Planning for Urban Sustainability through Residents’ Wellbeing: The Effects of Nature Interactions, Social Capital, and Socio-Demographic Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Utilizing quantitative analyses of social survey and environmental data from metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona (USA), this study delved into the impact of distinct nature recreation activities, as well as nature satisfaction and social capital, on residents’ subjective, mental, and physical wellbeing across diverse neighborhoods amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, while controlling for socio-demographics. The findings shed light on how various factors influence different facets of wellbeing. In broader context, this research holds practical implications for urban sustainability planning based on residents’ wellbeing, with room for improvement in the following areas:

1. Although the introduction extensively reviews literature pertaining to wellbeing, nature interaction, and neighborhood dynamics, a concise summary of the study’s motivation and innovations is warranted.

2. Certain conclusion tables in Section 3 could benefit from conversion into visualized charts to enhance clarity. Additionally, the paper would benefit from increased inclusion of images.

3. It is recommended to condense the research approach outlined in Section 2 into an overarching flowchart, emphasizing the rationale behind the chosen data and methods.

4. Given the extensive reference list comprising over 120 citations, including seminal works, a dedicated table showcasing these influential references could provide valuable insights into sustainable future development.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the paper is nicely written, it is unclear what is the novelty of the presented research. It is well established that physical activity and exposure to nature has a positive affect on health.  So I am not sure what is the novel part or the purpose of the presented research.

Furthermore, the Authors obviously conducted a detailed literature review and this is included throughout the Manuscript. The issue is that it seems to lack information from the implemented research. That is, the paper would benefit from increasing the content of information arising from the research the Authors conducted. If needed, the amount of information from other papers can be reduced.  

There should be a much greater focus on the research itself. 

Another option would be to change the title to a type of review paper.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After careful reading of the article, I can only congratulate the four authors. This is high quality research, and leads to truly important results for urban studies, urban planning perspectives, and our understanding of cities.

 

It is a paper that certainly needs to be published, and it is almost perfect. There are simply some passages that can be better argued, and clarified. My comments tend to emphasise the fact that Sustainability is not an American journal, but an international journal, and is aimed at a much wider audience, which requires that some elements of description and explanation be clarified slightly better.

 

However, these are small changes that can be made with very little work, so that publication can proceed swiftly.

 

Lines 190-192. The statement is very strong, unclear, without clear explanatory mechanisms. The evidence in the two texts cited is not as robust, and in parts ambiguous and contestable. It is, moreover, a claim that is to a large extent invalidated by your results. I would discuss it more critically, more broadly, and more critically. In a dubitative manner. And I would position your results more clearly in this regard in the conclusions of your paper.

 

Line 212. It should be made clear at least in a footnote that you do not have a longitudinal analysis in the paper, and that the database would allow for other, more longitudinal analyses.

 

Line 220, here it would be useful to add a table with the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample of respondents and the socio-demographic characteristics of the city of Phoenix, considering at least the basic variables on which public statistics offer robust information on the statistical universe of reference. Having an unrepresentative sample is not important for your paper, but it is important to know for which variables it is biased. 

 

Line 278: The NDVI seems to me to be an indicator of great importance. Its use has mainly been discussed with reference to major advances in geomatics and the geography of European cities. I would add at least a reference to Jonathan Pratschke's work in the Journal of Urban Affairs, 2023.

 

Page 8, Table 3. The NDVI value of 0.22 should then be interpreted. What significance does this value have? What urban reality does it represent in summary?

 

Section 2.4.3 Why did you not also use the socio-professional category, or a hierarchical measure of social class (e.g. Oesch's standardised measures of socio-professional categories)?

 

Page 12, line 420-422. It would be very interesting if you would better emphasize your contribution in this regard with regard to the way in which the literature on governance in strategic urban planning projects today increasingly considers surveys and local data as informative bases for public health strategies. It could be important to insist on this point for establishing an articulate dialogue with current comparative research and planning theory. Would be great to articulate with the reflection from Alteri. 2021 (DOI: 10.1285/i20356609v14i1p01) on how the pandemic has deeply impacted the modes of public communication of cities about sports, walkability, and public health concerns.

 

Line 447, about "local nature satisfaction": I think you need to say a little more here about what you think is behind this indicator and what kind of satisfaction it expresses. 

 

Line 459, I do not quite understand the meaning of social health. Do you mean public health interventions for the most marginalised people, capable of reducing health inequalities?

 

Line 477, I am unsure if quotation 109 is the most appropriate for this purpose. I think the relevant work of Robert Chaskin but also that of Grégoire Cousin (in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2021) on dispute resolution mechanisms capable of dealing with planning conflicts while taking into account the needs and rights of marginalized and even stigmatized groups should be valorized in this regard, especially those looking at conflicts in cities, between normative polarizations and pragmatic mediations - the special issue 8(1) of the open access journal of Palaver planning studies may be useful.

 

Line 491 'landscaping' is an overly generic term and reduces the scope of your argument. Given the importance of your paper and analysis, I suggest that you be much more precise on this point. It is a question of better specifying the instruments of public action that you have in mind, with reference both to the realizations, and to their management modalities once delivered (e.g. park commoning modalities based on active participation of users and CBOs), not only through a "regulation by incentives", but also through a "regulation of the incentives in urban policies", according to a well-known expression derived from the intellectual tradition of the Ostrom framework and developed in the Transnational Corporation Review (10.1080/19186444.2010.11658232) 

 

Line 571: I would not say that you have a comparative perspective. Sure, you have three different dependent variables, and three different regression models emerge. But in urban and public health studies, a comparative approach strictly means comparing cities (or territorial contexts).

 

Line 601, there is a typo, a space is missing after the full stop before the word 'Previous'.

 

This paper promises to be an influential one which will have a great impact in the field of urban studies, particularly at this stage when urban sociology and planning thinking in Europe meet to argue for difficult choices in favor of renaturation programs, public space management, and mental health.

I thank the authors for your work in designing the research, your persistent efforts to collect data, and your analysis. I look forward to the new version and hope to see the paper quickly published.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the Authors for the extensive changes they incorporated. The new version of the Manuscript is much clearer on the aim of the study, it also has a very well-presented literature review that clearly shows the need for the research at hand.

I think there is a typing mistake on the vertical axis of Figure 2.

The idea you state in lines 534 and 535 "residents with prior diagnoses may be more likely to move into communities with higher neighborhood greenness" would be worth researching and including in the present study (even if only through a literature review).

 

Author Response

>Comments: I would like to thank the Authors for the extensive changes they incorporated. The new version of the Manuscript is much clearer on the aim of the study, it also has a very well-presented literature review that clearly shows the need for the research at hand.

>>Response: Thank you for these comments. We are delighted you find our manuscript significantly improved and very much appreciate your time and input.

>Comment: I think there is a typing mistake on the vertical axis of Figure 2.

>>Response: We have corrected the typo on the y-axis of Figure 2 to read “Respondents”

>Comment: The idea you state in lines 534 and 535 "residents with prior diagnoses may be more likely to move into communities with higher neighborhood greenness" would be worth researching and including in the present study (even if only through a literature review).

>>Response: We agree this is an important avenue for future research and have added a sentence in section 4.4 (see grey highlighted text) to indicate this point. Given our already lengthy manuscript, however, we have not elaborated further since we 1) do not have relevant empirical evidence; 2) prefer to stay focused on the insights derived from our analysis; and 3) want to avoid making the manuscript longer (since it is already >10K words). 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

excellent paper

I appreciate all your modifications and improvements

Thanks for the detailed cover letter with precise description of your choices and their justifications

It is a pity that the final part with recommendation remains a bit weak, and not fully consistent with your argument. you develop more about goals then about governance modes, more on what to do then on what not to do. You say that it is beyond the scope of your paper, but this is not true. You dedicate lots of space and attention to talk about . In case you want, your paper would be much more strong and influential if you specify the policy instruments that you have in mind, with reference their management modalities once delivered (e.g. park commoning modalities based on active participation of users and CBOs), not only through a "regulation by incentives", but also through a "regulation of the incentives in urban policies". You seems to suggest this important point for planning spaces where nature interactions and mental health find a significant impact. You can elaborate on it (see my previous reference suggestion on the Transnational Corporation Review.

Moreover, thanks a lot for this excellent paper, that will have a significant impact

Author Response

>Comments: excellent paper. I appreciate all your modifications and improvements. Thanks for the detailed cover letter with precise description of your choices and their justifications.

>>Response: Thank you for this complement. We greatly appreciate your efforts to review our manuscript.

>Comments: It is a pity that the final part with recommendation remains a bit weak, and not fully consistent with your argument. you develop more about goals then about governance modes, more on what to do then on what not to do. You say that it is beyond the scope of your paper, but this is not true. You dedicate lots of space and attention to talk about.  

>>Response: We have added a few sentences throughout the Discussion section (see sentences highlighted in grey) to amplify the importance of community-based, participatory processes to pursue the goals and suggestions we recommend. If further elaboration is necessary, we would appreciate more specific guidance to highlight particular inconsistencies or weaknesses in our discussion (especially since we do not entirely understand your specific concerns relative to our particular findings and associated recommendations).

We also maintain that our focus in not squarely on governance modes, but instead, on the multifaceted ways in which local parks and neighborhoods environments differently affect dimensions of wellbeing. From this empirical evidence, we then focus on specific, evidence-based strategies for increasing wellbeing while considering equitable planning strategies that attend to local needs and interests. While we agree that governance processes are important and have made this point in several places, we ultimately 1) prefer to stay focused on the insights derived from our analysis; and 2) want to avoid making the manuscript longer (since it is already >10K words). 

>Comments: In case you want, your paper would be much more strong and influential if you specify the policy instruments that you have in mind, with reference their management modalities once delivered (e.g. park commoning modalities based on active participation of users and CBOs), not only through a "regulation by incentives", but also through a "regulation of the incentives in urban policies". You seems to suggest this important point for planning spaces where nature interactions and mental health find a significant impact. You can elaborate on it (see my previous reference suggestion on the Transnational Corporation Review).

>>Response: We have incorporated insights from the reference provided in the Discussion, especially to highlight the importance of participatory processes that consider local context in tailoring strategies to diverse urban communities. If you have remaining concerns or suggestions, we would appreciate more specific suggestions on what exactly is missing or specific points you recommend adding to certain paragraphs or sentences. Having said this, we are worried about extending the length of our manuscript further since the manuscript is more than 10K words and reviewers previously suggested streamlining the narrative.

Thank you very much, once again, for your input, which we believe has substantially improved the manuscript. We hope you are satisfied with our revisions, as we are looking forward to sharing this research with the sustainability community.