Increasing Safety: A Survey of Open Greenspace Usage during and after the Pandemic in Belgrade, Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses an interesting topic and designs a coherent methodological approach. The main weakness that I see in this contribution is the presentation of the results, the number of tables it includes is overwhelming and, in contrast, the commentary on the results is scarce. I have counted a total of 57 tables, many of them frequency tables related to issues that are not relevant to the proposed research and that go against the necessary synthesis required of an article. At this point I propose to the authors that they reduce the number and focus on the relevant questions for their research, which they so correctly propose in the enumeration of research objectives and problems.

On the other hand, from my point of view, the enumeration of the survey questions in the body of the methodology text is unnecessary. Instead, I suggest two alternatives: including one or two tables showing the questions, their nature and, if necessary, the possible answers. The second alternative would be to dedicate an annex for this information.

Finally, since they include a map with the green areas of Belgrade, I think that the annex to the article can be eliminated.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

* All the text changes are in red and connected with the responses via comments.

Thank you very much for your observations. Your comments have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript and the presentation.

Point 1: The article addresses an interesting topic and designs a coherent methodological approach. The main weakness that I see in this contribution is the presentation of the results, the number of tables it includes is overwhelming and, in contrast, the commentary on the results is scarce. I have counted a total of 57 tables, many of them frequency tables related to issues that are not relevant to the proposed research and that go against the necessary synthesis required of an article. At this point, I propose to the authors that they reduce the number and focus on the relevant questions for their research, which they so correctly propose in the enumeration of research objectives and problems.

Response 1: Thank you very much for all the comments and suggestions. We have revised manuscriot in line with them.

The overall number of tables presented in the text Section 4. is significantly reduced (from previously 57 to 38), and the data presented in the deleted tables is put into the body text. All of the deleted tables can be found in the appendixes (we marked every table that has been moved in the comments /see manuscript document: „...with the comments“). Please note the considerable changes made in section 4. Results (due to the extent of the changes, it is not possible to list all of them by specific lines). All the changes in the manuscript are marked in red.

Aditionally, we have done additional hyperparameter tuning and improved the text and Figures in section 4.1.1. (due to the extent of the changes, it is not possible to list all of them by specific lines). In order to improve the predictive performance, this revised paper contains improved models presented in revised Figures 02 (lines 463, 464), 03 (lines 476, 477), 04 (lines 486-487) and 05 (lines 488-489).

Point 2: On the other hand, from my point of view, the enumeration of the survey questions in the body of the methodology text is unnecessary. Instead, I suggest two alternatives: including one or two tables showing the questions, their nature, and, if necessary, the possible answers. The second alternative would be to dedicate an annex for this information.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the section 3. Methodology. Also, we have gathered all the questions from both 2020. and 2024. survey, deleted them from the text and combined them into a single table A1 in Appendix A (line 676).

Point 3: Finally, since they include a map with the green areas of Belgrade, I think that the annex to the article can be eliminated.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. We have deleted Table A1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study conducted two surveys of park visitors to investigate their park usage and safety perception. Much work has been done and many results have been presented. However, the paper is hard to read and to be understood. I suggest the authors to revise this manuscript and resubmit.

1.       Please clearly present the scientific questions to be answered, and clearly explain the reasons. The authors did present the research aims and purpose. As two surveys were conducted the linkage between them should be highlighted.

2.       I suggest first thinking about the scientific questions to be answered, and then why these questions are important. What’s the current knowledge gap concerning these questions? So, what are your specific questions? To answer these questions, what did you do (survey and data analysis)? You did not need to include all information in the text but only keep those highly related to your questions.

3.       I think there is too much information (park usage before and after the pandemic, the usage of ICT app) in the manuscript and they are not easily presented in one paper. it is better to prepare two papers with each presented.

4.       Line 86 “Background research”. present the research progress and limitations instead of just “background information”, present the knowledge gap to verify your research is important but not some common sense.

5.       What does “ICT” mean?

6.       The paper is tough to read. For example, you present the research goal repeatedly in Line 51 and Line 77. I was confused.

7.       Method section, please state more about the data analysis instead of the data survey. They can even be moved to the supplementary materials.

8.       Too many tables to describe the numbers and percentage value of the survey.

9.       Please clearly explain how variables in RF and Xgboost are measured in the method section.

10.   Please do not present the results as “Results of the first survey”, “Results of the second survey”. you are preparing a scientific paper, not a survey report.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

* All the text changes are in red and connected with the responses via comments.

Thank you very much for your comments. We have considered them all and revised the paper to improve the overall presentation so the primary purpose and idea are clear and more recognizable.

Point 1: This study conducted two surveys of park visitors to investigate their park usage and safety perception. Much work has been done and many results have been presented. However, the paper is hard to read and to be understood. I suggest the authors to revise this manuscript and resubmit.

Response 1: One of the key revisions has been done in Section "1. Introduction," where we stated the main goals and research questions in a more consistent and clear form (lines 39-74).

In Section "3. Methodology," we reduced the survey explanations and described data analysis in depth (lines 237-297).

In Section 4. Results: We significantly reduced the number of tables, improved the text, and revised figures 2-5. We marked every table moved in the comments (please see attached manuscript document: "...with the comments "). Due to the extent of the changes within this section, it is impossible to list them all by specific lines.

In Section "5. Discussion and Conclusions," the paper's main conclusions and scientific contribution were emphasized, and results were presented coherently (lines 576-619; 634-646).

All the changes in the manuscript are marked in red. We hope the text as a whole is more transparent and more understandable after the major changes that have been made.

Point 2: Please clearly present the scientific questions to be answered and clearly explain the reasons. The authors did present the research aims and purpose. As two surveys were conducted the linkage between them should be highlighted.

Response 2: Section 1. from the manuscript has been significantly revised according to your comments, and the specific research questions and goals were presented in this section (lines 63-74).

Also, the linkage between the 2020. and 2024. surveys and questionnaires are now presented in the paper. First, it was mentioned in abstract (lines 27-30) and later explained in methodology (lines 292-295) and presented in results, "4.3. Two sample T-Test…" (lines 542-556)  (Tables 37 (line 555) and 38 (line 556) indicate the comparison between the data from 2020. and 2024). In section 5. we discuss this comparison and the need for the added 2024 survey (lines 647-652).

Point 3: I suggest first thinking about the scientific questions to be answered and then why these questions are important. What's the current knowledge gap concerning these questions? So, what are your specific questions? To answer these questions, what did you do (survey and data analysis)? You did not need to include all information in the text but only keep those highly related to your questions.

Response 3: Regarding the research questions and goals, we revised section 1 to clearly present the main goals of the research (lines 57-62). Our specific research questions are concentrated on the usage of OGS during and post-pandemic. The main research questions are: Does the pandemic state influence the usage of OGS in cities, and how? What could be the possible solution for spending more time in OGS during and after the pandemic? These questions are important from the aspect of public health since spending time in OGS can positively influence physical and mental health. This is elaborated more in Section "2.1, The importance of OGS for health and well-being" (lines 89-119). Also, we used the survey and questionnaire developed to answer these questions and bridge the identified research gap from similar research studies (presented in Section "2. Background research" – lines 75-236) that deal with the same topic, using different research questions.

The added scientific value of the research is that it takes into consideration possible variations in age and gender that may have a role in determining the perceived safety among the users of OGS during and post-pandemic (lines 644-646).

Point 4: I think there is too much information (park usage before and after the pandemic, the usage of ICT app) in the manuscript and they are not easily presented in one paper. it is better to prepare two papers with each presented

Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We completely revised the manuscript and made crucial changes based on your comments, and we believe it increased the overall quality of the presented research. Initially, the paper represented only the OGS usage during the pandemic (in 2020) and the ICT (usage of mobile applications that could increase the personal sense of perceived safety while being in OGS during pandemics). The editor suggested the 2024 research as a means for identifying the possible long-term effects of pandemics on OGS usage, so we implemented it in the paper.

However, we hope the paper is more understandable after the complete revision and the information provided is clearer.

Point 5: Line 86 "Background research". present the research progress and limitations instead of just "background information", present the knowledge gap to verify your research is important but not some common sense.

Response 5:  The whole section 2 has been significantly reduced and transformed to present the vital information needed to understand the study goals and main ideas better, present similar research studies, and, therefore, better identify the research gap (lines 75-236).

Point 6:  What does "ICT" mean?

Response 6: ICT stands for Information and Communication Technology (line 66). In this paper, we refer to ICT in relation to the usage of mobile applications. We wanted to analyze whether these apps could help as a possible means for increasing the personal sense of safety among OGS users.

Point 7: The paper is tough to read. For example, you present the research goal repeatedly in Line 51 and Line 77. I was confused.

Response 7: Thank you very much for this comment. We agree entirely. Therefore, we have changed the text in section 1 (lines 63-74) to present the research goals clearly. All excess information has been deleted from the section (lines 39-74).

Point 8: Method section, please state more about the data analysis instead of the data survey. They can even be moved to supplementary materials.

Please clearly explain how variables in RF and Xgboost are measured in the method section.

Response 8: The method section has been reduced on the information regarding the survey; every question used in the 2020 and 2024 survey has been presented in Table A1 in Appendix A (line 676) and removed from the methodology section. Also, more information was written about the data analysis specifics:

In the research, we are interested in determining safety predictors based on the survey results. The variables under consideration are age, gender, municipality, location, duration, and frequency of OGS visits and activities. The variable outcomes are extracted from the survey. The Random Forest and Xgboost models, as classification models, estimate the probability of perceived safety. The above-listed variables are inputs to the model. Given some threshold probability, this estimated model helps to predict whether someone feels safe or not safe (perceived safety concerns). Broadly, these tree-based models generate a multitude of decision trees that are averaged out to a final result. (lines 281-284, 456-462, 465-473).

The Results section has been revised. This revised paper contains improved models presented in Figures 03 (lines 476-477), 04 (486-487), and 05 (lines 488-489), aiming to improve our predictive performance. Precisely, we have done additional hyperparameter tuning and made improvements in text and Figures. After hyperparameter tuning, the Xgboost model had a slightly dominant performance (lines 465-467). This is expected since the Xgboost model is considered the most powerful state-of-the-art classifier.

Point 9: Too many tables to describe the numbers and percentage value of the survey.

Response 9: We agree entirely with the comment. Thank you very much for your observations.

The overall number of tables is significantly reduced (from previously 57 to 38). All of the deleted tables can be found in the appendixes (we marked every table that has been moved in the comments /see attached manuscript document: "...with the comments "). Please note the considerable changes made in section 4. Results. Due to the extent of the changes, it is impossible to list them all by specific lines). All the changes in the manuscript are marked in red.

Point 10: Please do not present the results as "Results of the first survey" "Results of the second survey". You are preparing a scientific paper, not a survey report.

Response 10: Thank you for this comment. The headlines were changed to: "Data analysis of user perception on OGS usage during the pandemic" and "Data analysis of user perception on OGS usage after the pandemic" (lines 317 and 490).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper Increasing safety: the survey of open greenspace usage during and after the pandemic in Belgrade, Serbia presents an important issue related to COVID-19, concerning the usage of green spaces during and after pandemic in the city of Belgrade in Serbia.

The research presented in the paper is properly designed and applied methods adequately described. Considering the main focus of the manuscript, it could be assumed that the paper demonstrates understanding of the relevant literature and, to some point, cites appropriate range of literature sources. The structure of the paper is correctly organized.

I would like to point out that main value of the paper is obtained results regarding the use of green spaces during the pandemic and post-pandemic concerning safety and possibilities to use ICT. In spite of this, one of the limitations of the paper is the quality of presentation and lack of consistency.

Suggestions for authors:

-Key words: consider revising as the term urban design was (not) the subject of paper? (mentioned only 3 times within manuscript-within key words and Section Discussion and Conclusions).

-The use of terms/expressions: please refer and, in order to support consistency, clarify throughout the whole manuscript the terms/expressions used:

                1)open space, open greenspace, greenspace, green space; is there differences? Please provide reference/refer to the literature sources.

                2) parks and squares; please clarify the terms used. 

                3) virtual open space (line 107); please clarify the term used and the sentence.

- Quality of presentation: consider adjusting presentation within section Methodology. It is difficult to follow (suggestions - to provide graphical presentation of the methodology used, listed questions to present within table?)

- Please provide reference and clarify the term used greenspaces (green spaces, green infrastructure?) in Belgrade. Figure 1: Is there any other relevant data source for green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade? Table A1: please provide the source for this table.  

-Section Discussion and Conclusions: it is suggested to the authors to provide more specific information regarding the main contribution and the influence of the research (regarding local level - the city of Belgrade, Serbia and international). It is important that within the section of Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions should be clearly emphasized significance of this paper.

- It is suggested not to use personal pronouns within paper,” we”, etc.

The authors are suggested to revise the paper carefully, especially the use of terms/expressions and the way of presenting/writing style. Please refer to the journal guidelines for authors.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

* All the changes in text are in red and connected with the responses via comments.

Thank you for the detailed, and above all useful review that helped us to improve the quality and significance of our paper.

Point 1: Key words: consider revising as the term urban design was (not) the subject of paper? (mentioned only 3 times within manuscript-within key words and Section Discussion and Conclusions).

Response 1: Thank you for the comment, the urban design was removed from the key words, and key words were revised in accordance with the abstract and text.

Point 2: The use of terms/expressions: please refer and, in order to support consistency, clarify throughout the whole manuscript the terms/expressions used:

Response 2: Thank you for the comment, we have revised the presentation and usage of terms important to our research throughout the whole paper, all in accordance to your suggestions.

point 2/1: open space, open greenspace, greenspace, green space; is there differences? Please provide reference/refer to the literature sources.

response 2/1: In the paper we referred to the term “open greenspace” that we introduced and described in depth at the beginning of the paper in Section 2. (lines 76-88). We used the abbreviations OGS for the selected term and the abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript.

point 2/2: parks and squares; please clarify the terms used.

response 2/2: The term used in the text “open greenspace” (OGS) includes both parks and squares as a type of open public green space in a city (lines 76-88).

point 2/3: virtual open space (line 107); please clarify the term used and the sentence.

response 2/3: The term virtual open space is briefly introduced and described in the text and referred to in a pandemic context in Section 2.1. (lines 99-102).

Point 3: Quality of presentation: consider adjusting presentation within section Methodology. It is difficult to follow (suggestions - to provide graphical presentation of the methodology used, listed questions to present within table?)

Response 3: The method section has been significantly reduced regarding the information about the survey, i.e. every question used in 2020. and 2024. survey was deleted from the main text and put into Table A1 in Appendix A (line 676). Also, more information was written about the specific data analysis used for statistical methods (lines 456-462; 465-473)

Point 4: Please provide reference and clarify the term used greenspaces (green spaces, green infrastructure?) in Belgrade. Figure 1: Is there any other relevant data source for green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade?

Response 4: As previously mentioned, in the paper we referred to the term “open greenspace” that we introduced and described in depth at the beginning of the paper in Section 2. (lines 76-88).  Source for the green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade used is „Google earth“ and  the „Open street map“ (https://openstreetmap.rs/) (line 316)

Point 5: Table A1: please provide the source for this table. 

Response 5: This table has been removed from the Appendix of the manuspcript

Point 6: Section Discussion and Conclusions: it is suggested to the authors to provide more specific information regarding the main contribution and the influence of the research (regarding local level - the city of Belgrade, Serbia and international). It is important that within the section of Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions should be clearly emphasized significance of this paper.

Response 6: The whole Section 5 was completely revised and changed in order to better describe the main results, idea and the scientific significance of the study (lines 562-655).

Our specific research questions are concentrated on the usage of OGS during and post-pandemic. (The main research questions are: Does the pandemic state influence the usage of OGS in cities and how; and What could be the possible solution for spending more time in OGS during and after the pandemic state.) Answering these questions is significant from the aspect of public health since spending time in OGS can positively influence both physical and mental health. This is elaborated more in section 2.1 The importance of OGS for health and well-being. (lines 89-119). We used the survey and questionnaire method developed in order to answer these questions and bridge the identified research gap identified through similar research studies (presented in section 2.) that are dealing with the same topic but using different research questions.

Also, The Results Section 4. of the paper has been revised, and to improve our predictive performance, this revised paper contains improved models presented in Figures 03 (lines 476-477), 04 (lines 486-487) and 05 (lines 488-489). Precisely, we have done additional hyperparameter tuning and made improvements both in text and in Figures in section 4.1.1. (due to the extent of the changes, it is not possible to list all of them by specific lines).

The added scientific value and significance of the research is that it takes into consideration age and gender possible variations that may have a role in determining the perceived safety among the users of OGS during and post-pandemic.

Point 7: It is suggested not to use personal pronouns within paper,” we”, etc.

Response 7: Thank you for the comment. We corrected the text - excluded usage of personal pronouns within paper and substituted it with the usage of passive voice.

Point 8: The authors are suggested to revise the paper carefully, especially the use of terms/expressions and the way of presenting/writing style. Please refer to the journal guidelines for authors.

Response 8:  Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the paper considerably and hope that the changes we have made have improved its quality. We believe that we have managed to improve the paper’s structure and to clarify the issues you have pointed out. The revised manuscript is now prepared in accordance with the Instructions to Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the number of tables in this text still seems excesives to me, i have to appreciate the improvement effort in the previous manuscript 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments /round 2

* All the text changes are in blue and connected with the responses via comments.

Point 1: Although the number of tables in this text still seems excesives to me, i have to appreciate the improvement effort in the previous manuscript 

Response 1. Thank you very much for appreciating the effort we made in reviewing the whole manuscript and we strongly believe that your suggestions have increased the quality of the manuscript. Further, we have reduced the total amount of tables in the text and added tables 9 and 12 in the annex, while deleting them from the body of the text. (lines 400-401)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper Increasing safety: the survey of open greenspace usage during and after the pandemic in Belgrade, Serbia has been improved taking into consideration given suggestions.

However, in order to improve the overall quality of the paper and, as well, influence urban planning practice of green spaces/green infrastructure, to the authors is suggested to reconsider further comments and revise the paper:

1)Authors respond/comments: Point 2/2: parks and squares; please clarify the terms used. Response 2/2: The term used in the text “open greenspace” (OGS) includes both parks and squares as a type of open public green space in a city (lines 76-88)

ü  To the authors is suggested to outline the difference between parks and squares.

ü  Please clarify what do you consider under “various types of parks …..” (line 248).

2)Authors respond/comments Point 4: Please provide reference and clarify the term used green spaces (green spaces, green infrastructure?) in Belgrade. Figure 1: Is there any other relevant data source for green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade?

Response 4: As previously mentioned, in the paper we referred to the term “open greenspace” that we introduced and described in depth at the beginning of the paper in Section 2. (lines 76- 88). Source for the green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade used is „Google earth “and the „Open Street map “(https://openstreetmap.rs/) (line 316)

ü  To the authors is suggested to provide reference for Section 4.

ü  Also, consider referring to other relevant data source for green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade (planning and strategic documents). It is suggested to add comment/attitude regarding the current green spaces regulation in Belgrade considering the research (within Section 4) and research results and its application (within Section 5).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments /round 2

* All the text changes are in blue and connected with the responses via comments.

Thank you for your opinion of the improved paper and new suggestions.

Point 1: Authors respond/comments: Point 2/2: parks and squares; please clarify the terms used. Response 2/2: The term used in the text “open greenspace” (OGS) includes both parks and squares as a type of open public green space in a city (lines 76-88)

ü/1a   To the authors is suggested to outline the difference between parks and squares.

Response 1a:

ü  Response: In this paper, the following definition/understanding of an urban park has been implied: (Urban) park is a public greenspace located in any part of the city which with its position, size, equipment, capacity, quality and accessibility, can attract and serve residents of a part of the city or several city municipalities. The following definition of an (urban) square has also been implied: "Square is a landscaped green area, intended for public use, with an area of ​​less than 1 ha, maintained to provide conditions for a short-term relaxation of residents and improvement of the visual quality of the environment.“

Since our paper is rooted in Belgrade and the Serbian context, the definitions of park and square given by the authors of the General Regulation Plan of the greenspace system in Belgrade, (Plan generalne regulacije sistema zelenih površina Beograda, 2019, pp 20. /reference no. [12] in our paper), seemed entirely appropriate.

The part of the text referring to the definitions of parks and squares is added in lines 88-96 in the amended paper version.

ü/1b   Please clarify what do you consider under “various types of parks …..” (line 248)

Response 1b:

ü The sentence „Since the main focus of the research is on the usage of these spaces, various types of parks were selected as the research polygon.” is replaced with the sentence “Since the main focus of the research is on the usage of these spaces, 42 OGS from all over the city of Belgrade were selected.” (lines 256-257)

Point 2: Authors respond/comments Point 4: Please provide reference and clarify the term used green spaces (green spaces, green infrastructure?) in Belgrade. Figure 1: Is there any other relevant data source for green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade?

Response 4: As previously mentioned, in the paper we referred to the term “open greenspace” that we introduced and described in depth at the beginning of the paper in Section 2. (lines 76- 88). Source for the green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade used is „Google earth “and the „Open Street map “(https://openstreetmap.rs/) (line 316)

ü/2a To the authors is suggested to provide reference for Section 4.

Response 2a:

Concerning the data on OGS in the territory of Belgrade, we added the following references:

• Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade. Plan generalne regulacije sistema zelenih površina Beograda (General Regulation Plan of the greenspace system in Belgrade /in Serbian), 2019. Sl. List grada Beograda 110/19 (Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade 110/19). https://www.urbel.com/planovi/1547/ (reference [12])

• GCAP - Green City Action Plan for City of Belgrade. March 2021. https://ebrdgreencities.com/assets/Uploads/PDF/Belgrade-GCAP.pdf as part of the project: EBRD Green Cities. https://www.ebrdgreencities.com (reference [49])
• City Authority - City of Belgrade, The Secretariat for Environmental Protection, Project: Green regulations of Belgrade (Gradska uprava – grad Beograd, Sekretarijat za zaštitu životne sredine, Projekat: Zelena regulativa Beograda). Green Space Geographic Information System for Belgrade (GIS zelenih površina Beograda /in Serbian) http://gispublic.zelenilo.rs/giszppublic/Map (reference [50])

• Belgrade Institute for Urban Planning, Belgrade Master Plan 2016-2020 (General Urban Plan GUP/in Serbian) (“Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade” No. 11/16) https://www.beoland.com/en/plans/master-plan-belgrade/ (reference [51])
• Belgrade City Environmental Protection Program 2015-2025 (Program zaštite životne sredine grada Beograda /in Serbian). “Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade” No. 72/15. http://sllistbeograd.rs/pdf/download/853/ (reference [52])
• Milinković, M.; Ćorović, D.; Vuksanović-Macura, Z. Historical Enquiry as a Critical Method in Urban Riverscape Revisions: The Case of Belgrade’s Confluence. Sustainability2019, 11,1177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041177 (r [53])

ü/2b Also, consider referring to other relevant data source for green spaces (green infrastructure) within Belgrade (planning and strategic documents).

Response 2b

As given above, we added several strategic documents regarding data for green spaces in Belgrade. The document we consider the most important is the General Regulation Plan of the greenspace system in Belgrade (2019), (reference [12]). Having in mind and knowing by experience that the mentioned urban planning strategic documents do not use the same methodology regarding OGS and do not have the same systematisation of OGS, it was impossible to gather data from all the documents in one graphic presentation. Therefore, we opted to include simplified graphics for the sake of clarity.

ü/2c It is suggested to add comment/attitude regarding the current green spaces regulation in Belgrade considering the research (within Section 4) and research results and its application (within Section 5).

Response 2c

As stated in Section 1. Introduction, the research goals refer to the usage of OGS from the perspective of safety, during and after the pandemic and to the possible role of ICT tools in increasing personal safety in OGS. Additionally, the goals also refer to the willingness of the OGS visitors to use mobile applications in order to gain better information about the usage and safety of OGS. The use of ICT tools in the described context, worldwide and especially in Serbia, is not even remotely regulated yet; therefore, the paper did not include the issues regarding OGS regulation in the research context.

Subsequently, Section 4 refers to the research results using specific methodology and is not focused on the OGS regulation because the surveys, methods of analysis and methodology do not refer to the issues of OGS regulation.

The attitude towards the above is explained in lines 636-639 and 660-663 in Section 5.

We are grateful for your comments and strongly feel that, based on them, we could continue through future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf