Research on the Factors Influencing the Perception of Urban Park Recreational Behavior Based on the “Homo Urbanicus” Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting topic, but it needs improvement on some areas. Please see the attached document for detailed comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comments to Authors

Based on "Homo Urbanicus" Theory, this study seeks the structure of influencing factors of recreational satisfaction of urban parks, providing a reference for improving the quality of urban parks using Factor analysis and the Structural Equation Model (SEM). The following modification and improvement points are recommended.

 

Response: Thank you very much for your patience in reading and commenting. We will revise the manuscript according to your proposed modification and improvements.

 

Introduction:

Point 1: What is the research question in this study? The reviewer thinks that the introduction section needs significant improvement in terms of the problem, identifying gaps and research questions, and adding the motivations to do this research.

 

Response: Thank you for your patience in reading this manuscript, we strongly agree with your suggestion and we have rewritten the introduction section in

Lines 38-61:

“As an urban green infrastructure, green space in parks plays an important role in the maintenance of the urban natural structure and ecological sustainability. In terms of scale, China's urban park construction has led to great achievements in recent years, but the recreational resources in urban parks are limited in terms of their detail and quality, mainly manifested in the following: Firstly, the social experience mechanism of urban parks is not perfect. Recreational activities in urban parks are mostly based on communication between families and friends, while social communication between different groups is less significant. Social interaction in urban parks is, to some extent, important for promoting social cohesion [2] . Moreover, the characteristics of urban park recreational experience are not well-defined. Most urban parks are affected by the phenomenon of "one side of a thousand cities", and urban parks lack a unique label in terms of recreational experience [3] . Finally, there are problems related to regional identification and regional culture. Many urban parks do not play the role of regional cultural heritage, which leads to bias regarding the recognition of urban areas in which urban parks are located and can easily cause regional recognition obstacles [4,5].

According to the above three points, the problems affecting urban parks in terms of recreational social experience, recreational characteristics, and regional recognition are mainly reflected in three aspects: recreational satisfaction, place dependence, and recreational motivation in urban parks. Therefore, the analysis of these various elements, recreation satisfaction, place dependence, and recreation motivation, will help us to further explore the experience mechanism of urban park recreation and study the relationships between various elements in the structure of urban park recreational experience, which is also essential for improving the quality of urban parks.”

 

lines 159-163.

“In this paper, we hope to apply the "Homo Urbanicus" theory to explore the following two questions: What is the relationship between the elements in the structure of urban park recreation experience? How to improve the quality of urban parks in terms of recreation experience. ”
Point 2: Add the structure of the research at the end of the introduction.

 

Response: Thanks to your suggestion, we have added the structure of the research to the end of introduction.

 

Lines:164-165: Figure 1. Structure of the Research.

 

Point 3: Please add a literature section to clearly review the previous research gaps and findings regarding the urban park issues and methodology limitations. You may add a literature review and research hypotheses together for each proposed construct ("people", "event", "opportunity" and "space").

 

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added the relevant referencein lines 113-136:

 

“Improving the recreational quality of parks is key to improving the quality of urban parks. Cheng Siya used the method of importance–performance analysis to study recreational satisfaction with 50 urban parks in Beijing[41] and found that the park space facilities, activity types, crowd characteristics, and other factors have different degrees of influence on recreational activities in urban parks [42,43]. This conclusion was confirmed in the research on urban parks conducted by Huang Songyao and Liang Huilin using social media data and survey data. In the study of urban parks, Heo Seulkee pointed out the importance of the relationship between the convenience experienced by individuals in life, social economy, age, gender, and other indicators, as well as access to park green spaces for recreation opportunities [44] . Dai Daixin argued that in urban parks, a variety of sports facilities and more inclusive design, planning, and management strategies are conducive to promoting recreational participation among young person [45] . In addition, Shams Khadija argued that the physiological perception of individuals also has an impact on their psychological perception, which is mainly reflected in the happiness brought about by health satisfaction in the case of urban parks [46] . This sense of happiness helps individuals to further strengthen their local attachment to urban parks. This kind of local attachment also enables psychological repair for the individual [47] . Liu Qunyue found that higher familiarity can help to improve the local identity of the recreational person and enhance the individual's location connection [48]. In fact, the main idea of recreational behavior research is to take person as the main body among the elements of environmental space and study the influences of individual behavior and space through the relationship between elements in the structure. ”

Methods:

Point 4: Based on what you proposed (figure 1) conceptual framework? Please check the number of figures; both are in figure 1?

 

Response: Thank you for your comments. We deleted the redundant statements and revised the words to make them correspond to the contents in the figure.

Lines:182-183:

Figure 2. Decomposition of the Four Dimensional Elements of Recreational Behavior in "Homo Urbanicus" Theory.

 

Point 5: Where are the details of the main model (SEM)? Which is your research's main method for analysis? However, you have several other formulas that are not very important.

 

Response:Thank you for your comments.The details of the main model (SEM) are reflected in the structural relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable shown in Figure 4 and the numerical relationship between the elements shown in the causal model, from which the analysis conclusion in 3.2 is obtained.The formula is to show the process of Cronbach ' α coefficient calculation model in KOM spherical test and factor analysis. I very agree with your proposal that "they do not seem to be very important", so we have deleted them.

 

Point 6: What do you mean by "Proportion of 1 to 5 points" in Appendixes A and B?

 

Response:Thank you for your comments.“1-5 points ratio” refers to the percentage of the number of people whose corresponding score is 1 to 5 points in the questionnaire. For this reason, We added a percentage sign after “1-5 points ratio” in the table in Appendixes A and B.

 

Case study and data collection:

Point 7: As mentioned in line 159, data was collected at different times (nine months). Have you considered the temporal (winter and summer) influence on the perception of individuals?  

 

Response: Thanks to your comments, we believe that the season may be an important factor influencing individual perceptions, which we describe in the conclusion section of the manuscript.

Lines534-540:

“This study was the first to use the "Homo Urbanicus" theory as a research method for urban park recreational behavior in the academic field; thus, it has inevitable limitations, such as the changes in the content and demand of "self-existence" and "coexistence" among individuals in different seasons and the cross-changes in individual environmental perception between different ages and different time nodes, which are elements to be improved and refined in the future. ”

 

 

Point 8: I suggest a separate section regarding the case study and data collection or survey description.

 

Response: Thank you very much for your precious advice. we set three sub-headings: “2.1 Research Methods”, “2.2 Data Collection”, “2.3 Data Processing and Analysis” in lines:167, 209, 287.

 

And we also has added the survey description in lines 225-245:

“According to the descriptive statistics of the sample, the gender distribution of the sample tended to be balanced, with slightly more women than men, and the number of the masses far exceeded the number of party members in terms of the political situation, reaching 72.6%. Among the four types of urban parks, the sample size of large-scale green space parks was the largest, with 957 samples, accounting for 36.4%, while the percentage of undergraduates was the highest (45.6%) in terms of the educational level. In terms of the subjective definition of family economic status, the residents tended to be “Passable” and “Basically well-off”. In terms of the “Age” variable, the numerical difference in the sample size at each interval was not large, and the participants’ ages were mainly concentrated in the ranges of 30-40 and 40-50. As for the number of family members, three-member families accounted for 33.1% of the total population in the first instance, indicating that this is still the dominant pattern of family size in China's urban areas. It is also worth noting that the sample of “Many families in one family” closely followed, with a sample size of 31.2%; this shows that the “Two-child policy” has gradually been affecting the size of urban families. It is worth mentioning that on the “Living situation” scale, “Local residents” accounted for only 46.9%, while the “Non-resident” category comprised more than 50% of the total sample, reaching 53.1%, indicating that Zhengzhou is a city open to the migrant population. In this context of space contact, outsiders need to be more considered more inclusively in regard to city park humanistic care, which is an important factor in the design of urban public spaces.”

 

Results and discussion

Point 9: In the discussion section, it is required to compare the results with the literature findings locally and internationally.

 

Response: We couldn't agree more with your suggestion. We have added a comparison with relevant international literature in the discussion section.

 

Lines459-490:

“Li Fangzheng conducted an investigation on urban parks in 11 cities in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region, discussed the relationship between the building density and green space areas of large cities and their impacts of the flow of people, and argued that the urban green space area is positively related to the service radius of urban parks. In this paper, this can be understood as the impact of "landscape greening" on individual recreational perception, but from the perspective of the causal model described in this paper, compared with the other four independent variables, "landscape greening" has no significant impact on the three latent variables of "human attraction", "space belonging", and "space trust". This may be due to conceptual differences between the "service radius of urban parks" and the three latent variables mentioned in this paper [55] . Liu Ruixue's research on satisfaction with urban parks among recreational users highlighted that the park area, air quality, vegetation, mosquitoes, recreational facilities, sign system, landscape visual effects, maintenance of facilities and plants, and environmental cleanliness, as well as another nine predictive variables, significantly affect a person's satisfaction with urban parks. Among these factors, it was found that the sign system has the greatest impact, followed by recreational facilities. In this paper, we show that the sign system has certain correlations with "functional facilities" and "supporting facilities". Although, in Liu Ruixue's research, "human attraction", "space trust", and "satisfaction" have different meanings, and the factor load data and components of their interactions are different, these latent variables refer to the subjective judgment of individuals based on local perception; hence, the conclusion of these researchers is consistent with the findings of this paper [56] . In addition, Bao Yu argued that children are a very important participant group in urban parks; thus, children's recreational behavior and environmental and psychological perception are also crucial for improving the quality of urban parks. In the study in question, Bao Yu found that recreational facilities are the most significant independent variable in the impact model of social perception and regional security perception. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion that "functional facilities" have a strong correlation with "space trust" in this paper and shows that this conclusion is also applicable to children [57].”

 

Conclusions:

Point 10: It is suggested to add the innovation points of this paper in the conclusion part. In addition, what are the practical implications and limitations of the present research?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have added a description of the innovation, practical implications and limitations in the conclusion section.

 

Lines:526-540:

“The main innovation of this study lies in its use of the "Homo Urbanicus" theory to study the impacts of elements of recreational behavior, marking an exploratory application of this theory. Individual recreational experience is crucial for spatial participation in urban parks. In terms of methodology, according to the scale of "self-existence" and "coexistence" that constructs the influence relationship in "Homo Urbanicus" theory, recreational behavior is also an expression of a causal model of the interaction between "person" and "space" structural elements. This study was the first to use the "Homo Urbanicus" theory as a research method for urban park recreational behavior in the academic field; thus, it has inevitable limitations, such as the changes in the content and demand of "self-existence" and "coexistence" among individuals in different seasons and the cross-changes in individual environmental perception between different ages and different time nodes, which are elements to be improved and refined in the future. ”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on "Homo Urbanicus" Theory, this study seeks the structure of influencing factors of recreational satisfaction of urban parks, providing a reference for improving the quality of urban parks using Factor analysis and the Structural Equation Model (SEM). The following modification and improvement points are recommended in order to meet the standards of the Sustainability journal.

Introduction:

1. What is the research question in this study? The reviewer thinks that the introduction section needs significant improvement in terms of the problem, identifying gaps and research questions, and adding the motivations to do this research. 

2. Add the structure of the research at the end of the introduction.

3. Please add a literature section to clearly review the previous research gaps and findings regarding the urban park issues and methodology limitations. You may add a literature review and research hypotheses together for each proposed construct ("people", "event", "opportunity" and "space").

Methods:

4. Based on what you proposed (figure 1) conceptual framework? Please check the number of figures; both are in figure 1?  

 5. Where are the details of the main model (SEM)? Which is your research's main method for analysis? However, you have several other formulas that are not very important.

6. What do you mean by "Proportion of 1 to 5 points" in Appendixes A and B?

Case study and data collection

7. As mentioned in line 159, data was collected at different times (nine months). Have you considered the temporal (winter and summer) influence on the perception of individuals?  

 8. I suggest a separate section regarding the case study and data collection or survey description. 

Results and discussion

9. In the discussion section, it is required to compare the results with the literature findings locally and internationally. 

Conclusions 

10. It is suggested to add the innovation points of this paper in the conclusion part. In addition, what are the practical implications and limitations of the present research?

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Abstract

Point 1: It gives us the key information of the paper, but language could be improved to make it more focused. Line 9: ‘This study studies’ – consider revising, sounds a bit repetitive.

 

Response: Thank you for your patience in reading our manuscript, We agree with your comments, We make changes to the language to make the paper easy to read:

Lines10-25:

“The improvement of the quality of urban parks plays a vital role in the construction and development of urban society. This study examined the factors influencing recreational satisfaction with urban parks, providing a reference for measures to improve the quality of urban parks. Based on the theory of "Homo Urbanicus", we conducted a factor analysis of recreation satisfaction with urban parks and constructed a structural equation model. It can be seen from the analysis results produced by the causal model that "supporting facilities" and "functional facilities" have the highest contributions to the factor load of the model, which indicates that individual recreational satisfaction with urban parks is mainly based on the relationship between individuals and space conditions. In other words, these elements are necessary to meet the requirement of the "physical" in the "Homo Urbanicus" theory and to supplement the "physical–group–rational" method structure in the "Homo Urbanicus" theory. This conclusion indicates that the improvement of the "functional facilities" and "supporting facilities" of urban parks will play an important role in improving recreational satisfaction with urban parks. The results of this study can help researchers to build an urban park quality evaluation system from the perspective of recreation quality.”

 

Introduction:

Point 2: The information is great, however this reads like a literature review. I would like to see a more focused introduction explaining the scope and aims of the paper with some initial level of background information. For example what is recreation behaviour? My suggestion is to rewrite the introduction keeping just the key literature and move all the other literature and background into a literature review section. Line 29-31: Please rewrite as the point is not clear.

 

Response: Thanks for your suggestions. We have rewritten the introduction section in lines 62-112:

“With the continuous development and improvement of cities, the quality of urban parks has become a comprehensive symbol of the developmental level of a city, and research on recreation in urban parks has become an important part of urban research [6,7]. Recreational behavior has the characteristics of general dispersion and randomness in terms of spatial distribution [8]. William E. Hammitt followed the argument of Cyrus W. Young that recreational behavior in urban parks is actually a local preference generated by the coupling of behavior and place [9]. Changes in space, time, and place elements can follow changes in the subject's perception and experience of recreational behavior, a notion which is also the objective basis for the study of the subject's perception and experience of entertainment. Later, this perception difference was also explained according to cultural cognitive structure and objective event factors (Yoon Jee-In; Rose I. Verbose; William L Rice) [10–12]. The study of recreational behavior is mainly reflected in the relationship of the "spatial individual" with the "subject structure". This is largely reflected in the research on recreational behavior satisfaction, preference, or motivation and behavior-related decision-making mechanisms (Richard; Daniel R. Williams; Christos) [13–15]. Therefore, recreational behavior can also be interpreted as a whole system mechanism developed from a single element [16].

Alan D. Bright argued that the key factor affecting recreational behavior experience is the importance of the individual and advocated for the establishment of the absolute evaluative status of the individual's subjective perception in environmental experience [17]  so as to design external conditions that could change their behavioral choices according to their subjective incentive needs [18,19] . Joan Vitesso was influenced by Alan D. Bright. Using place attachment to study the emotional feedback system of recreational behavior, Joan provided an improved model of human–land emotional connection between objective entertainment behavior and subjective experience [20] . This kind of human–land emotional connection mainly reflects recreational behavior expressed through the environmental values of the subproject [21,22]. Daniel R. Williams argued that the experience generated by recreational behavior has a significant impact on local attachment sensitivity [23]. Based on Bright and Joan Vitesso, William E. divided Bright's personal subjective perception into four dimensions, namely, familiarity, belonging, identity, and dependence, through the structural equation model, in which identity and familiarity have significant impacts on dependence and belonging [24].

The study of recreational behavior in space is mainly reflected in the feedback structure relationship between subjective perception and objective factors (Kil Namyun) [25] . Joan Vitesso argued that this feedback structure relationship is mainly manifested in a type of recreational behavior emotional feedback called "local attachment" [26] . In addition, the study of recreational behavior also includes cultural and service perception of recreational behavior [27] , psychological perception and behavior [28], , subjective wellbeing [29] , the stage value of recreational behavior [30] , the cultural background and physical and mental performance of recreational behavior subjects [31] , the narrative nature of the spatial structure, and many other behavioral perception indicators that are difficult to quantify [32] . There are also multi-level and multi-structural differences in the research objects of recreational behavior, such as those described by Neil Lundberg [33], Erin Burkett [34], Claudio D. Rosa [35], Kathryn Colley[36], Yuan Kuoshu [37], Coriss Outley [38], Stodolska Monika [39] , and Ishwar Dhami [40] , as well as other classes and personal factors of recreational subjects incorporated into the causal structure, which focuses on occupation, gender, age, race, and recreational behavior.”

 

Point 3: There are also repetitions for example Line 100: ‘It is a unified urban research

methodology’ and again 4 lines after (line 103) ‘a methodological theory of urban

planning…’

 

Response:Thanks for the reminder, we don't think this sentence is applicable, so in the revised article we changed it to:

Lines 141-142:

The “Homo Urbanicus" theory provides a person-oriented perspective for urban planning and design.

 

Point 4: The introduction misses the aims and objectives of this study. This is crucial. 

 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion.About this part, we changed it to

 Lines: 38-53:

As an urban green infrastructure, green space in parks plays an important role in the maintenance of the urban natural structure and ecological sustainability. In terms of scale, China's urban park construction has led to great achievements in recent years, but the recreational resources in urban parks are limited in terms of their detail and quality, mainly manifested in the following: Firstly, the social experience mechanism of urban parks is not perfect. Recreational activities in urban parks are mostly based on communication between families and friends, while social communication between different groups is less significant. Social interaction in urban parks is, to some extent, important for promoting social cohesion [2] . Moreover, the characteristics of urban park recreational experience are not well-defined. Most urban parks are affected by the phenomenon of "one side of a thousand cities", and urban parks lack a unique label in terms of recreational experience [3] . Finally, there are problems related to regional identification and regional culture. Many urban parks do not play the role of regional cultural heritage, which leads to bias regarding the recognition of urban areas in which urban parks are located and can easily cause regional recognition obstacles [4,5].

According to the above three points, the problems affecting urban parks in terms of recreational social experience, recreational characteristics, and regional recognition are mainly reflected in three aspects: recreational satisfaction, place dependence, and recreational motivation in urban parks. Therefore, the analysis of these various elements, recreation satisfaction, place dependence, and recreation motivation, will help us to further explore the experience mechanism of urban park recreation and study the relationships between various elements in the structure of urban park recreational experience, which is also essential for improving the quality of urban parks.

Materials and Methods

Point 5: The first paragraph and Figure 1 certainly seems to fit to the literature review section. It is good to explain that this has been used as the main methodology though. 

Line 153: This is Figure 2 not 1.

Line 159: ‘The survey’. What survey? This is what you should have explained further.

 

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. We have changed the order according to the drawing number (Lines:181).

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Your question reflects the connection between the two paragraphs, so we added:

According to the basic information of the questionnaire, Appendix A and Appendix B, the questionnaire was made and the field survey was conducted.

Lines:209-210.

 

Point 6: Line 177, Perhaps introducing this is data analysis?

 

Response: Thank you for pointing out the problem. In order to express this part more clearly, we have added the analysis part of variable statistics:

Lines:252-285.

According to the answers to the questionnaire of the evaluation scale X1-X30 of the park's space resources, the highest proportion of the five points in the X28 "evaluation of the number of garbage cans in the park" is 18.0%, which reflects the general recognition of the park's space sanitation management level; Secondly, X6 "Do you think the traffic to the park is convenient", reaching 15.2%, indicating that the current traffic accessibility of the city is satisfactory to some extent, and person are generally satisfied with the distribution mode of the park in the traffic road grid. In the lowest score of 1 point, the highest answer is X18 "Do you think the rain shelter facilities in the park are sufficient", reaching 2.4. In addition, in X13 "park parking spaces", it reached 2.1%, in X20 "personal amusement facilities", it reached 1.8%, in X17 "fitness facilities in the park", it reached 1.7%, and in the same low score of 2 points, X13, X11, X18 also accounted for 25.2%, 23.5%, and 15.1% respectively. In fact, the problem descriptions of X13, X11, X18, X17, and X20 are all about the functions and design contents of the park's internal facilities, which shows that users are not very satisfied with the experience of some detailed functions of the park at present.

In the survey results of the scale of individual perception and evaluation of the park space, it can be seen that the variable with the lowest score and the largest proportion is Y2, "Who do you accept to accompany you to the park?", and the proportion of the variable with 1 score reaches 5.8%, but the choice of this question is an expanding range of choices from "self" to "other" social relations, which belongs to the problem variable of fact description, and is not a "intuitive" question, Therefore, it is not comparable with Y1, Y15, Y17 and Y13, which have the same high proportion in 1 point. For the 2.4%, 1.8%, 1.6% and 1.5% generated by Y1, Y15, Y17 and Y13 respectively, these four variables are actually the sense of integration between the individual and other individual environments in the park. Within the five zones, the highest proportion is Y21, Y22 and Y20. The three variables are "you think the security threat from strangers in the park", "you think you are a part of Zhengzhou in the park", and "you rate the management level of the park", which indicates that the interviewees generally believe that the park has a full sense of security, and the newcomers to the place mainly come from security management, Moreover, the interviewees generally have strong human-land feelings towards Zhengzhou.

 

Results

Point 7: The results in general have a lot of information and statistics, however they seem a bit dry. You are discussing about urban and green spaces and behaviours, how are your findings relate to that? Consider improving the infographics to show correlation with the green space and behaviours.

 

Response:.We appreciate your affirmation of the research results.According to your suggestion, we added：

Lines:492-514.

The structural equation model is a causal model of recreation behavior based on the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory, creating a theoretical model of the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory in the recreation behavior of urban parks. This model shows that under the basic structure of "person", "events", "time" and "space", through the experience and feedback of individual recreational behavior, the causal structure model of the perception of individual park space resources to individual park space is obtained. According to the interpretation of "self existence" and "coexistence" in the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory, recreational behavior is actually a kind of contact behavior between person and space. From the perspective of the causal model of the study, this contact behavior is reflected in the five independent variables of space resources, namely, "functional facilities", "supporting facilities", "landscape greening", "demand facilities", and "space management level", which respectively reflect the goal demand, equipment support, and natural contact demand Basic physiological needs and space service needs are the basic elements of five actors. Therefore, the independent variable "park space resources" is divided into five factor models: "functional facilities", "supporting facilities", "landscape greening", "demand facilities", and "space management level". "individual park space perception" is divided into three factor models: "human attraction", "sense of space belonging", and "sense of space trust", This is also in line with the judgment of the basic conditions and elements of individual contact with space in the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory(Figure 5).

Figure 5. Five-factor model of park space resources corresponding to space contact demand.

 

Discussion

Point 8: The points here are interesting, but language and writing style make it harder

to demonstrate their significance. Improve these points and you will have a much stronger section.

Line 321: ‘two indicators indicate’ – repetition

Line 324: ‘all ages’. It happens – not comma

 

Response: Thanks for the reminder, we have corrected these two problems in the revised version of the manuscript.

Conclusion

Point 9: The conclusion should be much stronger presenting key points and ways forward. It needs to be improved. Think – what is the new knowledge ? Why is this paper significant? 

 

Response:Thanks to your reminder.We added:

Lines:526-540.

“The main innovation of this study lies in its use of the "Homo Urbanicus" theory to study the impacts of elements of recreational behavior, marking an exploratory application of this theory. Individual recreational experience is crucial for spatial participation in urban parks. In terms of methodology, according to the scale of "self-existence" and "coexistence" that constructs the influence relationship in "Homo Urbanicus" theory, recreational behavior is also an expression of a causal model of the interaction between "person" and "space" structural elements. This study was the first to use the "Homo Urbanicus" theory as a research method for urban park recreational behavior in the academic field; thus, it has inevitable limitations, such as the changes in the content and demand of "self-existence" and "coexistence" among individuals in different seasons and the cross-changes in individual environmental perception between different ages and different time nodes, which are elements to be improved and refined in the future.”

 

 

Point 10: Line 363-364 : Urban person theory – repetition

 

Response: Thank you for reminding us that urban person theory is a misnomer, and we have now corrected it to the“Homo Urbanicus” theory.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper explores causality between the features of green spaces and their perception by the users (that further affects users’ behaviour). Though the paper applies a sound methodological approach using mainly quantitative analysis of the pre-defined independent and dependent variables, referring to the physical features of green space and users’ perception, respectively, the weakest part of the paper is the transfer from the theoretical concept of ‘homo urbanicus’ to the model explored in the research. Several points need further consideration and elaboration to achieve consistency between the conceptual background and the research findings (from the case study).

 

1.     In the Introduction section, the authors highly refer to the sources/references attending to the immaterial features (e.g., perception, behaviour, habits, motivation, preference). However, the core of the case study analysed does not relate to these initially introduced concepts. Either modify the introductory section to include more references dealing with the physical features of a place or try to incorporate more of the immaterial features in the discussion part.

 

2.     The relationship between Figure 1 and Figure 3 is not clear. Are the variables (both independent and dependent) directly taken from the ‘homo urbanicus’ theory, or is the model as given in Figure 3 authors’ interpretation of the theory? In any case, the detailed description/definition of the dependent variables is missing. In particular, what are ‘human attraction’ and ‘space trust’? These are very vague, and other terms (e.g., security) have been used interchangeably in the paper. This brings even more significant confusion.

 

3.     Figure 2 seems redundant. The critical issue is to explain the relationship between Figure 1 and Figure 3, as noted in the above comment.

 

4.     The Discussion chapter should more profoundly elucidate the dependent variables instead of highlighting the features associated with the independent variables.

 

5.     The Conclusion section should situate the narrative in the broader perspective: e.g., critical limitations of the research, possibilities for further study, uniqueness of the approach or its applicability to other socio-spatial settings, etc.

 

 

6.     The paper needs thorough proofreading by a native speaker. Now it is complicated to read the article and get the right message the authors wanted to convey. The references have not been addressed as demanded by the guidelines for the paper preparation.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Comments to Authors

The paper explores causality between the features of green spaces and their perception by the users (that further affects users’ behaviour). Though the paper applies a sound methodological approach using mainly quantitative analysis of the pre-defined independent and dependent variables, referring to the physical features of green space and users’ perception, respectively, the weakest part of the paper is the transfer from the theoretical concept of ‘homo urbanicus’ to the model explored in the research. Several points need further consideration and elaboration to achieve consistency between the conceptual background and the research findings (from the case study).

 

Response:Thank you for your valuable and pertinent suggestions. In response to your questions, we have made a lot of modifications in the introduction, discussion and conclusion of the article. In the introduction, we have dealt with the problems studied more accurately, focusing on the existing problems in urban parks, and analyzed the role of the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory in this study through specific problems. In the discussion part, the description of the relationship between the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory and the dependent variable is added, and the analysis of the results of other similar types of research is added, and the similarities and differences between these results and the research conclusions of this paper are discussed. In the final conclusion part, it describes the results, significance, limitations and prospects for the future of this research.

 

Point 1: In the Introduction section, the authors highly refer to the sources/references attending to the immaterial features (e.g., perception, behaviour, habits, motivation, preference). However, the core of the case study analysed does not relate to these initially introduced concepts. Either modify the introductory section to include more references dealing with the physical features of a place or try to incorporate more of the immaterial features in the discussion part.

 

Response: Thanks for your suggestions. According to your suggestions, we have rewritten the introduction. In terms of non-material characteristics, we have added some literature reviews on happiness, satisfaction, local attachment and other aspects generated by recreational activities in urban parks. The modified part is in

Lines 113-136:

“Improving the recreational quality of parks is key to improving the quality of urban parks. Cheng Siya used the method of importance–performance analysis to study recreational satisfaction with 50 urban parks in Beijing[41] and found that the park space facilities, activity types, crowd characteristics, and other factors have different degrees of influence on recreational activities in urban parks [42,43]. This conclusion was confirmed in the research on urban parks conducted by Huang Songyao and Liang Huilin using social media data and survey data. In the study of urban parks, Heo Seulkee pointed out the importance of the relationship between the convenience experienced by individuals in life, social economy, age, gender, and other indicators, as well as access to park green spaces for recreation opportunities [44] . Dai Daixin argued that in urban parks, a variety of sports facilities and more inclusive design, planning, and management strategies are conducive to promoting recreational participation among young person [45] . In addition, Shams Khadija argued that the physiological perception of individuals also has an impact on their psychological perception, which is mainly reflected in the happiness brought about by health satisfaction in the case of urban parks [46] . This sense of happiness helps individuals to further strengthen their local attachment to urban parks. This kind of local attachment also enables psychological repair for the individual [47] . Liu Qunyue found that higher familiarity can help to improve the local identity of the recreational person and enhance the individual's location connection [48]. In fact, the main idea of recreational behavior research is to take person as the main body among the elements of environmental space and study the influences of individual behavior and space through the relationship between elements in the structure.”

 

Point 2: The relationship between Figure 1 and Figure 3 is not clear. Are the variables (both independent and dependent) directly taken from the ‘homo urbanicus’ theory, or is the model as given in Figure 3 authors’ interpretation of the theory? In any case, the detailed description/definition of the dependent variables is missing. In particular, what are ‘human attraction’ and ‘space trust’? These are very vague, and other terms (e.g., security) have been used interchangeably in the paper. This brings even more significant confusion.

 

Response: Thank you for pointing out the problems in the article. Figure 1 (now it turns into Figure 2) and Figure 3 (new Figure 4) do have some misunderstandings in understanding, which is probably due to the problem in the section setting of the article. Now we have corrected this error. From the structure, it can be understood that Figure 1 (new Figure 2) is based on the basic description of the concept of "person", "things", "time" and "space" in the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory, which is also the main content of the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory. Figure 3 (new figure 4) is the theoretical model obtained by SPSS analysis and AMO data processing based on the questionnaire results. Therefore, Figure 1 (new Figure 2) is a conceptual comb of the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory, and Figure 3 (new Figure 4) is the final research result.The names "Human attraction", "Space trust" and other similar names are named according to the rotated factor analysis of the questionnaire results. In order to avoid confusion with academic language as much as possible, double quotation marks are used for these names in this paper, just to express the structural relationship between variables formed by specific questions in the questionnaire, In writing, there may be confusion in capitalization and diction due to negligence. Now we have corrected these problems.

 

Point 3: Figure 2 seems redundant. The critical issue is to explain the relationship between Figure 1 and Figure 3, as noted in the above comment.

 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion.The Figure 2 (new figure 3) is the deduction process based on the basic dimension of "space contact" put forward by the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory, "events", "time" and "space". Since the the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory does not involve the specific content of recreational behavior in urban parks, this part is also the basic logic of behavior we put forward for "recreational behavior" based on the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory.We consider that if this part is deleted, it may lead to the connection with the following problems. From the four-dimensional concept of the "Homo Urbanicus"Theory space contact to the scale design, it needs a process of thinking, which is also the process of deduction from "space contact" to "recreational behavior".

 

Point 4: The Discussion chapter should more profoundly elucidate the dependent variables instead of highlighting the features associated with the independent variables.

 

Response: We appreciate and agree with your suggestion, now we have replaced this part with

Lines 441-455:

“According to the rotated factor analysis results, the three latent variables of "human attraction", "sense of spatial belonging", and "sense of spatial trust" reached a value of 44.354% in the total variance interpretation. The theoretical model passed the goodness of fit test using the AMOS RMR, GFI, AGFI, and PGFI models. Based on the definition of "Homo Urbanicus" in "Homo Urbanicus" theory, "people who pursue space contact through reasonable choice of residence" engage in selective contact with space. This contact behavior is essentially a mechanism for the selection of objective factors by the subject. This mechanism mainly originates from the subjective cognitive system composed of the purpose needs, behavioral experience, and process feedback of the subject. It can also be understood as the attraction of local culture. Because this attraction fosters human–land attachment, the local recognition brought about by behavioral feedback in response to space contact causes the behavioral subject to further improve their sense of trust in space. Therefore, "human attraction" can be constructed as the intermediary variable of "space belonging" and "space trust".”

 

Point 5: The Conclusion section should situate the narrative in the broader perspective: e.g., critical limitations of the research, possibilities for further study, uniqueness of the approach or its applicability to other socio-spatial settings, etc.

 

Response:Thanks to your reminder. We have modified the conclusion section in

Lines 493-514:

“The structural equation model is a causal model of recreational behavior based on the "Homo Urbanicus" theory, creating a theoretical model of this theory to explore recreational behavior in urban parks. This model shows that, based on the basic structure of "people", "events", "time", and "space", through the experience of, and feedback on, individual recreational behavior, a causal structure model of individual perception of park space resources, in regard to individual park space, can be obtained. According to the interpretation of "self-existence" and "coexistence" in "Homo Urbanicus" theory, recreational behavior is actually a kind of contact behavior between people and space. From the perspective of the causal model explored in this study, this contact behavior is reflected in the five independent variables of space resources, namely, "functional facilities", "supporting facilities", "landscape greening", "demand facilities", and "space management level", which, respectively, reflect goal demands, equipment support, and natural contact demands. Basic physiological needs and space service needs form the basic elements of the five factors. Therefore, the independent variable "park space resources" is divided into five factors in the model: "functional facilities", "supporting facilities", "landscape greening", "demand facilities", and "space management level". Meanwhile, "individual park space perception" is divided into three factors in the model: "human attraction", "sense of space belonging", and "sense of space trust". This is in line with the interpretation of the basic conditions and elements of individual contact with space in "Homo Urbanicus" theory (Figure 6).”

Figure 6. Five-factor model of park space resources corresponding to space contact demand.

 

Point 6: The paper needs thorough proofreading by a native speaker. Now it is complicated to read the article and get the right message the authors wanted to convey. The references have not been addressed as demanded by the guidelines for the paper preparation.

 

Response: Thank you for your patience and suggestions. We have asked our colleagues who are native English speakers to proofread and change the language, and we have submitted our papers to the MDPI language service to ensure that our papers are linguistically correct.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is much clearer now.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and approval of our manuscript revisions!

Reviewer 2 Report

I can see a bit improvement in the manuscript. However, I still recommend the author/s to consider the following comments to improve the research. 

Introduction:

1. What is the research question in this study? The reviewer thinks that the introduction section needs significant improvement in terms of the problem, identifying gaps and research questions, and adding the motivations to do this research. 

2. Add the structure of the research at the end of the introduction.

3. Please add a literature section to clearly review the previous research gaps and findings regarding the urban park issues and methodology limitations. You may add a literature review and research hypotheses together for each proposed construct ("people", "event", "opportunity" and "space").

Methods:

4. Based on what you proposed (figure 1) conceptual framework? Please check the number of figures; both are in figure 1?  

 5. Where are the details of the main model (SEM)? Which is your research's main method for analysis? However, you have several other formulas that are not very important.

6. What do you mean by "Proportion of 1 to 5 points" in Appendixes A and B?

Case study and data collection

7. As mentioned in line 159, data was collected at different times (nine months). Have you considered the temporal (winter and summer) influence on the perception of individuals?  

 8. I suggest a separate section regarding the case study and data collection or survey description. 

Results and discussion

9. In the discussion section, it is required to compare the results with the literature findings locally and internationally. 

Conclusions 

10. It is suggested to add the innovation points of this paper in the conclusion part. In addition, what are the practical implications and limitations of the present research?

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can see a bit improvement in the manuscript. However, I still recommend the author/s to consider the following comments to improve the research. 

 

Response: Thank you for your initial approval of our manuscript revision and for giving us a second chance to revise.

 

Introduction:

1. What is the research question in this study? The reviewer thinks that the introduction section needs significant improvement in terms of the problem, identifying gaps and research questions, and adding the motivations to do this research. 

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have made significant revisions in the introduction to address the research questions, motivations, identifying gaps.

We have rewritten lines 38-104, The research questions, research gaps, and specific descriptions of research motivation are in lines 107-119, Lines218-222, respectively :

 

 

 

 

 

Lines 107-119: “the recreational resources in urban parks are limited in terms of their detail and quality, mainly manifested in the following: Firstly, the social experience mechanism of urban parks is not perfect. Recreational activities in urban parks are mostly based on communication between families and friends, while social communication between different groups is less significant. Social interaction in urban parks is, to some extent, important for promoting social cohesion [2]. Moreover, the characteristics of urban park recreational experience are not well-defined. Most urban parks are affected by the phenomenon of "one side of a thousand cities", and urban parks lack a unique label in terms of recreational experience [3] . Finally, there are problems related to regional identification and regional culture. Many urban parks do not play the role of regional cultural heritage, which leads to bias regarding the recognition of urban areas in which urban parks are located and can easily cause regional recognition obstacles [4,5].”

“The improvement of the quality of urban parks plays a vital role in the construction and development of urban society. This study examined the factors influencing recreational satisfaction with urban parks, providing a reference for measures to improve the quality of urban parks. Based on the theory of "Homo Urbanicus", we conducted a factor analysis of recreation satisfaction with urban parks and constructed a structural equation model. It can be seen from the analysis results produced by the causal model that "supporting facilities" and "functional facilities" have the highest contributions to the factor load of the model, which indicates that individual recreational satisfaction with urban parks is mainly based on the relationship between individuals and space conditions. In other words, these elements are necessary to meet the requirement of the "physical" in the "Homo Urbanicus" theory and to supplement the "physical–group–rational" method structure in the "Homo Urbanicus" theory. This conclusion indicates that the improvement of the "functional facilities" and "supporting facilities" of urban parks will play an important role in improving recreational satisfaction with urban parks. The results of this study can help researchers to build an urban park quality evaluation system from the perspective of recreation quality.”

 

Lines218-222: “In this paper, we hope to apply the "Homo Urbanicus" theory to explore the following two questions: What is the relationship between the elements in the structure of urban park recreation experience? How to improve the quality of urban parks in terms of recreation experience.”

 

2. Add the structure of the research at the end of the introduction.

Response: Thanks to your suggestion, we have added the structural description statement of the study and Figure 1 at the end of the introduction.

Lines 222-228: This paper takes city parks as a carrier, and combines the factors of recreation behavior in city parks with the "city people" theory to obtain the structure of four-dimensional elements of recreation behavior from three aspects: social experience, recreation experience, and place identification. Factor analysis will be conducted to obtain the influence of spatial condition elements on individual spatial perception, and then analyze the influence of urban parks on individual spatial perception through structural equation modeling from the four-dimensional elements of " Homo Urbanicus " theory (Figure 1).

Lines:229-230: Figure 1. Structure of the Research.

 

3. Please add a literature section to clearly review the previous research gaps and findings regarding the urban park issues and methodology limitations. You may add a literature review and research hypotheses together for each proposed construct ("people", "event", "opportunity" and "space").

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added the relevant referencein lines.

 

Lines175-196: “Improving the recreational quality of parks is key to improving the quality of urban parks. Cheng Siya used the method of importance–performance analysis to study recreational satisfaction with 50 urban parks in Beijing[41]  and found that the park space facilities, activity types, crowd characteristics, and other factors have different degrees of influence on recreational activities in urban parks [42,43]. This conclusion was confirmed in the research on urban parks conducted by Huang Songyao and Liang Huilin using social media data and survey data. In the study of urban parks, Heo Seulkee pointed out the importance of the relationship between the convenience experienced by individuals in life, social economy, age, gender, and other indicators, as well as access to park green spaces for recreation opportunities [44] . Dai Daixin argued that in urban parks, a variety of sports facilities and more inclusive design, planning, and management strategies are conducive to promoting recreational participation among young person [45] . In addition, Shams Khadija argued that the physiological perception of individuals also has an impact on their psychological perception, which is mainly reflected in the happiness brought about by health satisfaction in the case of urban parks [46] . This sense of happiness helps individuals to further strengthen their local attachment to urban parks. This kind of local attachment also enables psychological repair for the individual [47]. Liu Qunyue found that higher familiarity can help to improve the local identity of the recreational person and enhance the individual's location connection [48]. In fact, the main idea of recreational behavior research is to take person as the main body among the elements of environmental space and study the influences of individual behavior and space through the relationship between elements in the structure.”

 

Methods:

4. Based on what you proposed (figure 1) conceptual framework? Please check the number of figures; both are in figure 1?  

 

Response: Thank you for your comments! We have made more detailed changes and explanations in the text corresponding to the figure (new figure 2). In Lines 249-261: “Deconstructing this structure, we can obtain three individual identities, namely, recreation subject participants (purposeful participants), collaborative participants, and continuous participants, from the "recreational behavior participants in the balance between self-existence and coexistence". From the "recreational behavior occurrence process", we can obtain the four basic elements of ”Time of occurrence”, “Place of occurrence”, “Experience results”, and “Preference feedback”, which correspond to the experience and feedback obtained according to the time sequence of events and individual behavior. From the "space carrier of recreational behavior", we can obtain the five basic elements of "landscape", "convenience", "regularity", "facility", and "place". From the dimension of "recreational behavior opportunity", we can obtain the three basic elements of “Spatial perception”, “Perception of relationships with others”, “Self-behavior perception”, and “Recreational behavior opportunities”, which correspond to the triple relationship between "thing–I" (self in space), "other–I", and "self–I" (Figure 2).”

 

5. Where are the details of the main model (SEM)? Which is your research's main method for analysis? However, you have several other formulas that are not very important.

 

Response: Thank you for your comments. We added a detailed description of SEM in

Lines273-290：“In this paper, Structural Equation Model (SEM) [55–57] is used to investigate the four-dimensional structural elements of the "urban human" theory of urban park recreation behavior, and to explore the relationship between the spatial elements of urban parks and the spatial perception of individual recreation behavior. We obtained the basic data based on the questionnaire survey and imported the data into SPSS 23.0 software for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and conducted KOM and Bartlett's sphericity tests: KMO values >0.9 indicate very suitable, 0.8 indicates suitable, 0.7 is suitable, 0.6 is not very suitable, and 0.5 or less indicates extremely unsuitable [57,58]; Bartlett's sphericity test is at p<0.001. test is significant at the level of P<0.001. Factor models were constructed separately for both spatial elements of urban parks and individual spatial recreation perceptions, and the factor models that met a certain explanation ratio were screened according to the total variance explanation, and after completing the Cronbach's alpha coefficient reliability test of the factor models, the AMOS software was used to construct structural equation models based on the results of the factor model data from SPSS 23.0, and the The theoretical model generated by AMOS is imported into the sav data of SPSS 23.0 software, and the RMR and GFI models are tested for goodness of fit to generate the causal full model, which is the structure of the influence of spatial elements of urban parks on the spatial perception of individual recreation behavior.”

 

Also, we remove two formulas that are not very important in Line 381 and Line 421.

 

6. What do you mean by "Proportion of 1 to 5 points" in Appendixes A and B?

Case study and data collection.

 

Thank you for your comments.“1-5 points ratio” refers to the percentage of the number of people whose corresponding score is 1 to 5 points in the questionnaire. For this reason, We added a percentage sign after “1-5 points ratio” in the table in Appendixes A and B.

 

7. As mentioned in line 159, data was collected at different times (nine months). Have you considered the temporal (winter and summer) influence on the perception of individuals?  

 

Response: Thanks to your comments, we believe that the season may be an important factor influencing individual perceptions, which we describe in the conclusion section of the manuscript.

Lines655-660:

“This study was the first to use the "Homo Urbanicus" theory as a research method for urban park recreational behavior in the academic field; thus, it has inevitable limitations, such as the changes in the content and demand of "self-existence" and "coexistence" among individuals in different seasons and the cross-changes in individual environmental perception between different ages and different time nodes, which are elements to be improved and refined in the future.”

 

8. I suggest a separate section regarding the case study and data collection or survey description. 

 

Response: Thank you very much for your precious advice. we set three sub-headings: “2.1 Research Methods”, “2.2 Data Collection”, “2.3 Data Processing and Analysis” in lines:231, 291, 369.

 

And we also has added the survey description in lines 307-327:

“According to the descriptive statistics of the sample, the gender distribution of the sample tended to be balanced, with slightly more women than men, and the number of the masses far exceeded the number of party members in terms of the political situation, reaching 72.6%. Among the four types of urban parks, the sample size of large-scale green space parks was the largest, with 957 samples, accounting for 36.4%, while the percentage of undergraduates was the highest (45.6%) in terms of the educational level. In terms of the subjective definition of family economic status, the residents tended to be “Passable” and “Basically well-off”. In terms of the “Age” variable, the numerical difference in the sample size at each interval was not large, and the participants’ ages were mainly concentrated in the ranges of 30-40 and 40-50. As for the number of family members, three-member families accounted for 33.1% of the total population in the first instance, indicating that this is still the dominant pattern of family size in China's urban areas. It is also worth noting that the sample of “Many families in one family” closely followed, with a sample size of 31.2%; this shows that the “Two-child policy” has gradually been affecting the size of urban families. It is worth mentioning that on the “Living situation” scale, “Local residents” accounted for only 46.9%, while the “Non-resident” category comprised more than 50% of the total sample, reaching 53.1%, indicating that Zhengzhou is a city open to the migrant population. In this context of space contact, outsiders need to be more considered more inclusively in regard to city park humanistic care, which is an important factor in the design of urban public spaces.”

 

Results and discussion

9. In the discussion section, it is required to compare the results with the literature findings locally and internationally. 

Response: We couldn't agree more with your suggestion. We have added a comparison with relevant international literature in the discussion section.

 

Lines586-614:

“Li Fangzheng conducted an investigation on urban parks in 11 cities in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region, discussed the relationship between the building density and green space areas of large cities and their impacts of the flow of people, and argued that the ur-ban green space area is positively related to the service radius of urban parks. In this paper, this can be understood as the impact of "landscape greening" on individual recreational perception, but from the perspective of the causal model described in this paper, com-pared with the other four independent variables, "landscape greening" has no significant impact on the three latent variables of "human attraction", "space belonging", and "space trust". This may be due to conceptual differences between the "service radius of urban parks" and the three latent variables mentioned in this paper [59] . Liu Ruixue's research on satisfaction with urban parks among recreational users highlighted that the park area, air quality, vegetation, mosquitoes, recreational facilities, sign system, landscape visual effects, maintenance of facilities and plants, and environmental cleanliness, as well as another nine predictive variables, significantly affect a person's satisfaction with urban parks. Among these factors, it was found that the sign system has the greatest impact, fol-lowed by recreational facilities. In this paper, we show that the sign system has certain correlations with "functional facilities" and "supporting facilities". Although, in Liu Ruixue's research, "human attraction", "space trust", and "satisfaction" have different meanings, and the factor load data and components of their interactions are different, these latent variables refer to the subjective judgment of individuals based on local percep-tion; hence, the conclusion of these researchers is consistent with the findings of this paper [60] . In addition, Bao Yu argued that children are a very important participant group in urban parks; thus, children's recreational behavior and environmental and psychological perception are also crucial for improving the quality of urban parks. In the study in ques-tion, Bao Yu found that recreational facilities are the most significant independent varia-ble in the impact model of social perception and regional security perception. This con-clusion is consistent with the conclusion that "functional facilities" have a strong correla-tion with "space trust" in this paper and shows that this conclusion is also applicable to children [61].

Conclusions 

10. It is suggested to add the innovation points of this paper in the conclusion part. In addition, what are the practical implications and limitations of the present research?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have added a description of the innovation, practical implications and limitations in the conclusion section.

 

Lines:649-660:

“The main innovation of this study lies in its use of the "Homo Urbanicus" theory to study the impacts of elements of recreational behavior, marking an exploratory application of this theory. Individual recreational experience is crucial for spatial participation in urban parks. In terms of methodology, according to the scale of "self-existence" and "coexistence" that constructs the influence relationship in "Homo Urbanicus" theory, recreational behavior is also an expression of a causal model of the interaction between "person" and "space" structural elements. This study was the first to use the "Homo Urbanicus" theory as a research method for urban park recreational behavior in the academic field; thus, it has inevitable limitations, such as the changes in the content and demand of "self-existence" and "coexistence" among individuals in different seasons and the cross-changes in individual environmental perception between different ages and different time nodes, which are elements to be improved and refined in the future.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been approved and is ready for further publication procedure.

Author Response

Thank you for your guidance and recognition of our manuscript!

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

 The paper can be accepted for publication in this version. 

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions and recognition of our manuscript!