Research on the Healing Effect Evaluation of Campus’ Small-Scale Courtyard Based on the Method of Semantic Differential and the Perceived Restorative Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research employs a novel integrated methodology of Semantic Differential (SD) and the Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) to assess the healing impacts of various green space patches within a university campus setting. This investigation contributes to the existing body of knowledge by introducing innovative approaches in both research scale and methodological aspects. Nonetheless, the study is subject to certain limitations and areas for improvement, which are elaborated upon as follows:

 

1. While this manuscript acknowledges the prevailing research trends and identified gaps pertaining to the health implications of green spaces within its conceptual framework, it falls short in articulating the specific scientific questions and novelty in the introduction.

 

2. The organization of the manuscript warrants improvement. It is advisable to transfer the graphical representations and corresponding descriptions of computational outcomes from Section 2: Materials and Methods to Section 3: Results. Furthermore, the supplementary analysis currently situated within Section 3: Results ought to be repositioned into Section 4: Discussion. At present, the Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections appear to be logically disorganized.

 

3. Line 130, Figure2 has a description error

 

4. In Section 2.2.1, the rationale or source for the selection of the 17 perceived items has not been clarified. Is the selection based on experience from prior research or an innovative approach?

 

5. It is suggested to add dividing lines in Table 1 to clarify the correspondence between the items and the secondary dimension classifications.

 

6. In Section 2.3.2, a baseline of 68 for the PRS is mentioned, but the reasoning behind setting this threshold value has not been explained in the article. In the Semantic Differential (SD) section, the use of a 4-point baseline lacks explanation and appropriate citations.

 

7. In Figure 8(a), there may be a descriptive error. According to the figure, the highest sub-item score is for Courtyard 2, not Courtyard 3.

 

8. In Section 2.3.4, the renaming of Factor 1 as "impact" is mentioned, but the term "impart" appears multiple times in the subsequent content and tables. Please verify and correct as needed.

 

9. The justification for rebranding Factor 1 as "impact" appears rather unconvincing. The word "impact" encompasses an excessively wide range of connotations. A more fitting summary term that accurately encapsulates the direct perceptual effects should be contemplated.

 

10. The manuscript lacks an explanation of the study's limitations and a discussion of potential avenues for future research.

 

 

11. Please verify and correct any spelling and grammatical errors in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Much appreciated for your suggestions.

In response to your suggestions, we have made the following changes：

1. Scientific questions and innovation problems

In section 1.1, we added paragraphs to explain the scientific questions and the innovation in this study (line 90-111).

2. The organization problems of the manuscript.

We reorganized the structure of section3 (Results), section4 (Discussions) and section 5 (Conclusions) according to your suggestions.

3. Figure2 has a description error.

It has been revised, and figure 2 and figure 4 in the original manuscript have been merged as figure 2 (new).

4. In section 2.2.1, the source for the selection of the 17 perceived items has not been clarified.

Relevant paragraphs are added to explain that the selection basis is based on Kaplan’s theory and us subjective views (line 211-233).

5. Suggestion to add dividing lines in Table 1 to clarify the correspondence between the items and the secondary dimension classifications.

It has been added.

6. The source for baseline of SD scale and PRS has not been clarified.

Supplementary explanation has been made (line 328 & 350).

7. A descriptive error in table 8.

We have revised.

8. Confusion between "Impact" and "Impact".

This problem is due to our mistakes in spelling key words. Besides, we have cancelled the "Impact" as the name of common factor 1 and replaced it with "Perceived Quality".

9. "Impact" is not appropriate as the name of common factor 1 due to excessively wide range of connotations.

We renamed common factor 1 and common factor 2 as "Perceived Quality" and "Experience Quality" respectively.

10. The manuscript lacks an explanation of the study's limitations and a discussion of potential avenues for future research.

This part has been supplemented in section 5 (line 686-704).

 

Besides, we also made other changes to the manuscript:

1. Electronic questionnaires have been added as supplementary martials for others to use.

Thanks much for your review again.

2. The results are supplemented to be compared with the existing research.

 

Thanks much for your review again.

Best wish,

 

Lianghao huang & Ying Cao

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2350551

Title: Research on the Healing Effect Evaluation of Campus’ Small-2 Scale Courtyard Based on the Method of Semantic Differential 3 and the Perceived Restorative Scale.

This study investigates the environmental preference evaluation and restorative evaluation and uses semantic differential method and the Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) to evaluate the ornamental value, uniqueness and activity elements of three small-scale courtyards on China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing) campus to explore the relationship between different factors of small-scale courtyards and the healing effect. The findings demonstrates that courtyard  III has highest score in term of Overall analysis results, Ornamental  analysis results, Uniqueness  analysis results, Activity analysis results, Impart analysis results, and Immersion analysis result.

Comments

2.2.3. Experimental design:

 The experiment was conducted in the form of an online questionnaire. The electronic questionnaire consists of four sections. ----- A model of the questionnaire to give as a supplementary material in order to repeat such kind of research work from elsewhere.

The authors carried out many statistical work, but they fail address which software they are used reliability and validity analysis Descriptive analysis, factorial analysis, ANOVA. I advise the authors to represent the statistical tool they used in a separate heading statistical analysis.

 

Discussion to be improved

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Much appreciated for your suggestions.

In response to your suggestions, we have made the following changes：

1. Electronic questionnaires can be used as supplementary materials for others to use.

Have been added as supplementary materials.

2. The tools used for statistical work are not explained.

Has been added in section 2.2.4 (line 299).

3. The discussion needs to be improved.

We reorganized the structure of section3 (Results), section4 (Discussions) and section 5 (Conclusions). And the discussions and conclusions are supplemented.

 

Besides, we also made other changes to the manuscript:

1. In section 1.1, we added paragraphs to explain the scientific problems and the innovation in this study (line 90-111).
2. Figure 2 and figure 4 in the original manuscript have been merged as figure 2 (new).
3. The source for the selection of the 17 items in SD scale have been added in section 2.2.1 (line 211-233).
4. Some dividing lines have been added in tables to clarify the correspondence between the items and the secondary dimension classifications.
5. The explanation for the baseline of SD scale and PRS.
6. Have renamed common factor 1 and common factor 2 as "Perceived Quality" and "Experience Quality" respectively.
7. Explanation of the study's limitations and a discussion of potential avenues for future research have been added in section 5.
8. Some descriptive errors have been revised.

 

Thanks much for your review again.

Best wish,

 

Lianghao huang & Ying Cao

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the reviewer's opinion, the work has numerous merits; the text itself is also well prepared and fully elaborated. 

A particular strength of the article is the precise and at the same time very logical and understandable presentation of the content.  The clear, detailed and comprehensive explanation of the methodology of the research process should also be highlighted. Noteworthy is the completely satisfactory introduction to the problems of the paper, contained in the "Introduction" section, based on a review of the literature in the field of the issues taken up.

Despite an overall very positive assessment of the paper, in the reviewer's opinion there are two issues that the authors could have addressed in the article. At the beginning of the paper, the objectives of the study are formulated, but there are no research questions or hypotheses. Usually, in scientific papers, authors formulate, in addition to objectives, some questions, assumptions, etc. to which answers would be sought and which would determine the further research procedure. Did the authors of this peer-reviewed paper, also want answers to any research questions?

The second issue is to relate and compare the results obtained by the authors to similar research conducted elsewhere. It would be interesting to know whether the results of these studies confirm or contradict more common trends.

One last minor comment is a suggestion to improve the quality of Figures 2, 8 and 9, as they are very unreadable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Much appreciated for your suggestions.

In response to your suggestions, we have made the following changes：

1. Scientific questions and innovation problems

In section 1.1, we added paragraphs to explain the scientific problems and the innovation in this study (line 90-111).

2. The research conclusion can be compared with the existing research.

The results are supplemented (line 606-610).

3. Figures 2, 8 and 9 are very unreadable.

Have been Re-uploaded higher quality figures.

 

Besides, we also made other changes to the manuscript:

1. Electronic questionnaires were added as supplementary materials.
2. Figure 2 and figure 4 in the original manuscript have been merged as figure 2 (new).
3. The source for the selection of the 17 items in SD scale have been added in section 2.2.1 (line 211-233).
4. Some dividing lines have been added in tables to clarify the correspondence between the items and the secondary dimension classifications.
5. The explanation for the baseline of SD scale and PRS.
6. Have renamed common factor 1 and common factor 2 as "Perceived Quality" and "Experience Quality" respectively.
7. Explanation of the study's limitations and a discussion of potential avenues for future research have been added in section 5.
8. Some descriptive errors have been revised.

 

Thanks much for your review again.

Best wish,

 

Lianghao huang & Ying Cao

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think my question has well be treated by the authors.

no comment.