Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study aimed to identify the relationships and needs in ecosystem services related to UGS. Regrettably, the survey did not manage to get answers from all social groups. The weakness is also evidenced by the fact that a group of educated people took part in the research, which is the reason for excluding the voice of others.

The authors came to quite obvious conclusions that nature-oriented users significantly value trees, plants and animals, quietness, whereas social-oriented users more often value the presence of lawns, shaded areas, facilities/equipment, and safety. More valuable from this point of view is the conclusion that nature-oriented users are prepared to travel further distances to reach their destination.

Future research that will also explore how patterns of use, valuation, and mismatch vary based on the location of survey respondents and of the UGS they use looks much more interesting. It would be more valuable to study the social structure of individual districts and relate them in more detail to the expectations regarding the USG.

The formulated recommendations for the planning process are too general. Recommendations should be more specific concerning specific parts of the city, but with the assumption that representative data was obtained and not selected social groups.

The formulated recommendations for the planning process are too general. Recommendations should be more specific in relation to specific parts of the city, but with the assumption that representative data was obtained and not selected social groups.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you for your comments. Please find our responses below.

Point 1: The study aimed to identify the relationships and needs in ecosystem services related to UGS. Regrettably, the survey did not manage to get answers from all social groups. The weakness is also evidenced by the fact that a group of educated people took part in the research, which is the reason for excluding the voice of others

Response 1: As we continue this research, an important future step will be to expand the pool of respondents to represent more social groups. Unfortunately, COVID-19 came at a time when we were going to go in person to community centres to collect responses. But this remains an important part of our research plan going forward.

Point 2: Future research that will also explore how patterns of use, valuation, and mismatch vary based on the location of survey respondents and of the UGS they use looks much more interesting. It would be more valuable to study the social structure of individual districts and relate them in more detail to the expectations regarding the USG.

Response 2: Our future research will indeed look at variations in use and valuation based on the social structure of the neighborhoods in which respondents live. We have clarified on page 24, lines 532 to 533 that this will be part of our future research.

Point 3: The formulated recommendations for the planning process are too general. Recommendations should be more specific concerning specific parts of the city, but with the assumption that representative data was obtained and not selected social groups.

Response 3: We have addressed this comment on pages 22 to 23, lines 462 to 495. In this section, we now first provide general recommendations for all urban green spaces, followed by specific recommendations for UGS in the city centre. We then discuss the importance of identifying socio-demographic variations in use and valuation of UGS for planning responsive urban green spaces. Because the article does not have a specific spatial element, it is difficult to provide more specific recommendations for distinct parts of the city. We hope that the elaboration of section 4.3 adequately addresses your concerns.

Finally, you indicated that improvements could be made to the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods, as well as the presentation of empirical results. We have reviewed these sections and feel they are clearly presented and therefore have not made any changes. We considered adding a short paragraph with hypotheses to the introduction but ultimately felt this made the introduction too repetitive.

Thank you again for taking the time to review our article and for your feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the introduction authors as Jan Gehl can give more inputs to express the link between the quality of public spaces (which include also UGS) and their use by people. 

In paragraph “4.3. Implications for urban planning and UGS management”, authors can briefly refer to politics such as “The 15-Minute City in Paris” (is an example) to underline the key-role played by UGS nowadays, especially during these times of pandemic.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you for your comments. Please find our responses below.

Point 1: In the introduction authors as Jan Gehl can give more inputs to express the link between the quality of public spaces (which include also UGS) and their use by people. 

Response 1: We have added a reference to Jan Gehl in our introduction on page 2, lines 51 to 53.

Point 2:  In paragraph “4.3. Implications for urban planning and UGS management”, authors can briefly refer to politics such as “The 15-Minute City in Paris” (is an example) to underline the key-role played by UGS nowadays, especially during these times of pandemic.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We now make reference to the 15 Minute City in our recommendations to urban planners, on page 22, lines 476 to 478.

We hope these changes also address your indication that improvements could be made to the description and contextualization of the content.

Thank you again for taking the time to review our article and for your feedback.