Ecosystem Services and Public Perception of Green Infrastructure from the Perspective of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Luoyang City, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present work, through an empirical analysis of urban parks in Luoyang City, examines the socio-demographic characteristics of park users, their perceptual abilities, usage preferences, and service satisfaction, and explores the relationship between these factors and the public's awareness of park ecosystem services. The respondents' prior knowledge significantly influenced their evaluation of park ecosystem services. Respondents knowledgeable about the benefits of ecosystem services rated higher in terms of reducing air pollution, noise reduction, improving physical health, enhancing mental health, and landscape aesthetics. Those without prior knowledge tended to directly experience the environment through their physical senses, giving higher ratings to perceptibly immediate services and overlooking the importance of the ecological benefits at a spiritual level. This manuscript can be considered to be accepted by Sustainability after considering the following issues.

1. Why the improvements in mental health and the role of environmental education did not reach statistical significance in the perception differences among parks of different grades?

2. Improving public awareness of park ecosystem services is essential, and through park interpretation and local environmental education, it is possible to enhance their appreciation and support for these services, thereby promoting the sustainable use and renewal protection of parks?

3. The active participation and higher level of environmental knowledge of the middle-income group provide a reference for improving park maintenance and management. It better to address the needs and equity of different economic levels affect sustaining park maintenance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a simple overview of a survey. The overall quality of the paper falls short, and there are several flaws in the literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and writing.

This study selected Xichun Garden, Wanlong Road East Garden, Chanhe Peony Garden, Peony Park, Xi Yuan Park, Nan Cun Garden, Sports Park, Xingluo Lake Park, Wenbo Sports Park, and Wangcheng Park. Unfortunately the authors do not give any introduction on these parks which play a key role in main results

 

The methodology section is particularly unclear. It does not specify the sampling methods used or provide details on how the survey was distributed among the Chinese population. While the authors mention attempts to represent the diversity of the Chinese population, they do not mention the sample size calculation or provide information on the margin of error, making it difficult to assess the representativeness of the findings. In addition, the description lacks details regarding ethical considerations, such as obtaining informed consent.

In terms of the results, the paper lacks advanced statistical analysis, which limits its ability to provide deeper insights into the data. It would be beneficial to include statistical measures to explore potential differences in public perception based on factors such as gender or location. Without such analysis, the findings remain purely descriptive and do not allow for a comprehensive understanding of the data.

The authors do not compare their results with any existing survey article

The authors do not compare the attitude between local residents and visitors

Since Luoyang is a famous tourism city, a mass of tourists have significant impacts, but the authors ignore it completely

The authors ignore the impact of the distance between residence and parks

Finally, I am doubt the correctness of main results since most of visitors (not local residents) cannot know anything about these local parks in Luoyang

Comments on the Quality of English Language

fine

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Actually, the authors do not give their response to some comments in previous report, including:

1. For pervious comments "This study selected Xichun Garden, Wanlong Road East Garden, Chanhe Peony Garden, Peony Park, Xi Yuan Park, Nan Cun Garden, Sports Park, Xingluo Lake Park, Wenbo Sports Park, and Wangcheng Park. Unfortunately the authors do not give any introduction on these parks which play a key role in main results.", in the revised version, the authors only add the total area of these parks.  It is clear that this is far from enough.

Location, and facilities of these parks and surround living environment and land-use have great impacts on main results of this study, the authors need to add a new section to give a detailed information of these parks and add a map to the location of these parks.

 

2. The authors do not give the response to previous comments “While the authors mention attempts to represent the diversity of the Chinese population, they do not mention the sample size calculation or provide information on the margin of error, making it difficult to assess the representativeness of the findings. In addition, the description lacks details regarding ethical considerations, such as obtaining informed consent.”

The authors mentioned that “Within the selected subjects, 3 to 5 observation points were established at crowded locations (entrances, plazas, 367 etc.) based on factors such as the size and location of the parks.”, the authors need to show the location of observation points in the map.

The authors mentioned that “Surveys were conducted 368 among park visitors during different periods”. Luoyang always has a mass of tourism visitors, so how did the authors distinguish between locals in Luoyang and tourists from other places?  This point is extremely important in affecting survey output.

The authors mentioned that “Before the official survey, we conducted a pilot study in Luoyang City  with 12 participants to test the questionnaire's logic and comprehensibility, ensuring the clarity of the questions posed. This pilot study helped us optimize the questionnaire design before the main survey, reducing ambiguities and ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the research”. Any survey questionnaire design needs to greatly reduce artificial intervention. The polit study possibly increased the probability of artificial intervention, how did the authors avoid it? What is the education and career background of 12 participants in the pilot study. How to define the optimization of the questionnaire design? (i.e., how to define a good questionnaire design without artificial intervention)

3. The authors used Tables S5-S8 in appendix to show that they made statistical analysis. Actually, these tables should be put in the results section of this study and make deep analysis and discussions.  

4. For pervious comment “The authors do not compare their results with any existing survey article”. The authors only compared an unrelated publication. The authors should compare with Chinese research, not must in public understanding.

5. For pervious comment “The authors do not compare the attitude between local residents and visitors.”, several sentences discussions are far from enough, the authors must support it by data. Moreover, such a comparison determined the correctness of main results

New comments:

1.      the questionnaire should be put in the appendix.

2.      Section Literature Review should give a deep review of existing publication. The use of keyword search is not enough

 

 

I recommend to accept it after incorporating all comments in the real sense

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted