Comparative Study of Park Evaluation Based on Text Analysis of Social Media: A Case Study of 50 Popular Parks in Beijing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments are attached in the word document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The author has started by situating the research motive with urban renewal development in Beijing but has not clearly described how urban parks related to the urban renewal process particularly happening in China. It is an important urban amenity with or without regard to urban renewal. It’s critical to have more background on the urban renewal policies, in particular regarding the development of urban park provisions to improve the robustness of the argument.
Response 1: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added the related content about the inner connection between urban renewal policies and urban parks in lines 34-45 of the article.
Point 2: Please specify which social media data the research is using, so the reader can have a better understanding of what data attributes may entail.
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added specific data platform introductions and data types in lines 103-114 of the article.
Point 3: The literature review is missing discussion on the limitation of the datasets (particularly relating to text mining). What are the challenges, and how have prior studies mitigated the challenge? What has been done in this research? What is the current research gap that needs to be addressed?
Response 3: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! We added the required relevant content in lines 179-196 of the article.
Point 4: Please clarify how is the “highest popularity” is calculated. Please include descriptions of what is comprehensive parks, humanities parks, forest parks and wetland parks. Is it by park provision? What are they? What is the first green isolation belt? The reader who is not from the region will not have any idea of what the authors are referring to.
Response 4: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! We added the concepts and corresponding grounds in lines 207-235 of the article.
Point 5: Line 139, are the comments provided from people who have actually visited the park?
Response 5: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! The data collected in this study were from the Beijing " surrounding tour " channel of Dianping website, and the information was all from users' comments based on real experience and consumption. We added the required relevant content in lines 249-251 of the article.
Point 6: Does that text analysis also consider positive or negative experiences? The frequency of the text can be equally popular, whether it’s good popularity or bad popularity.
Response 6: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Due to the limitation of analysis function of ROSTCM6(text analysis software), it is difficult to distinguish positive emotions from negative emotions of high-frequency words with a high number of mentions in the text analysis module of the software. We will strive to improve this shortcoming in the future. Thank you very much!
Point 7: There is a great jump in the frequency number in the 2019-2021 period; please provide justification. Is it related to urban renewal?
Response 7: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Due to the widespread popularity of social platforms and the government's emphasis on park construction and maintenance in the context of urban renewal in recent years, an increasing number of tourists use Dianping website to record their personal visit experience, resulting in a significant increase in the number of park reviews from 2019 to 2021. We added the required relevant content in lines 426-434 of the article.
Point 8: Line 309, what do the authors mean by “combine score and analysis”? What score? Park popularity? Why?
Response 8: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Sorry, we just analyzed the word frequencies of the high-frequency words, and reached the corresponding conclusion, "combine score and analysis " belongs to the error of the text editor, we have deleted and changed (line 411), thank you!
Point 9: Line 340, please add explanations on why the study period is broken into 3-year periods and the first one 4 years.
Response 9: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! In China, the process of urban renewal is closely related to the change of urban investment market, and the overall urban investment market in China shows a fluctuation cycle of about 3 years. Therefore, in order to facilitate the study of the change trend of park reviews over time under the background of urban renewal, the period from 2006 to 2021 was divided into five major periods: 2006 to 2009, 2010 to 2012, 2013 to 2015, 2016 to 2018, and 2019 to 2021. However, the number of review samples in 2006 was too small. And there were no extreme comments. In order to facilitate the comparative study of park comments between five periods, we directly combined 2006 into the first period. We added the required relevant content in lines 235-243 and lines 430-434 of the article.
Point 10: Line 370: Please add explanations on green belts and elaborate on why there was a great jump in ratings from 2009 to 2010.
Response 10: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added explanations on various green belts in lines 226-235 of the article and explained why there was a great jump in ratings from 2009 to 2010 in lines 473-478 of the article.
Point 11: It is also important to provide background on the park in green belt 1 and 2; what are the differences? Are the park types generally different? Is quality different? Otherwise, the finding cannot be contextualized.
Response 11: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added explanations on various green belts in lines 461-467 revealed the differences between the different green belt areas.
Point 12: Again, I think the discussion should tie back to the research finding with the urban renewal framework and expand on how the research findings strengthen our current understanding of urban parks or how it sheds new light on the current research.
Response 12: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added the required relevant content in lines 680-686 and lines 693-697 of the article.
Point 13: I would encourage authors to touch on potential strategies to mitigate the data limitation. By saying looking forward to future research is too vague.
Response 13: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added some envisioned strategies in lines 715-726 of the article.
Point 14: In line 49, the author stated, “Majority of the current study,….” I do not agree with the statement as currently, the trend on studying urban parks has shifted away from survey analysis; perhaps it’s better to refer to “ Traditional” or “Conventional” methods of studying park green is ….
Response 14: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have changed this expression according to your suggestion, thank you!
Point 15: Line 153, please include a cite for the software
Response 15: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added a brief introduction for the software in line 263-265 of the article, and so far the software doesn't have an official website.
Point 16: Figure 2, Low-Low Category, “slow improvement”? Should it be “low”?
Response 16: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! According to our setting, the third quadrant of IPA model, namely " Low-Low Category " area, belongs to the area that needs to be gradually and slowly improved. We have made a more accurate expression in FIG. 2, thank you!
Point 17: In figure 3 and, Figure 4, Figure 14, the text was too small to be readable.
Response 17. Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have rearranged these figures.
Point 18: Line 478, “This suggested that rather than being exclusive vacation locations, these parks had been now used often by people for tourist activities” a little confusion, vacation locations are for tourist activities. Perhaps, the authors mean to say daily activities?
Response 18: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Yes, your understanding is quite correct. We have changed the word "tourist" to "daily" (line 554).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper was about Comparative study of park evaluation based on text analysis of 2 social media——A case study of 50 popular parks in Beijing. They investigated the development of parks in cities. This paper compared the evaluation outcomes of the 50 most pop- 9 ular urban parks in Beijing from various perspectives, including the characteristics of various 10 groups of people, several park types, and the spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of 11 recreational activities, based on the analysis of social media texts. Authors evaluated main factors affecting the 12 satisfaction of parks were discussed by using the importance-performance analysis method.
This paper was so well-written. All the parts of paper have been performed well. They used updated methods in their manuscript and the subject was in line with the main objectives of journal. From my point of view this paper is capable of being published in your journal. However, I have some minor comments that writers can do them.
1. Improve the cohesion of the introduction part.
2. Clarify the results with more explanation.
3. Strengthen the reference section
Compare your paper with these papers:
https://journals.uwyo.edu/index.php/uwnpsrc/article/view/2815
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-022-03322-1
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20210145884
https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bmc.5127
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866720305926
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Improve the cohesion of the introduction part.
Response 1: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We supplemented the content of the introduction, refined the relationship between urban renewal policies and urban parks, added the introduction of social media network platforms, supplemented more relevant studies, and optimized the logic of the text.
Point 2: Clarify the results with more explanation.
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We made a more detailed analysis in the conclusion, enhanced the connection with the previous paper, supplemented the comparison with other scientific studies, refined the innovation and deficiency of this research, and proposed the expectation for future research.
Point 3: Strengthen the reference section.
Response 3: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We referenced more domestic and foreign studies in article, they are very helpful to us!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1864728
Title: Comparative study of park evaluation based on text analysis of social media - A case study of 50 popular parks in Beijing
The topic and the idea of the study is very interesting and the scope of the study is wide. Generally, the presentation of the results is well developed, however there are some weaknesses in selected parts of the manuscript which must be revised.
Main comments and suggestions for Authors:
1. The title is clear. Key words are well selected and in line to the topic and study itself. The construction of the Abstract is also clear.
2. The section of Introduction is quite developed and Authors mention many aspects, without any relation to references, etc.
At the same time there is a quite clear information about the main objective and scope of the study including 3 main ways/aspects of evaluation.
3. The section 2. Literature Review is rather a short presentation of social media and description of used model (as a part of the method?) that formal literature overview. There is a lack of more deep presentation of the main aspects and indicators/factors on which Authors focus their attention as a background proposed for their research – their selection and role in the proposed evaluation should be more developed in this section and well argued by the literature items/other studies, etc. This part needs to be improved.
4. Section 3. Material and Methods – this section is much developed, the presentation of methods is rather clear and completed, but the general study design is a bit hidden in individual subsections –the main stages should be clearly presented first and then developed by description of the used methods regarding the wide scope of the research.
Some elements related to the terms are not clear and must be explained/better defined to make the study more methodological, e.g.:
- the terms used for park categories such as “comprehensive parks” or “humanities parks’ sound strange (the meaning is difficult to understand), thus incomprehensible in my opinion. The typology of objects must be clear and based on understandable and homogenous key of their selection, or popularly used typology, etc...
- Authors use interchangeably the terms: people, visitors and tourists, so it is not clear whether the research concerns Beijing residents as park users, or tourists, or selected types of tourists, etc.). The type of users selected for the study must be clearly specify, because all forms of generalization reduce the scientific quality of the study.
5. The section 4. Results contains the most important and interesting results related to main aspects and is an interesting part of the manuscript. However, the way of the presentation of results should be more directly related to the main 3 aspects listed in the introductory parts (in lines 80-85), otherwise the present form of descriptions makes this connection difficult to find.
Also the proposed evaluation scale such as 5 star rating (the description in next few lines started in line 191) is rather a part of the method and should be presented in the section 3. Material and Methods, not as a part of section 4. Results.
6. The section 5. Discussion presents important information, however the descriptions sound more as Authors intention than professional scientific discussion regarding the lack of any relation/comparison to other studies. All aspects must be linked to other research presented in scientific literature. Also the number of references must be increased, otherwise the value of presented study is low. This part must be improved.
7. Conclusions are rather weak, the Authors focus mostly on limitations of their study, while in this section the novelty of conducted research and its main value(s) must be highlighted – what the study brought. This part must be revised and more related to the presented research and its results.
Others:
- the number of cited literature and scope of presented aspects with relation to other studies is weak (only 26 items!) in the context of so wide study conducted by Authors. The use of references must be definitely much developed in sections related to the background and especially Discussion to increase the scientific soundness of presented research.
- Figures – the terms and graphs are not well connected on selected figures, they ‘diverge’ a bit - e.g. in Fig. 5 to 13, also it is difficult to read the words on the graphs on Fig. 4, 14.
- English language and especially the vocabulary selection/formulations must be improved.
Summing up, the manuscript needs major revision.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The title is clear. Key words are well selected and in line to the topic and study itself. The construction of the Abstract is also clear.
Response 1: Thank you!
Point 2: The section of Introduction is quite developed and Authors mention many aspects, without any relation to references, etc.
At the same time there is a quite clear information about the main objective and scope of the study including 3 main ways/aspects of evaluation.
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added more content in the introduction and strengthened the link between the content and the references.
Point 3: The section 2. Literature Review is rather a short presentation of social media and description of used model (as a part of the method?) that formal literature overview. There is a lack of more deep presentation of the main aspects and indicators/factors on which Authors focus their attention as a background proposed for their research – their selection and role in the proposed evaluation should be more developed in this section and well argued by the literature items/other studies, etc. This part needs to be improved.
Response 3: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added the required relevant content in lines 165-178 of the article.
Point 4: Section 3. Material and Methods – this section is much developed, the presentation of methods is rather clear and completed, but the general study design is a bit hidden in individual subsections –the main stages should be clearly presented first and then developed by description of the used methods regarding the wide scope of the research.
Some elements related to the terms are not clear and must be explained/better defined to make the study more methodological, e.g.:
- the terms used for park categories such as “comprehensive parks” or “humanities parks’ sound strange (the meaning is difficult to understand), thus incomprehensible in my opinion. The typology of objects must be clear and based on understandable and homogenous key of their selection, or popularly used typology, etc...
- Authors use interchangeably the terms: people, visitors and tourists, so it is not clear whether the research concerns Beijing residents as park users, or tourists, or selected types of tourists, etc.). The type of users selected for the study must be clearly specify, because all forms of generalization reduce the scientific quality of the study.
Response 4: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We supplemented the main stages at the beginning of the third section. We added an explanation of the various park categories in lines 213-221 of the article. In addition, because our study subjects are the experiences of visitors to the parks, for the reader's accurate understanding and the rigor of the article, we have changed some vague expression to use " visitors ".
Point 5: The section 4. Results contains the most important and interesting results related to main aspects and is an interesting part of the manuscript. However, the way of the presentation of results should be more directly related to the main 3 aspects listed in the introductory parts (in lines 80-85), otherwise the present form of descriptions makes this connection difficult to find.
Also the proposed evaluation scale such as 5 star rating (the description in next few lines started in line 191) is rather a part of the method and should be presented in the section 3. Material and Methods, not as a part of section 4. Results.
Response 5: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We adjusted some textual content to make Section 4 more relevant to the purposes of the introductory part. In addition, we changed the evaluation scale such as the 5-star rating at the beginning of section 4 to section 3 of the article (line 275-279).
Point 6: The section 5. Discussion presents important information, however the descriptions sound more as Authors intention than professional scientific discussion regarding the lack of any relation/comparison to other studies. All aspects must be linked to other research presented in scientific literature. Also the number of references must be increased, otherwise the value of presented study is low. This part must be improved.
Response 6: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! In the Discussion section, we have mostly distilled our findings around the topic of our article, so there is less description of other studies. We made a more detailed analysis in the discussion and conclusion section, enhanced the connection with the previous paper, supplemented the comparison with other scientific studies, refined the innovation and deficiency of this research, and proposed the expectation for future research. At the same time, more domestic and foreign references were added in the whole article to improve the research value of the article.
Point 7: Conclusions are rather weak, the Authors focus mostly on limitations of their study, while in this section the novelty of conducted research and its main value(s) must be highlighted – what the study brought. This part must be revised and more related to the presented research and its results.
Response 7: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! In the conclusion section, we added a brief summary, strengthened the connection with the previous article, supplemented the comparison with other scientific studies, refined the innovations and shortcomings of this study, and proposed the prospects of future research and strategies.
Point 8: the number of cited literature and scope of presented aspects with relation to other studies is weak (only 26 items!) in the context of so wide study conducted by Authors. The use of references must be definitely much developed in sections related to the background and especially Discussion to increase the scientific soundness of presented research.
Response 8: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We referenced more domestic and foreign studies in article, they are very helpful to us!
Point 9: Figures – the terms and graphs are not well connected on selected figures, they ‘diverge’ a bit - e.g. in Fig. 5 to 13, also it is difficult to read the words on the graphs on Fig. 4, 14.
Response 9: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We've made some changes and substitutions to these figures for better reading.
Point 10: English language and especially the vocabulary selection/formulations must be improved.
Response 10: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have modified and optimized the expressions of some English sentences to make it easier for readers to read and understand.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This article uses social media data to compare visitor satisfaction and its influencing factors in popular parks in Beijing, with detailed data and appropriate methodology. Some content still need to be revised.
1. The literature review section (2.1) is dominated by domestic research in China; are there similar studies abroad with social media data and review software? It is recommended to add researches in other counteis. Besides, in the domestic review, which social media data are used in the domestic text word frequency studies? Weibo? VWAP? Or other applications? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of the different social media? Why did this paper choose to use data from Dianping for this study?
2. The analysis of the results shows that the supply of entrance fees and consumer spending are important aspects that influence the evaluation of visitors. It is suggested that in 4.3, a comparative analysis of paid and free parks be added?
3. The ranking in Table 1 is currently based on the region to which you belong, and it is recommended that you rank them by the highest score and indicate the ticket price.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: The literature review section (2.1) is dominated by domestic research in China; are there similar studies abroad with social media data and review software? It is recommended to add researches in other counteis. Besides, in the domestic review, which social media data are used in the domestic text word frequency studies? Weibo? VWAP? Or other applications? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of the different social media? Why did this paper choose to use data from Dianping for this study?
Response 1: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added relevant foreign studies in section 2.1 of literature review. In addition, in lines 88-114 of the article, we added the types of social media used in relevant domestic researches, the advantages and disadvantages of various social media platforms, and the reasons why we choose the Dianping website.
Point 2: The analysis of the results shows that the supply of entrance fees and consumer spending are important aspects that influence the evaluation of visitors. It is suggested that in 4.3, a comparative analysis of paid and free parks be added?
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Although the results showed that the supply of admission fees and consumption expenditures frequently appeared in the evaluations of visitors, we have analyzed the relationship between park ticket prices and park scores through SPSS software during our research. We found no significant correlation between the two.
In addition, there was almost no difference between the high-frequency words of free parks and paid parks, including high-frequency words such as "tickets" and "consumption", which means that visitors would mention these contents regardless of whether the park charges or not.
So we think that the main factors affecting the evaluation of the park are still the different groups of people, different types, different locations, and different times mentioned in the article. Ticket supply and consumption costs were only frequently mentioned by visitors, but they did not seem to affect their views of the park and ratings for the park. Therefore, in order to cater to the theme of the article exploring the differences in park evaluation and to facilitate reading, we deleted the difference comparison between free parks and paid parks.
Point 3: The ranking in Table 1 is currently based on the region to which you belong, and it is recommended that you rank them by the highest score and indicate the ticket price.
Response 3: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We modified Table 1 according to your suggestion. We have listed the names of the parks according to the score and indicated the ticket price.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1864728
Title: Comparative study of park evaluation based on text analysis of social media——A case study of 50 popular parks in Beijing
I appreciate all works done by Authors, the main suggestions has been implemented in all sections. Generally, the study design is more clearly presented after corrections. The Introduction is developed with relation to scientific publications, also clear presentation of studied aspects making the scope of the study more complete. The literature overview is much better organized and presented, thus creates more complete background.
The section of Material and Methods is well improved. The terms used for park categories such as “comprehensive parks” or “humanities parks” are explained, however still do not convince me much - this typology sounds more like Authors’ proposal/intention, than typically used - it has not been supported by any literature items, etc. Thus, it should be clearly emphasized in the description that this is a typology proposed by the Authors for this study.
The presentation of selected results, especially in subsection 4.4. and 4.5., has been improved with positive effect. The section of Discussion is developed – presented aspects are related to the conducted study and main results are compared with other studies what increases the scientific soundness of manuscript. Discussion is also more deep and valuable in its present form, even if the scope of references could be still a bit developed. Conclusions are better presented and in line with the main results of the conducted research.
English language and style require some corrections in my opinion to eliminate repeated words, also construction of selected sentences should be "cleared", etc.
Summing up, I evaluate the research and its presentation as valuable, and the manuscript can be published after last small corrections.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: I appreciate all works done by Authors, the main suggestions has been implemented in all sections. Generally, the study design is more clearly presented after corrections. The Introduction is developed with relation to scientific publications, also clear presentation of studied aspects making the scope of the study more complete. The literature overview is much better organized and presented, thus creates more complete background.
Response 1: Thank you! Your previous suggestions were very helpful for our paper research.
Point 2: The section of Material and Methods is well improved. The terms used for park categories such as “comprehensive parks” or “humanities parks” are explained, however still do not convince me much - this typology sounds more like Authors’ proposal/intention, than typically used - it has not been supported by any literature items, etc. Thus, it should be clearly emphasized in the description that this is a typology proposed by the Authors for this study.
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Our classification of park attributes was indeed a typology proposed by ourselves after combining the classification method of China's green space system and the specific data of this study. We indicated this content in lines 208-210 of the article in non-revision mode.
Point 3: The presentation of selected results, especially in subsection 4.4. and 4.5., has been improved with positive effect. The section of Discussion is developed – presented aspects are related to the conducted study and main results are compared with other studies what increases the scientific soundness of manuscript. Discussion is also more deep and valuable in its present form, even if the scope of references could be still a bit developed. Conclusions are better presented and in line with the main results of the conducted research.
Response 3: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! In the discussion section, we added the comparison between our conclusions and those of other more references, and also added the related literature on the relationship between urban parks and urban renewal, which made the structure of the paper more complete and substantial.
Point 4: English language and style require some corrections in my opinion to eliminate repeated words, also construction of selected sentences should be "cleared", etc.
Response 4: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have applied for the English editing service on the official website of MDPI, and modified and optimized the expressions of some English sentences to make it easier for readers to read and understand. You can view the specific changes in the article in revision mode.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
