Interrelationships and Trade-Offs between Urban Natural Space Use and Biodiversity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The article is interesting, and the researched problem has scientific potential that may be of interest to potential readers.
The study aims to uncover the relationship between urban natural space use and biodiversity. The relevance of the research realized by the authors of the paper is evident. The text of the article is characterized by logicality and the sequence in the presentation of information. The theoretical framework is consistent and well-designed. I find the topic important from both academic and practitioner perspectives.
What could be further elaborated is the discussion. The practical implications of the study should be presented in a more detailed and convincing manner. Please attempt to articulate the deficiencies and constraints of the study while providing more persuasive suggestions for future research.
Author Response
- Summary
We thank the Reviewer for the appreciation of our work and for their valuable comments. We believe they have led to valuable improvements of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted file.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: What could be further elaborated is the discussion. The practical implications of the study should be presented in a more detailed and convincing manner.
Response 1: We have made a variety of changes to Section 4, Discussion. First, we have added line 752 on page 19, indicating that the discussion aims to outline practical implications of the study’s findings throughout. Then, from line 765 to 771, we have further elaborated the practical implications of the study’s findings that perceived restorative quality is an important variable in the system by detailing practitioners’ methods to increase perceived restorative quality in their spaces,. Next, from line 777 to 806, pages 19 to 20, we have elaborated the section detailing the relationship between perceived fear and biodiversity, including implications for practitioners and directions of future research (which are further elaborated in the conclusion),. Another sentence has been added on line 818 to further solidify implications for practitioners.
Comments 2: Please attempt to articulate the deficiencies and constraints of the study while providing more persuasive suggestions for future research.
Response 2: We have made a few amendments throughout Sections 4 and 5 to tie in more persuasive suggestions for future research. See line 804 of page 20, in which we tie suggestions for future research to a major trade-off found in the system. This is further elaborated in Section 5, lines 868 through 875. Line 887 further elaborates the call for the future research in a localized context. Finally, line 900 outlines another area for potential research in distinguishing between the types of greenspace visitors (residents vs. tourists).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Interrelationships and Trade-offs Between Urban Natural Space Use and Biodiversity” is very interesting, by showing the relationships between urban space use and biodiversity through a System Thinking approach. The use of the Casual Loop Diagram allows the evaluation of the variables and loops influencing use and biodiversity and consequently can become a tool for supporting the design and management of these spaces appropriately. The methodology was applied to the Thamesmead regeneration project undertaken by social housing association Peabody.
The article is understandable, the methodology is well presented, and the results are described in detail and clarity. However, some changes are here listed:
1. The introduction paragraph is too long. It is suggested to summarize in 2 or 3 short sentences from line 80 to line 151. These lines should be moved in two new subparagraphs of section 2. Methods. For example, these sentences should be reorganized into two subparagraphs with the following titles: 2.1 Materials and 2.2 Case study, otherwise all the sentences referred to the Thamesmead regeneration project should be reorganized in the current subparagraph 2.4 Application of CLD results to Thamesmead case study. Anyway, the authors are free to reorganize as they prefer.
2. It is suggested to use a formal language, avoiding the use of the pronoun “we” in the text.
Author Response
- Summary
We thank the Reviewer for the appreciation of our work and for their valuable comments. We believe they have led to valuable improvements of the manuscript and appreciate your suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted file.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The introduction paragraph is too long. It is suggested to summarize in 2 or 3 short sentences from line 80 to line 151. These lines should be moved in two new subparagraphs of section 2. Methods. For example, these sentences should be reorganized into two subparagraphs with the following titles: 2.1 Materials and 2.2 Case study, otherwise all the sentences referred to the Thamesmead regeneration project should be reorganized in the current subparagraph 2.4 Application of CLD results to Thamesmead case study. Anyway, the authors are free to reorganize as they prefer.
Response 1: We have followed The Reviewer’s advice and shortened the introduction. Lines 91 – 96 were moved to Section 2, Methods. Lines 119 – 149 of the introduction have been moved to Section 2.4, Application of CLD results to Thamesmead case study. We believe these two changes have made the introduction an appropriate length, while still including some essential introductory details on Systems Thinking and CLDs in the introduction, for a wider audience not familiar with the approach.
Comments 2: It is suggested to use a formal language, avoiding the use of the pronoun “we” in the text.
Response 2: In response to this second comment, it is our preference to use an active voice in hopes of creating a more engaging piece of writing that may broaden our audience. We appreciate your suggestion, as it aligns with traditional academic writing styles. However, over the last 20 years, we have seen a trend and even a strong desire to using active voice including ‘we’ and even ‘I’ in academic writing. We use ‘we’ to describe the research process (methods), not to indicate opinion. This enhances clarity regarding who is responsible for the actions or ideas discussed, leading to greater transparency and accountability. Moreover, it fosters more engaging and clearer writing that will be easier to read for academics and a broader audience. Our target audience includes both academic and industry professionals, as well as the wider public (our reason for making the article open source), and we believe an active voice may make the article more accessible in this regard.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper aims to examine the connection between urban natural space use and biodiversity, an evergreen issue of modern civilization. However, the use of advanced methodology makes the work gap-filling and valuable. Beyond the scientific relevance, it supports practical utilization in urban spatial development too.
The abstract session is well-structured and balanced, it contains the research background and intention, methodology and data research, the specific research content, and the main findings together with conclusions.
The introduction part is adequately deep, containing development and research background, a detailed review, and research aims as well. The System Thinking practice and the building of Casual Loop Diagrams is described shortly from line 89. Maybe it could be added to the methodology chapter. On page 3, from line 12 the Thamesmead target area is mentioned. A brief geographic description and an added map could enrich the chapter too.
The methods are depicted clearly, in the technique routine charts of Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 supports the reading to a great extent. The enclosed appendices contain detailed information about the variables used in the CLD method.
In the results part three main points are presented based on the CLD construction and analysis, firstly in a theoretical secondly in an urban space-making policy design, and finally in a geographically specified way. The results are clearly described and Figures 3-6 highly support the enlargement of the subjects.
The discussion part highlights the coherency between the results and the literature. The already well-known and the new results are clearly distinguished. Biodiversity and safety are two interlinked factors, but their combined presence is hardly applicable. The section contains some key points for practitioners to secure both. Although on page 19, line 63 there is a reference to Section 5.2, there is no such chapter in the paper.
The conclusion part is well organized as beyond answering the basic questions, it contains the limitations of the research too. It highlights some potential future research development directions too. Beyond the listed ones, the reviewer would add one more, namely the examination of the differences in urban natural space use of residents and tourists.
The biggest strength of the article is its methodological soundness and the practical benefits of its results.
The paper in its recent form is suitable for publication, although with the modification of the indicated parts it could be enriched.
Author Response
- Summary
We thank the Reviewer for the appreciation of our work and for their valuable comments. We believe they have led to valuable improvements of the work and appreciate your suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted file.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The System Thinking practice and the building of Casual Loop Diagrams is described shortly from line 89. Maybe it could be added to the methodology chapter.
Response 1: We have moved the more detailed description to the methodology chapter. Lines 250 – 255 now describe the CLD structure in Section 2, Methods, with these lines removed from the introduction.
Comments 2: On page 3, from line 12 the Thamesmead target area is mentioned. A brief geographic description and an added map could enrich the chapter too.
Response 2: We agree with this recommendation and have included Figure 3 in Section 2.4, a map of the Thamesmead area shown in relation to the London boroughs.
Comments 3: Although on page 19, line 63 there is a reference to Section 5.2, there is no such chapter in the paper.
Response 3: We have amended this to refer to the correct section, Section 3.2.2.
Comments 4: The conclusion part is well organized as beyond answering the basic questions, it contains the limitations of the research too. It highlights some potential future research development directions too. Beyond the listed ones, the reviewer would add one more, namely the examination of the differences in urban natural space use of residents and tourists.
Response 4: This would be an important area of future research, and does apply to the general topic of research, and thus we have included a sentence on page 21, line 900 – 902. Visits by tourists are not a focus of our work, as the Thamesmead natural spaces are situated at a considerable travel distance to London’s tourist centre.
