Resident Perception and Willingness to Pay for the Restoration and Revitalization of Urban Rivers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Lee, Mab and Cheung describe very succinctly a well-constructed survey designed to assess attitudes of citizens of Hong Kong to wards revitalization (restoration) of natural rivers in this territory.  The methodology is consistent with techniques in survey designed used elsewhere.  The respondent participation (70%) is high as is the total number of participants (400); this augurs well for a high level of confidence in the conclusions reached by the researchers, i,.e. positive attitudes towards attachment to natural places (rivers) creates support for revitalization efforts.

 

Some suggested edits:

1. line 110. State "the McKenzie River (Oregon, USA)" versus "MacKenzie River (USA)".
2. line 238. Are these $HKD or $US?  Same in Table 1 (the conversion is noted but what are they?).
3. Prefer to see Figures 1,2, and 3 across the width of one page (reduce them).  they could be Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c and share a caption.  

Author Response

Thanks for all the valuable comments for this manuscript. Please see attached for the responses for reviewers

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting paper and has value stemming from its literature review and analysis of a case study in Hong Kong. My recommendation is to publish the paper subject to a few changes and improvements. These suggestions are:

1.  Broaden the review of river restoration methods. In particular, the statement on line 36 that “rehabilitation (usually termed revitalization in Hong Kong), for urban rivers originated in Western Europe in the 1980s…” is too restrictive.  In the United States, river restoration has been promoted extensively and began at an earlier date.

2.  The discussion of willingness to pay can be taken to a deeper level.  Statements such as those on lines 252 and following can be expanded.

3.  Figure 1 ( Distribution of positive and negative vote on willingness to pay) says little and could be discarded.

4.  Figure 2 should show those not willing to pay.  Also it shows 33.58% at 500 HKD, but at line 250 it says amounts above 300 were rarely chosen by respondents.

5.  The conclusions can be strengthened; they seem to be hastily drawn and not very extensive

Author Response

Thanks for all the valuable comments. Please find attached the responses for reviewers.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Nice paper. I recommend publishing in the current form after reducing the size of Figure 1 and shifting text so Table 1 is not split between two pages.