Examining the Impact of Crowding Perception on the Generation of Negative Emotions among Users of Small Urban Micro Public Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and methodologically rigorous. The research makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of urban micro-public spaces and their role in urban sustainability. However, it contains inconsistencies and other shortcomings.

Title:

It is well-constructed and aligns with the research's content and objectives.

Abstract:

1-    The abstract effectively conveys the study's purpose, methods, and key findings. Adding a bit more detail about the methodologies and clarifying the specific research gap addressed would enhance its completeness. Overall, it provides a strong foundation for readers to understand the study's significance.

2-    Suggestion: Consider mentioning the geographical context of Shenyang, China, in the abstract to provide readers with a clearer idea of the study's location.

Introduction:

1-    The introduction provides a solid overview of the research context, emphasizing the importance of micro-public spaces in urban areas. However, it might be helpful to provide a brief definition or description of what micro-public spaces are for readers who may not be familiar with the term.

2-    Consider revising and simplifying some sentences in the introduction for clarity and readability. For instance, in the sentence, "Micro and small public spaces exhibit a functional network dimension," break down the idea into more straightforward language.

3-    The introduction successfully outlines the research questions and objectives, but it could conclude with a concise statement of the study's contributions to the field of urban planning and environmental psychology.

4-    To enhance the introduction, consider providing more specific statistics or examples of urban crowding issues in China to illustrate the problem's magnitude.

Materials and methods:

1-    The section effectively describes the study area and the rationale for selecting specific micro-public spaces in Shenyang. However, it could benefit from a brief explanation of why these spaces were chosen for analysis (e.g., their representativeness or significance).

2-    Study area: The introduction to the study area provides essential context for the research. However, you could enhance this section by briefly explaining why Shenyang was chosen as the study area and why these specific districts and micro-public spaces were selected.

3-    Sample Selection: While you mention the classification of micro-public spaces into five categories, consider providing a brief explanation of what these categories represent and why they were chosen.

4-    Instruments:

1-    In the "Questionnaire design" subsection, you've mentioned the sections of the questionnaire but consider briefly explaining the purpose of each section. For example, clarify how the "Crowding Perception Scale" or the "Emotional Response Scale" contribute to the study's objectives.

2-    Also, authors mention that the data collection for the questionnaire was conducted using a random sampling method. It would be beneficial to provide more details on the sampling process, such as how participants were approached to ensure the randomness of the sample.

3-    Offer a bit more detail on the data collection process, including how participants were recruited and any specific instructions they received.

4-    Consider providing more details about the specific psychometric scales used, such as the source or references.

5-    Physiological instrument:

1-    Consider briefly explaining why EEG data collection was chosen as part of your methodology. How does it complement the questionnaire data? What unique insights can it provide?

2-    Mention the ethical considerations and informed consent process for using physiological instruments on human participants. Ensuring that ethical guidelines were followed is important for the credibility of the study.

6-    Experimental Design:

1-    Explain the rationale behind the choice of the 1 × 2 (crowded/uncrowded) within-subjects experimental design. How does this design address your research questions effectively?

2-    Mention any control measures taken to ensure that external factors did not affect EEG data collection.

7-    Data Analysis:

1-    Provide a brief overview of why structural equation modeling (SEM) was chosen as the data analysis technique. How does it suit your research objectives and data type?

2-    Clarify whether you performed any data preprocessing steps on EEG data before applying SEM, such as artifact removal or data cleaning.

3-    In the SEM section, you mention the importance of a validated factor analysis (CFA). It would be helpful to briefly explain what CFA is and how it contributes to the analysis process.

4-    18 participants: I strongly suggest you provide citations that describe other studies that are reported in the literature that use a similar number of participants in order to help justify the small sample frame.

5-    Could you please provide more details about the process of randomly selecting the 18 participants for the experimental assessment using the Emotiv EPOC device? Specifically, what criteria or methods were used for the random selection, and is there a particular reason for the choice of this sample size?

Results:

1-    The section starts with a clear presentation of demographic data, which is useful for understanding the participant profile.

2-    The validation of the measurement model is briefly mentioned, but you could provide more context on why this validation is essential and how it impacts the study's reliability.

Discussions:

1-    In the "Crowding Perception on Emotional Arousal" subsection, provide concrete examples or scenarios of how crowding in micro-public spaces can evoke negative emotions. This will help readers connect the findings to real-life situations.

2-    Clarify why EEG data were used as a physiological measure and how this complements the psychometric measures of emotions.

3-    In the "Relationship Between Perception of Crowding and Mood and Revisit Intention" subsection, discuss whether the relationships observed are linear or more complex. Are there specific thresholds where emotions significantly affect revisit intentions?

4-    In the "Implications for Urban Sustainability" subsection, expand on the broader implications of the study for urban planning and sustainability. Consider discussing potential challenges and trade-offs in optimizing micro-public spaces for emotional well-being.

5-    Suggestion: conclude the discussion with a concise summary of the main practical takeaways and the broader significance of the research.

6-    Additionally, discussing potential limitations and avenues for future research would strengthen this section.

Conclusion:

1-    Overall, the conclusion effectively summarizes the study's contributions and implications, but a bit more focus on practical implications and future research directions could enhance its comprehensiveness.

2-    While it's commendable that you've included relevant references to support your findings, it is advisable to cite specific studies or results in the discussion section that are particularly pertinent to your research. This approach can further bolster and substantiate your conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

      Thank you for your question and the constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule.All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us,and have discussed and revisions each of these issues.About my list of revisions.Please see the attachment.In addition,we have resubmitted a new manuscript in the revised state,with the revisions highlighted in red.If there are any incorrect answers or questions in the manuscript,please do not hesitate to let us know.

        Thanks again for your guidance and interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed in this manuscript is original and the theoretical framework is interesting. However, it seems that factors such as "place-attachment", whether a person is visiting the site for the first time or not, or proximity between the participants' home and the site (which would probably be key factors in terms of their perception of the place) are not considered.

It also seems confusing that the title and first sections focus on urban public spaces, while later on the theoretical background is based on social perception of green spaces and natural environments. And later on, the reader discovers that the case studies are all urban green spaces. In my opinion, much of the attractiveness and emotional input might come from experiencing natural elements in an urban environment. However, there are many urban public spaces that are not necessarily green. If the focus is on green urban public spaces (or micro spaces), then perhaps this should be made clear from the very beginning, including in the title.

I also wonder whether the marital status was needed in the data from participants. Was it relevant in any way?

In terms of language, some minor edits should be done, e.g. line 56 "UMPS have establish stronger..."; line 72 where the word "comprehensive" appears twice; lines 104-105 where a sentence seems to be unfinished; line 106 refers to a thesis (which I guess is where the research comes from); line 141 mentions 3 dimensions but then is followed by a list of 4 items; in line 232 the acronym EEG should be presented in its complete form (explaining what it means).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review minor language issues. See comment above.

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

      Thank you for your question and the constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule.All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us,and have discussed and revisions each of these issues.About my list of revisions.Please see the attachment.In addition,we have resubmitted a new manuscript in the revised state,with the revisions highlighted in red.If there are any incorrect answers or questions in the manuscript,please do not hesitate to let us know.

        Thanks again for your guidance and interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attachment for detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper does not have enough quality to publish in this journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

      Thank you for your question and the constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule.All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us,and have discussed and revisions each of these issues.About my list of revisions.Please see the attachment.In addition,we have resubmitted a new manuscript in the revised state,with the revisions highlighted in red.If there are any incorrect answers or questions in the manuscript,please do not hesitate to let us know.

        Thanks again for your guidance and interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In current study (sustainability-2608643), the authors empirically investigated and analyzed: “Examining the impact of crowding perception on the generation of negative emotions among users of small urban micro-public spaces”

 

First of all, thanks authors for taking time and doing amendment based on reviewers’ comments. However, I still do believe that subject is not new and finding are not very outstanding, but based on new methodological approach that authors used for this research the paper could published with a minor correction.

 

- Abstract: Now is better in this format, however it stile ed some amendment. Second, third and fourth sentences started with “This study”!! its suggested these sentences change in starting and even their presence in the Abstract. Its better first mention what are you going to do? Then case study, Shenyang…(the reason for choosing), then the methods you applied and followed by results.  

 

- Keywords: still are as same as what are presented in the Title! As search engines are based on keywords and title, their similarities will made limitation of consideration by researchers, that’s why suggested to be different from Title.

 

- Introduction: Now, it’s better than what presented before.

 

- Literature Review: Still same as last version of manuscript, most parts (except the first three of them) tried to introduce different research methods! Its better methods introduced in method section. Instead, main factors that examined in the study introduced for readers.

 

- Methods: this section is fine and have described well for readers.

 

- Results: need to be arranged based on objectives of the research. And, tables that seems not necessary, It is better to omit those. 

 

- discussion: Now it is presented better than last version of manuscript, however still need more citation and comparison with other similar studies.

 

- Conclusion: Now it is well summarized the study. 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In current study (sustainability-2608643), the authors empirically investigated and analyzed: “Examining the impact of crowding perception on the generation of negative emotions among users of small urban micro-public spaces”

 

First of all, thanks authors for taking time and doing amendment based on reviewers’ comments. However, I still do believe that subject is not new and finding are not very outstanding, but based on new methodological approach that authors used for this research the paper could published with a minor correction.

 

- Abstract: Now is better in this format, however it stile ed some amendment. Second, third and fourth sentences started with “This study”!! its suggested these sentences change in starting and even their presence in the Abstract. Its better first mention what are you going to do? Then case study, Shenyang…(the reason for choosing), then the methods you applied and followed by results.  

 

- Keywords: still are as same as what are presented in the Title! As search engines are based on keywords and title, their similarities will made limitation of consideration by researchers, that’s why suggested to be different from Title.

 

- Introduction: Now, it’s better than what presented before.

 

- Literature Review: Still same as last version of manuscript, most parts (except the first three of them) tried to introduce different research methods! Its better methods introduced in method section. Instead, main factors that examined in the study introduced for readers.

 

- Methods: this section is fine and have described well for readers.

 

- Results: need to be arranged based on objectives of the research. And, tables that seems not necessary, It is better to omit those. 

 

- discussion: Now it is presented better than last version of manuscript, however still need more citation and comparison with other similar studies.

 

- Conclusion: Now it is well summarized the study. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

      Thank you for your question and the constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule. All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us and have discussed and revisions each of these issues. About my list of revisions. Please see the attachment. In addition, we have resubmitted a new manuscript in the revised state, with the revisions highlighted in red and thicken. If there are any incorrect answers or questions in the manuscript, please do not hesitate to let us know.

        Thanks again for your guidance and interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf