deeper integration of the findings with broader theoretical frameworks on soundscapes, restorative environments, and urban design. How do these findings contribute to soundscape theory? Can any practical design guidelines be derived from the results to inform urban park planners or landscape architects?
Furthermore, the discussion of human behavioral characteristics (such as frequency of park visits) affecting soundscape perception seems underdeveloped. Consider expanding on how sociocultural factors may moderate soundscape experiences, particularly in a crosscultural context.
6. Limitations and Future Research:
While limitations are briefly mentioned, they could be more thoroughly discussed. For example, the reliance on selfreported data for behavior may introduce biases, and the crosssectional nature of the study limits causal inferences. Additionally, the study could acknowledge other environmental factors that might influence soundscape perception (e.g., weather, time of day).
The authors suggest future research directions, but these could be more specific. For instance, investigating how different types of soundscapes (natural vs. urban) affect various demographic groups differently or incorporating physiological measures of restorative effects (e.g., heart rate, cortisol levels) would be valuable.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript is generally wellwritten, but some sections, particularly the results and discussion, could be made more concise. Additionally, there are a few instances of awkward phrasing or grammatical issues (e.g., "soundscapes restorativeness" could be revised to "restorativeness of soundscapes").
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Understanding the Role of Visitor Behavior in Soundscape Restorative Experiences in Urban Parks”. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. Please see our point-by-point response to the comments in the attached word document. Major changes of the manuscript are marked in red in the revised version. Line numbers referenced below are based on the PDF of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research aims to explore how the interaction between soundscape and behavioral factors could affect the SRE in urban parks.
I think the justification for carrying out the study is confusing. The introduction should clearly delineate theoretical strengths and limits of existing studies and build on those limits to discuss the value of this investigation. The authors fail to clearly identify and convincingly discuss the innovative aspects of their work.
Moreover, I think the authors fail to mention how were the 3 hypotheses formulated? Were the authors based on an analysis of the literature from which to derive such hypotheses?
The authors did not clearly define in the text the meaning of the symbolization of the hypotheses. For example, at Line 191: “Soundscape characteristics has a direct effect on both visitors’ behavior and the SRE”. Is this Ha1 or Hb1?
The authors do not mention who are the beneficiaries of the results of this study? What theoretical and practical implications does the analysis have?
The practical and theoretical added values of the study is not clear.
Good luck with this study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Understanding the Role of Visitor Behavior in Soundscape Restorative Experiences in Urban Parks”. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. Please see our point-by-point response to the comments in the attached word document. Major changes of the manuscript are marked in red in the revised version. Line numbers referenced below are based on the PDF of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
forests-3227911. Comments are as follows.
1. In the range of 2023-2024, there are zero references included in the paper (except only one from 2023 publications). Conduct a thorough review of the most recent and relevant literature to understand the current state of research in the field of soundscape restorative experience (mainly 2023 and 2024 research works). Identify and clearly define the specific gap in knowledge that your study aims to address. At the present condition, the manuscript is having this serious flaw.
2. Citations’ grouping/stacking in the Introduction/literature section that do not contribute meaningfully to the study's context, background, or findings. Without clubbing citations, every literature needs to be discussed with the respective major findings to provide more understanding to the readers.
3. At the end of the introduction section, provide a detailed discussion of the necessity of the study. Clearly articulate the gaps or limitations in existing research that your study aims to address. This discussion should highlight why your research is timely and relevant, setting the stage for the significance of the presented research work.
4. CR (Construct Reliability). CR: Combined reliability. Which is the correct one. Why do authors define one abbreviation in two places? (Lines 220 & 224). Check it.
5. Note: *(p<0.05), ** (p><0.01), ***(p><0.05) ,** (p<0.01), ***(p><0.01), *** (p<0.01), ***(p><0.001). This data needs to be presented at the caption of Fig.3 (or) at least it must be discussed in the para at line 221-231.
6. Terms like "static behaviors," "dynamic behaviors," "pleasantness," and "eventfulness" are used without definitions. Briefly define these terms or providing examples would clarify their relevance to the presented study.
7. The study has been conducted in five parks in Fuzhou, China. It would be useful to discuss the limitations related to the generalizability of the findings beyond this specific context. For example, whether the results are expected to be applicable to other cultural or environmental settings.
8. The effects of soundscape characteristics (pleasantness and eventfulness) on static versus dynamic behaviors and their implications for restorative experiences could be further explored.
9. How should designers or planners use these findings to enhance soundscape design in parks or other environments?
10. What are the validation methods for the presented results? Explain how the algorithm's performance was validated, such as through cross-validation or comparison with other methods.
11. Make clarity about the algorithm employed.
12. Clarify the specific objectives the algorithm was designed to achieve in the context of the study.
13. Describe the steps the algorithm takes to process and analyze the data, including any preprocessing, statistical methods, or models applied.
14. List and explain any parameters or settings used in the algorithm, such as thresholds, weights, or variables.
15. Mention the software or tools used to implement the algorithm, if applicable.
16. Outline any assumptions made by the algorithm and how they might influence the results.
17. Improve English and grammar.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Understanding the Role of Visitor Behavior in Soundscape Restorative Experiences in Urban Parks”. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. Please see our point-by-point response to the comments in the attached word document. Major changes of the manuscript are marked in red in the revised version. Line numbers referenced below are based on the PDF of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood luck.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments addressed appropriately.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is needed.
