Research on the Satisfaction of Beijing Waterfront Green Space Landscape Based on Social Media Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, after reviewing your article, although the research topic is relevant, I believe that there are serious flaws that minimize the scientific quality of the manuscript. The following are some comments that may help to increase the quality of your article:
1.- First of all, the manuscript is extremely long. I understand that as authors they have wanted to cover many analyses in their study, but the result is a manuscript with a lot of repetitive information and many analyses that do not add relevance to the study and only make it very complex to understand for potential readers. I advise you to delimit and specify your objectives, resulting in a more concise and clear manuscript.
2.- Title: remove "a case study of 85 river- 3 side parks".
3.- Abstract: you should introduce a brief discussion of their results. In the current version they go directly from the results to the conclusions.
4.- The objectives and implications of the study, along with its potential applicability, should be more clearly explained in the manuscript.
5.- Section Literature review: in my opinion, this section should be removed from the manuscript. It gives rise to confusion as to whether the article is original or a revision. This section does not contribute anything relevant to the study that cannot be included in the introduction.
6.- Study area: Table 1 should be an Annex, in the body of the manuscript, the figure is sufficient.
7.- Most of the figures in the manuscript need improved resolution, the legends are barely visible.
8.- 3.2. Analysis process: this subsection needs to be described, a section in a manuscript cannot be limited to a figure that is barely visible.
9.- 3.3. Data collection and preprocessing: links should appear as references, not directly in the text. However, although it is important to mention the sources of information, this subsection is not relevant enough to present its own entity. This information should be merged with some other subsection.
10.- Tables 2 and 3: This type of table with so much information leads us to believe that this study is more of a literature review than an original research article.
11.- 3.5. Evaluation model and method: the IPA methodology should be explained more concisely and clearly, based on bibliographic references. I am really concerned that the validation of the study is based on a purely qualitative method. Such a decision should be supported by references, and the choice of the IPA method should be justified.
12.- Figure 6: The results shown in Figure 6 are descriptive, but do not correspond to statistical analyses as shown in the text.
13.- Results: This section is very difficult to understand, there is a lot of repeated information and the analyses are too broad. I insist once again that the authors should reformulate their hypotheses and generate a clearer and more concise article. In the current version, this manuscript is not publishable.
14.- There is no justification in methodology describing the statistical analyses used. The authors should explain, first of all, the parametricity or not of their data, explaining by means of which test they have verified it. Similarly, it should be explained in detail why an ANOVA is used (I think it is possible that the data are nonparametric, and therefore the statistic would have to be changed). Similarly, the p-value ranges used, and the software with which the analyses were performed, should be specified. As with ANOVA, the use of Pearson correlations should also be justified.
15.- I recommend dividing the discussion and conclusions into two separate sections.
16.- The limitations of the study should be included in the discussion.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: First of all, the manuscript is extremely long. I understand that as authors they have wanted to cover many analyses in their study, but the result is a manuscript with a lot of repetitive information and many analyses that do not add relevance to the study and only make it very complex to understand for potential readers. I advise you to delimit and specify your objectives, resulting in a more concise and clear manuscript..
Response 1: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! According to your suggestion, we redefined and explained the research objectives of the article. We also reorganized and deleted the content of the article, and put part of the result data in the appendix to make the article more concise and clear.
Point 2: Title: remove "a case study of 85 river- 3 side parks".
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We deleted the corresponding part according to your suggestion.
Point 3: Abstract: you should introduce a brief discussion of their results. In the current version they go directly from the results to the conclusions.
Response 3: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added relevant content in the abstract section with your suggestion.
Point 4: The objectives and implications of the study, along with its potential applicability, should be more clearly explained in the manuscript.
Response 4: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added the related content about the objectives and implications of the study, along with its potential applicability, in lines 136-159 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode).
Point 5: Section Literature review: in my opinion, this section should be removed from the manuscript. It gives rise to confusion as to whether the article is original or a revision. This section does not contribute anything relevant to the study that cannot be included in the introduction.
Response 5: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We deleted the corresponding part according to your suggestion. We also added the literature review related to the content of this study.
Point 6: Study area: Table 1 should be an Annex, in the body of the manuscript, the figure is sufficient.
Response 6: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have adjusted the content of the article according to your suggestion.
Point 7: Most of the figures in the manuscript need improved resolution, the legends are barely visible.
Response 7: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have readjusted the clarity of these figures.
Point 8: 3.2. Analysis process: this subsection needs to be described, a section in a manuscript cannot be limited to a figure that is barely visible.
Response 8: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have added the description of this subsection in lines 295-308 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode).
Point 9: 3.3. Data collection and preprocessing: links should appear as references, not directly in the text. However, although it is important to mention the sources of information, this subsection is not relevant enough to present its own entity. This information should be merged with some other subsection.
Response 9: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have modified the link in the reference as you requested, and merged and supplemented the original 3.3 and 3.4 of the article.
Point 10: Tables 2 and 3: This type of table with so much information leads us to believe that this study is more of a literature review than an original research article.
Response 10: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Table 2 and table 3 are the index systems based on the indicators selected from relevant literature review, guided by the research content of this paper, and combined with the results of word frequency analysis on the social media data.
Point 11: 3.5. Evaluation model and method: the IPA methodology should be explained more concisely and clearly, based on bibliographic references. I am really concerned that the validation of the study is based on a purely qualitative method. Such a decision should be supported by references, and the choice of the IPA method should be justified.
Response 11: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Although IPA is a qualitative research method on the whole, it contains quantitative analysis of a large amount of data in the research process. In order to make the research conclusion more clear and easier to be adopted, we made a qualitative judgment on the final conclusion. Meanwhile, we have added the literature review on IPA method according to your suggestion to justify the rationality of the selection of IPA method.
Point 12: Figure 6: The results shown in Figure 6 are descriptive, but do not correspond to statistical analyses as shown in the text.
Response 12: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We are so sorry that there are descriptive errors in the article. We have deleted and changed, thank you!
Point 13: Results: This section is very difficult to understand, there is a lot of repeated information and the analyses are too broad. I insist once again that the authors should reformulate their hypotheses and generate a clearer and more concise article. In the current version, this manuscript is not publishable.
Response 13: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We reorganized the results of the article, and retained the main research content (the evaluation of satisfaction of text reviews in 2006-2021) that is close to this part, containing the changes of comments in different seasons, the satisfaction analysis of user elements based on IPA method, the comparative study of satisfaction between different elements based on ANOVA. We also deleted the user sentiment analysis and correlation analysis, making the results of the article clearer and more concise.
Point 14: There is no justification in methodology describing the statistical analyses used. The authors should explain, first of all, the parametricity or not of their data, explaining by means of which test they have verified it. Similarly, it should be explained in detail why an ANOVA is used (I think it is possible that the data are nonparametric, and therefore the statistic would have to be changed). Similarly, the p-value ranges used, and the software with which the analyses were performed, should be specified. As with ANOVA, the use of pearson correlations should also be justified.
Response 14: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! In Section 3.5 of the article, we added a literature review on ANOVA. The purpose of ANOVA is to discuss and analyze the satisfaction evaluation results of various elements (parks beside different river systems, parks in different types, parks in different districts) through IPA method, and further make a comparative analysis of the satisfaction of each element, then summarize the common points and differences between the elements, extract the factors with large differences in the comparison results between two pairs to explore the reasons behind, so as to achieve the purpose of a more comprehensive research on user satisfaction of social media data. Therefore, the use of ANOVA is necessary. The data used in ANOVA is a further comparative analysis based on the result data obtained from the IPA analysis, and the data is parametric. In terms of correlation analysis, we re-conducted many parametric tests and added water correlation analysis. However, the results showed that there was no strong correlation between the length or width of the water body or the width of the green space and the park rating, this was different from the first experiment, which may be the reason for the small number of validations in the first experiment. So we removed this section. Thank you very much. The following is the analysis result for this part.
Table 1. Correlation analysis of average star for each park.
|
　 |
　 |
Average rating star |
park area / hm2 |
green space width /m |
width of water/m |
distance from the park to the city center /km |
distance from the park to the nearest subway station /km |
distance from the park to the nearest bus stop /km |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.071 |
0.011 |
0.112 |
0.056 |
0.097 |
0.028 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.52 |
0.917 |
0.308 |
0.613 |
0.377 |
0.262 |
|
|
number |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
Table 2. Correlation analysis of average star of parks in each district.
|
|
|
Average rating star |
population density（latest yearbook）ppl/km² |
number of permanent residents（latest yearbook）ten thousand people |
per capita GDP of district（latest yearbook）ten thousand yuan |
GDP of district（latest yearbook）one hundred million yuan |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.432 |
0.381 |
0.365 |
0.326 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.123 |
0.179 |
0.200 |
0.255 |
|
|
number |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
Point 15: I recommend dividing the discussion and conclusions into two separate sections.
Response 15: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have divided the discussion and conclusions into two parts according to your suggestion.
Point 16: The limitations of the study should be included in the discussion.
Response 16: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! After separating the discussion from the conclusions, we further improved the relevant contents of the discussion and conclusions, and put the limitations of the study in discussion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear colleagues, I really appreciate the possibility to be a reviewer of so interesting paper devoted to the problems of urban blue-green space.
The aim of reviewed paper is to explore the main factors that influenced people's satisfaction with the landscape design and sensory perception of urban waterfront green space. This paper used 85 typical riverside parks in Beijing's blue-green space as the research object, collecting and analyzing multiple social media user data.
The authors used for research rather long period - from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2021But later in the same text they don’t discuss the relationship of the results with the time of writing responses on social networks. A distinctive feature of the article is the use as a basis for the study of a wide range of objects - of different specialization and status, which allowed the authors to identify the features of the perception of objects relevant for the purposes of urban planning.
The volume of the article is quite large, the authors consistently analyze all the described results, which at some point, due to their uniformity, makes it difficult to isolate the resulting information from the text. There is a feeling that the article is of an applied nature and provides the necessary material for decision-makers to a greater extent than for scientists dealing with the problem. Perhaps the solution to this problem would help to combine all statistical data on indicators into one supplement or additional data and put it after the main text. Drawings with quadrants are enough to understand the content of paper.
The same large volume makes it difficult for possible proposals to add to the text. At the same time, among such issues that require discussion are the features of water bodies within the park, for example, the length of a water body. The authors note that the strongest connection in is determined by the width of the park. However, it is unclear what role the actual water body plays in it. From the content of the text, it is not clear to the reader who is unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Chinese urban planning - what are the differences in the status of different parks - perhaps it would make sense to explain this at least in the notes.
The conclusions of the study are fairly standard, but they are supported by a large experimental base and are trustworthy. Considering all of the above, I believe that the article is a good study, its results can be useful for urban planning practitioners, and researchers using the described algorithm can carry out similar work for their cities. I believe that the article can be published in the proposed form without any special changes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point:
Dear colleagues, I really appreciate the possibility to be a reviewer of so interesting paper devoted to the problems of urban blue-green space.
The aim of reviewed paper is to explore the main factors that influenced people's satisfaction with the landscape design and sensory perception of urban waterfront green space. This paper used 85 typical riverside parks in Beijing's blue-green space as the research object, collecting and analyzing multiple social media user data.
The authors used for research rather long period - from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2021But later in the same text they don’t discuss the relationship of the results with the time of writing responses on social networks. A distinctive feature of the article is the use as a basis for the study of a wide range of objects - of different specialization and status, which allowed the authors to identify the features of the perception of objects relevant for the purposes of urban planning.
The volume of the article is quite large, the authors consistently analyze all the described results, which at some point, due to their uniformity, makes it difficult to isolate the resulting information from the text. There is a feeling that the article is of an applied nature and provides the necessary material for decision-makers to a greater extent than for scientists dealing with the problem. Perhaps the solution to this problem would help to combine all statistical data on indicators into one supplement or additional data and put it after the main text. Drawings with quadrants are enough to understand the content of paper.
The same large volume makes it difficult for possible proposals to add to the text. At the same time, among such issues that require discussion are the features of water bodies within the park, for example, the length of a water body. The authors note that the strongest connection in is determined by the width of the park. However, it is unclear what role the actual water body plays in it. From the content of the text, it is not clear to the reader who is unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Chinese urban planning - what are the differences in the status of different parks - perhaps it would make sense to explain this at least in the notes.
The conclusions of the study are fairly standard, but they are supported by a large experimental base and are trustworthy. Considering all of the above, I believe that the article is a good study, its results can be useful for urban planning practitioners, and researchers using the described algorithm can carry out similar work for their cities. I believe that the article can be published in the proposed form without any special changes.
Response:
Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! We have changed the content of the article according to your suggestion, which mainly includes the following three points:
First of all, it is about the long time span of text data used in the research. The large volume of text data spanning from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2021 was selected in this study mainly to avoid the problem of inaccurate results caused by poor timeliness of comment information. We added a statistical analysis of seasonal changes in the number of comments over the past 15 years and found that there were seasonal differences in the number of comments, different times of writing responses on social networks, and different concerns and satisfaction with various types of park landscapes. We have elaborated on this part in the research results (in lines 394-414 and 955-960 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode)). At the same time, it can also provide a more comprehensive and multidimensional thinking direction for the discussion, research and strategy formulation of this paper -- how to improve the core landscape value of waterfront green space.
The second is about the problem of the larger volume of the article. According to your suggestion, we combined all the statistical data about the indicators into an appendix at the end of the main text, and kept the pictures with quadrants and clear diagrams with brief introduction in the main text. At the same time, we reorganized the results of the article and retained the parts closely related to the main research content of the article (satisfaction evaluation of selected text reviews from 2006 to 2021), including the changes of comment volume in different seasons, the satisfaction analysis of each element of users based on IPA method, and the comparative study of satisfaction among different elements based on one-way analysis of variance. The user sentiment analysis and correlation analysis were deleted to make the results of the article more clear and concise.
The third is about explanation of the role of water in the research content. The research area of this paper was selected based on the distribution of the surrounding parks of the five major water systems in Beijing, and the essence of the research object was the waterfront green space in the urban blue-green space. Therefore, as an important part of the urban blue-green space, the five major water systems in Beijing were mainly used as the basis for the selection of research objects. That was because the blue-green space, as the transition space between the city and nature, was the core area for gathering natural resources and maintaining biodiversity in the city. As an important part of the urban blue-green space, riverside park had its own advantages in water system, vegetation and topography, and had great potential for improvement. In terms of correlation analysis, we re-conducted many parametric tests and added water correlation analysis. However, the results showed that there was no strong correlation between the length or width of the water body or the width of the green space and the park rating, this was different from the first experiment, which may be the reason for the small number of validations in the first experiment. So we removed this section. The following is the analysis result for this part.
Table 1. Correlation analysis of average star for each park.
|
　 |
　 |
Average rating star |
park area / hm2 |
green space width /m |
width of water/m |
distance from the park to the city center /km |
distance from the park to the nearest subway station /km |
distance from the park to the nearest bus stop /km |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.071 |
0.011 |
0.112 |
0.056 |
0.097 |
0.028 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.52 |
0.917 |
0.308 |
0.613 |
0.377 |
0.262 |
|
|
number |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
Table 2. Correlation analysis of average star of parks in each district.
|
|
|
Average rating star |
population density（latest yearbook）ppl/km² |
number of permanent residents（latest yearbook）ten thousand people |
per capita GDP of district（latest yearbook）ten thousand yuan |
GDP of district（latest yearbook）one hundred million yuan |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.432 |
0.381 |
0.365 |
0.326 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.123 |
0.179 |
0.200 |
0.255 |
|
|
number |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
In addition, according to your requirements, we have added the content of "Beijing Municipal Park Classification and Classification Management Measures" in the appendix of the article (in lines 273-284 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode)), so as to help readers unfamiliar with the particularity of Chinese urban planning understand the characteristics of Chinese urban planning and the classification standards and construction requirements of park green space.
Thanks again for your suggestions on this article!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper takes 85 riverside parks in Beijing as an example, uses multiple social media platforms to obtain evaluation data, and screens the evaluation indexes of landscape design factor evaluation system and sensory perception factor evaluation system from two aspects: park design and individual perception factors. The evaluation model was used to analyze the main factors affecting people's satisfaction with landscape design and sensory perception of urban waterfront green space in different riverside parks, different types of parks and parks in different districts. However, there are some problems in the article, and the following are some points that may help to improve the manuscript. I hope the author will revise it carefully. The main comments are as follows:
1. The introduction part, the background and theory of narration part is too long, please concise the part.
2.Literature review part, suggest the authors to increase to blue and green space and riverside greenbelt landscape literature and analyzed.
3. The resolution of Figure 1 and Figure 5 is low, and the content is not clear. In Figure 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17, the brightness of each indicator font color is lower than the background color, and the font display is not obvious.
4. Page 4, Line 166-169: The introduction of the blue and green space of Beijing river in this part is repeated with the background part, and it is suggested to be deleted.
5.For the study area, please strengthen the description of the waterfront landscape of the blue and green space in the study area in an appropriate and concise way. In addition, lines 172-174, which belong to research methods, should be integrated into 3.3.
6. line 183. It is necessary to add a proper textual description to Figure 2, rather than a single figure.
7.The results section is too long, so it is suggested to be condensed. In addition, according to the analysis results, suggestions were put forward to optimize and improve Beijing waterfront green space according to the classification of the index system.
8.The discussion and conclusion parts are proposed to be explained separately. At the same time, according to the landscape design factor evaluation system and the perception sensory factor evaluation system, the main factors affecting the evaluation are summarized according to the index system, and the main factors affecting the evaluation are required to be concise and clear.
9. Page 31, lines 678-684: To make the conclusion convincing, evidence needs to be provided on how the width of the park's green space affects visitors' evaluation of riverfront parks.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The introduction part, the background and theory of narration part is too long, please concise the part.
Response 1: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! According to your suggestions, we sorted out the introduction, redefined and explained the research objectives of the paper, deleted the contents that were not closely related to the research objectives in the research background and literature review, which made the introduction of the paper more concise and clear.
Point 2: Literature review part, suggest the authors to increase to blue and green space and riverside greenbelt landscape literature and analyzed.
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We added the related content about the blue and green space and riverside greenbelt landscape literature of the study in lines 175-202 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode).
Point 3: The resolution of Figure 1 and Figure 5 is low, and the content is not clear. In Figure 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17, the brightness of each indicator font color is lower than the background color, and the font display is not obvious.
Response 3: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have readjusted the clarity of these figures.
Point 4: Page 4, Line 166-169: The introduction of the blue and green space of Beijing river in this part is repeated with the background part, and it is suggested to be deleted.
Response 4: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We deleted the corresponding part according to your suggestion.
Point 5: For the study area, please strengthen the description of the waterfront landscape of the blue and green space in the study area in an appropriate and concise way. In addition, lines 172-174, which belong to research methods, should be integrated into 3.3.
Response 5: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! For the study area, we added descriptions of blue-green space and waterfront landscape in lines 256-268 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode), and marked the counterpoint relationship between the scope of the selected park and the scope covered by different levels of Beijing's current urban planning in the regional distribution analysis chart (Figure 1). In addition, we have integrated lines 172-174 of the original article into 3.3 research methods.
Point 6: It is necessary to add a proper textual description to Figure 2, rather than a single figure.
Response 6: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! We have added the description of this subsection in lines 295-308 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode).
Point 7: The results section is too long, so it is suggested to be condensed. In addition, according to the analysis results, suggestions were put forward to optimize and improve Beijing waterfront green space according to the classification of the index system.
Response 7: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! We combed the result part of the article, retained and the main research content (selected text reviews the satisfaction evaluation in 2006-2021) that is close to the part, containing different season review quantity change, the elements of IPA method based user satisfaction analysis, based on the analysis of variance between the different elements of the satisfaction of comparative study, etc. User sentiment analysis and correlation analysis were removed to make the results of the article clearer and more concise. In addition, we added a specific case analysis to the conclusion and discussion section of the article, and put forward corresponding suggestions for the optimization and improvement of Beijing's waterfront green space, so as to improve the pertinence and practicability of the conclusion.
Point 8: The discussion and conclusion parts are proposed to be explained separately. At the same time, according to the landscape design factor evaluation system and the perception sensory factor evaluation system, the main factors affecting the evaluation are summarized according to the index system, and the main factors affecting the evaluation are required to be concise and clear.
Response 8: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! According to your suggestion, we have divided the discussion and conclusion into two parts, and further improved the relevant contents of the discussion and conclusion parts, placing the limitations of the research in the discussion part. For the landscape design factor evaluation system and the perception sensory factor evaluation system, we summarized the main impact evaluation elements according to the index system in lines 980-983 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode) to make it more concise and clear.
Point 9: Page 31, lines 678-684: To make the conclusion convincing, evidence needs to be provided on how the width of the park's green space affects visitors' evaluation of riverfront parks.
Response 9: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! I'm sorry that we have deleted the correlation analysis part of the article. For this part, we re-conducted many parametric tests, however, the results showed that there was no strong correlation between the length or width of the water body or the width of the green space and the park rating, this was different from the first experiment, which may be the reason for the small number of validations in the first experiment. So we removed this section. The following is the analysis result for this part.
Table 1. Correlation analysis of average star for each park.
|
　 |
　 |
Average rating star |
park area / hm2 |
green space width /m |
width of water/m |
distance from the park to the city center /km |
distance from the park to the nearest subway station /km |
distance from the park to the nearest bus stop /km |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.071 |
0.011 |
0.112 |
0.056 |
0.097 |
0.028 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.52 |
0.917 |
0.308 |
0.613 |
0.377 |
0.262 |
|
|
number |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
Table 2. Correlation analysis of average star of parks in each district.
|
|
|
Average rating star |
population density（latest yearbook）ppl/km² |
number of permanent residents（latest yearbook）ten thousand people |
per capita GDP of district（latest yearbook）ten thousand yuan |
GDP of district（latest yearbook）one hundred million yuan |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.432 |
0.381 |
0.365 |
0.326 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.123 |
0.179 |
0.200 |
0.255 |
|
|
number |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, first of all I would like to thank you for your time in answering each of my suggestions. I believe that after the revision the manuscript has significantly increased its quality. However, I would like to make some comments, in line with the first revision, that I believe should be implemented in the manuscript:
1.- The manuscript has increased in quality, but the statistical part remains a weakness. I mean, in the answer you have given me it is perfectly clear that your data are parametric, justifying the statistical analyses used. This should appear in the manuscript. You can put a brief comment saying that all the variables were parametric, indicating the test you used to check their normality and homoscedasticity, and attaching the p-values obtained.
2.- On the other hand, the results of the manuscript focus mainly on the IPA methodology. And I am fine with that, it is their goal, but it is puzzling not to see any tables in the subsection devoted to ANOVA and regression results. Of course, I understand that all these results are included in the appendices in order to shorten the length of the manuscript. However, is it not possible to attach a summary table summarizing the most important statistical results?
Beyond these comments, I consider that the manuscript has been improved. I thank the authors for their efforts and responses.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript has increased in quality, but the statistical part remains a weakness. I mean, in the answer you have given me it is perfectly clear that your data are parametric, justifying the statistical analyses used. This should appear in the manuscript. You can put a brief comment saying that all the variables were parametric, indicating the test you used to check their normality and homoscedasticity, and attaching the p-values obtained.
Response 1: Thank you for your meaningful suggestion! According to your suggestion, we have put a brief comment (in lines 366-370 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode)) saying that all the variables were parametric, indicating the test we used to check their normality and homoscedasticity, and attaching the p-values obtained.
Point 2: On the other hand, the results of the manuscript focus mainly on the IPA methodology. And I am fine with that, it is their goal, but it is puzzling not to see any tables in the subsection devoted to ANOVA and regression results. Of course, I understand that all these results are included in the appendices in order to shorten the length of the manuscript. However, is it not possible to attach a summary table summarizing the most important statistical results?
Response 2: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions! We've attached a summary table summarizing the most important results after each one-way ANOVA section (in lines 532-537, 563-568, 682-685, 706-710, 823-827 and 849-853 of the article (word text in “Track Changes” mode)). But in order to shorten the manuscript, the data in the table only retained the relatively important data, all the data was still in the supplementary file.
In terms of correlation analysis, we re-conducted many parametric tests and added water correlation analysis. However, the results showed that there was no strong correlation between the length or width of the water body or the width of the green space and the park rating, this was different from the first experiment, which may be the reason for the small number of validations in the first experiment.
Therefore, in order to make the expression of the article more concise and clear, we directly deleted the relevant content of this part. Thank you very much. The following was the analysis result for this part, showed that there was no strong correlation between length of water body, width of green space, and park rating.
Table 1. Correlation analysis of average star for each park.
|
　 |
　 |
Average rating star |
park area / hm2 |
green space width /m |
width of water/m |
distance from the park to the city center /km |
distance from the park to the nearest subway station /km |
distance from the park to the nearest bus stop /km |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.071 |
0.011 |
0.112 |
0.056 |
0.097 |
0.028 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.52 |
0.917 |
0.308 |
0.613 |
0.377 |
0.262 |
|
|
number |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||||
Table 2. Correlation analysis of average star of parks in each district.
|
|
|
Average rating star |
population density（latest yearbook）ppl/km² |
number of permanent residents（latest yearbook）ten thousand people |
per capita GDP of district（latest yearbook）ten thousand yuan |
GDP of district（latest yearbook）one hundred million yuan |
|
Average rating star |
Pearson correlation coefficient |
1 |
0.432 |
0.381 |
0.365 |
0.326 |
|
|
Sig.（two-tail） |
|
0.123 |
0.179 |
0.200 |
0.255 |
|
|
number |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
|
** At the 0.01 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
|
* At the 0.05 level (two-tail), the association was significant. |
||||||
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
