Place-Keeping in the Park: Testing a Living Lab Approach to Facilitate Nature Connectedness in Urban Greenspaces

Nr.

Reviewer 1

Author response

R1- C1

The authors use green space (two words) and greenspace (one word) along the text - it would be better to use only one term.

Other few requests to review:

Page 3
row 135-137, it contains a direct quotation, should not the page be mentioned?

Page 3
row 142 - should it not be called Urban Living Labs?

Page 12
Figure 13 seems to repeat fig. 1b - is this for a special reason? Why not to refer back to fig. 1? Please also check the sources, if both figures are the same, they should have the same sources!

Page 20-21
Reference row 15 & 15
Reference row 32 & 33

P3. This reference does not have a page number as it is an online report

p. 3 we have revised this

p. 12 we have revised this

p. 20-21 we have revised this

R1 – C2

I miss however some thought about the study limitations - "only" teenage girls were engaged in the labs. It would be interesting if the author also address the gender differences and how involving boys could lead to a different result.

We have included a limitations section in the methods.

Nr.

Reviewer 2

Author response

R2- C1

I suggest to improve the discussion of the results and conclusions, to give more attention to the progress enabled by the experimental findings. It is also suggested to improve the references and the literature review in the introduction.

We have revised the manuscript to address these comments.

Nr

Reviewer 3

Author response

R3 C1

Perhaps, the research could highlight the long impact on the knowledge of the students as citizens

We did not gather data on the long term impact for participants and therefore we are not able to include this data.

R3 C2

The research includes some methods and techniques that were not listed in the methodology such as content analysis, questionnaire, and even structured observation and focus group that some aspects of the m are in the paper

We have revised the methods section as per this comment and C6. We did not omit any methods but we have included a clearer reference to how they are described.

R3 C3

Title - Make it short and clear about what you have done and what is in this paper

We have revised the title

R3 C4

Introduction:

The introduction was well structured in different sections. The general problem of neoliberal governments and low levels of users engagement was well developed. However, still, the research question (s) is not clear. What is the research question (s) people awareness, people engagement, or people actions?

Please make clear what will be the main item in the research.

1.3 Some technical words were applied in the section however, for the reader the meaning of them did not present. The application of the definition was not clear in the research questions and aim, importantly, Nature-based activities, pro-nature-conservation, place-focused approach, and nature-connectedness.

We have a section titled: Research Aims and Research Question, where we define our research question. We aim to investigate what methods can be used to address barriers to accessing and connecting with greenspace. We follow a pathway from awareness, to engagement and then action (pathways to nature engagement).

We have included a short definition of nature connectedness which is a key term we use throughout.

R3 C5

Literature review

I am not quite sure that the author(s) follows a phenomenological approach in the research or analytical mapping and that each of them includes different methods. Please clarify.

Could you please add some examples of participatory research as precedent projects?

We included some examples of participatory research as precedent projects

R3 C6

Methods:

The paragraphs should be replaced in the last part of the literature review as a theoretical framework section.

It is recommended to arrange this structure:

3.1: Methodology: related methods in similar research that other researchers applied and validity and reliability are clear.

3.2: Research design: how this research do apply methods and techniques (based on the criteria and diagrams that you presented)

3.3: Research process: everything you mentioned about workshops and participants, and process.

3.4: Data Specification: please explain what data was expected from participants in the research activities.

3.5 context of the research: you mentioned this part in a different section.

5.6 implication and Limitation: if there is any error, missing, or limitation please explain in this part.

We have revised this section in line with the reviewer suggestion.

R3 C7

Results:

The results included some sections to present the achievement of the research. However, looking at the results reveals that the research included some questions that either participants should answer or take memos in the logbook.

Particularly, the section included some phrases that increase the possibility of a questionnaire in the research such as “When asked how important they…..” page 11 line 352

If the research applied a questionnaire, it should be part of the research design and methodology.

Section 4.2 attempted to do mapping, but the trace of the mapping activities and the results of the place sections was not in the research.

It is highly recommended to restructure and arrange the section based on the data you did collect and analyzed. To do that, first of all, the applied methods in the results section should be added to both methodology and research design.

Generally, you know very well what you have done, but as a reader, I confused to read the section.

Please edit the section

We used a baseline survey and this is clearly titled as such in both methods and results.

We also undertook a mapping exercise  with the participants and this is also described in the methods, but we have clarified this in the results section 4.2. the figure 7 and 12 shows the mapping activity.

R3- C8

References:

The references are poor; the key figures in the landscape, park, and green space research are not in the references. Particularly, who worked on perceptions, sense of place, therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens, and other groups of authors who design methodology for landscape, green space, and students-related research methodology.

We have focused on literature around nature connectedness and the potential role of citizen science/living labs.

R3 C9

Figures:

The quality of images and maps is fine. However, the quality of the diagrams is poor

We have revised the figures to ensure the quality is correct.