Public Behavior in Urban Parks during Pandemics as a Foundation for Risk Assessment by Park Managers: A Case Study in Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The problem should be grounded in related work. Here related work is just a list of few summaries and not compared with the proposed work.
2. There exist many famous feature extraction techniques, compare the results with them to show effectiveness of the proposed system. And show how your work is better or different from them.
3. Theoretical and practical comparison with existing techniques is required.

4. There exist many famous feature extraction techniques, compare the results with them to show effectiveness of the proposed system. And show how your work is better or different from them.
5. The idea of a paper is good but it is not unique and is similar to some research papers

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a great job.

1) Is the subject of the article within the scope of the journal?

@ Yes

[ ] No

 

2) Is this a new and original contribution?

@ Yes

[ ] No

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first attempt to develop and implement a practical risk assessment tool for respiratory illness transmission on the POST level by observing user behaviors.

 

3)Does the title of this paper clearly and sufficiently reflect its contents?

@Yes

[ ] No

The manuscript attempts to develop a practical tool for park managers to assess the risk of contracting respiratory contagious illnesses, decide on meaningful mitigation measures, and monitor the effect of these measures.

 

4)Are the abstracts and keywords informative? (Will they help a reader find *this* article using search engines?)

@Yes

[ ] No

 

5)Are the presentation, organization and length of the article satisfactory?

@ Yes

[ ] No

 

6)Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by the data?

@ Yes

[ ] No

The findings justified by the data they collected, and indicated that the waterfront railing area, playground, and pier were the POSTs with highest risk. By using the checklist, park managers can contribute to the success of non-pharmaceutical mitigation interventions at a local scale.

 

Content

7) Are the references adequate and are they all necessary?                     

@ Yes

[ ] No

 

8)Is the quality of the English language satisfactory?         

@ Yes

[ ] No

 

9)Are the illustrations and tables necessary and of acceptable quality?

@ Yes

[ ] No

 

10)Should anything be added to the paper?

[ ] Yes

@No

 

11)Should anything be deleted from the paper?

[ ] Yes

@ No

 

12)Does the article significantly further the science?

@Yes

[ ] No

The assessment is based on the spatial and temporal behaviors of users at each park open space type (POST), particularly the behaviors that may impact the risk of illness transmission.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your effort in reviewing my manuscript. Please be advised that a minor language editing was done.
Best Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Presented research is very interesting.

There are some questions however:

-          Please give the full name of the park before using only the abbreviation JWP

-          It seems that there are 2 different checklists? It is so? It would be clearer to refer to them in the text with some code or name

-          In Table 1, please check that the risk level values (high to virtually none) are listed well: for example does that mean that 1.1 for less then 1m is High risk with 3 point?

-          Please instead of “we” use more adequate term such as “reserchers”, “research team”, “author”, or something similar

-          Lines 207-223 it would be good to provide the empty table with the definition of scores such as in Table 1, especially as after, in Table 9. It is not clear how the values are assigned (criteria and value definition are not given)

-          In the text, when referring to the figures and tables, please add to which figure and table you are referring to (it is sometimes lacking)

-          Please give the limits of the model and possible developments

-          Also the option of opening only some parts of the space could lead to overcrowding in those spaces, so there is still the indeterminate factor that is not covered by the model which is static… maybe there can be also the development?

-          Please check that the conclusions reflect the limit and development part

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

I’ve read your manuscript with great interest. It is internationally important, based on in-depth research project, informative, and bearing practical recommendations. The manuscript is well-structured, well-illustrated, and referenced appropriately. The proposed methodology is simple and innovative, and it is worth itself. I really like this work and specify several easy-to-follow recommendations, which may contribute to the readers’ interest in it.

1)      PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATION: This nice study utilizes several sets of data. However, after two-three rounds of reading, I still cannot understand how these data are united and processed. I suppose some other readers may face the same difficulty. So, please, try to provide additional explanations. I do not have doubts in the quality of your data or the power of your approach, but I simply wish for clarity of the methodological framework of this work. Note also that your methodology should be communicated exactly in the same order as your results are described.

2)      Title: please, indicate the country where the study was undertaken.

3)      Author’s affiliation: please, give in full!

4)      Abstract & Introduction: a scientific study may have practical implication, but it should aim, first of all, at solution of some more general task. Moreover, one case study, if even so good, is not enough for universal developments. So, please, re-formulate your objective.

5)      Key words: please, avoid the words from the title.

6)      Section 2: you have to write more about the city and its natural and socio-economical peculiarities.

7)      Subsection 3.1: how the literature was reviewed? With which bibliographical databases or without them? And what about consultancy with landscape architects – who are them?

8)      Discussion: I recommend to check the literature whether some mutations of the virus itself would influence on its transmission. If this is so, what are the consequences for your findings and recommendations?

9)      The writing is clear, but the author often writes “we”, although there is one author in this study. If many people were involved into this study, the paper should have several authors.

10)  I strongly feel that this manuscript needs good Acknowledgements section where the author has to thank all who consulted him and supported in his “field” investigations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf