Spatiotemporal Influence of Urban Park Landscape Features on Visitor Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript introduces an interesting topic. Relating the influence of urban park landscapes and visitors' behavior. The text is well-written and it is easy to follow. Therefore the manuscript fails in some specific points. Is rather generic and lacks sufficient detail about some of the information.

Abstract - does not indicate/locate the case study. Such a park could be anywhere. Only through the text, we can identify where exactly. No keywords locate also the geographic location of the case study.

Why the proposed methodology? How does it help the intended analysis and goal of the research? Why is it useful and no other was used? That is never explained and is a big fail.

Abstract. Line 10. refer to the use of questioners. Line 11 subjective results are mentioned. What do these have to do with the questionnaires? Lacks clarity here.

The abstract also misses the main issues. Why is this work important? What does it add in regarding previous work, etc?

Overall the entire manuscript is well written and described, but never sufficiently sustained in terms of pertinence. For example: in section 3. line 182 it is referred to 'landmarks was the dominant feature....

So what? What are their particularities? Did all case studies have identical landmarks, did they differ, and how?

Does the analyzed vegetation vary in color, smell, density, and texture?

All that is important. and its analysis should better sustain the results obtained about behaviors and senses.

The work is very much statistical and lacks sensitivity and density in terms of contributions. That would make the work much stronger, unique, and more useful.

Please revise the manuscript accordingly.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this article. Research on development & management of urban space, especially green areas in the city, is extremely important for the purposes of implementing the principles of sustainable development. Chinese cities are special cases, due to the scale of spatial problems, which nowhere in the world has such a wide scope. The unprecedented scale of visits to city parks, presented by the authors, is already fascinating. In the presented manuscript, the authors raised the problem of the relationship between the landscape features in urban parks and the behavior of visitors. This knowledge can influence the proper shaping of parks, in accordance with the needs of users and the spatial possibilities of specific areas. however, I have a few remarks which I hope will be taken into account in the revision of the manuscript:

1. It seems to me that the abstract did not highlight the purpose of the research. In fact, it is not known why the authors took up this topic, why it is their research problem

2. In key words you put "SOPARC" Please check if you need to expand the shortcut

3. Fig 1 (line 95) There are no boundaries for individual parks. White and blue markings are missing. there is no indication in the legend of the gray and black lines. Are these roads? I am not sure if the scale line has been placed correctly, the scale seems to be different

4. Due to the formatting of the text, table 2 is not fully understandable (note regarding editing)

5. line 121 - correct the format

6. Line 133, 135 - a dot is used after the word "figure" and there are no dots in the preceding brackets

7. line 141 (fig 2) - Why were different shapes of individual graphs used?

8. Fig 3. I don't really know what this figure is about. Perhaps if the authors had more precisely explained the codes they used in the graphs in the description of the figure, it would have been easier to follow the reasoning of the researchers

Other results and conclusions are clearly presented

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I would recommend adding some explanation or assumption on the behavior of children and the young generation, and equipment of parks with children's playgrounds or sports facilities, because it seems that their behavior does not affect the increase of exercise and recreational activities during weekends. What could be the reason behind this?

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Review of

„Spatiotemporal influence of urban park landscape features on visitor behavior”

 

Manuscript ID:  Sustainability-2253062

 

The article concerns the relationship between visitor behavior and park features. The issue was explored in 10 urban parks located in the West Lake Scenic Area in Hangzhou (China).

 

The subject and the applied method of the study (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities) are not knew. Quoting Marquet et all (2019)[1] “The SOPARC protocol is one of the most frequently used methods to assess park-use and understand physical activity and the demographic composition of park visitors”. However, authors of similar studies indicate the need for further studies on this topic.

 

The structure of the paper is correct and consistent with publishing requirements. General and specific comments are listed below.

 

Comment 1 – Abstract – line 9

“The relationship between tourists' behavior(…)” -  tourists’ or visitors’?

Comment 2 – keywords

According to the current title, I suggest to remove “Visitor’s behaviors” and “Landscape features” from keywords as they are already mentioned in the title. Instead, You can add SOPARC. In case of  the keyword “Trade-offs” is something missing. I would suggest to consider: trade-offs in urban parks planning.

Comment 3 - Lines 45-46

“According to Demand Theory, the planned behavior of visitors is place-dependent; for example, visitors interested in planning parties will tend to choose open spaces”  - Please, give some other examples of such correlations.

 

Comment 4– line 111

“Data was collected during autumn….(…)” – of each year?

 

 

Comment 5-Line 116

I suggest to explain the acronym SOPARC - the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities.

 

Comment 6 – Data collection

I suggest to  include some additional information, such as: number of visitors that were count, number of observations sessions, an average observation session length.

 

Comment 7– Discussion/conclusions

SOPARC is one the fundamental tool to quantify park visitor behaviors and characteristics. Many similar studies have been conducted. Therefore, I suggest to give your feedback concerning strengths and weaknesses (limitations) of this tool.

 

It would be valuable to know how your conclusions regarding visitor’s behavior relate to the results presented in previous studies.

Comment 8– editing

You should carefully revise the text because there are some editorial errors (e.g. line: 100, 132)

 

Date of this review

 28 February 2023

 

[1] Marquet, O., Hipp, J.A., Alberico, C. et al. Use of SOPARC to assess physical activity in parks: do race/ethnicity, contextual conditions, and settings of the target area, affect reliability?. BMC Public Health 19, 1730 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-8107-0

 

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript ID:  Sustainability-2253062

 - Second Review

 

I carefully analyzed the authors' responses given to all reviewers and changes introduced in the manuscript. Thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration. In my opinion, the article can be accepted for publishing.