Preferences and Perception Influencing Usage of Neighborhood Public Urban Green Spaces in Fast Urbanizing Indian City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the authors investigated the demands of urban dwellers for public urban green spaces (PUGS) in the rapidly urbanising city of Nagpur, India. This study aimed to provide insights into the factors influencing PUGS usage, preferred activities, and negative perceptions, with the goal of assisting local authorities in effective planning and management.

One notable strength of this study is the use of social surveys to capture the qualitative aspects of visitors' preferences and perceptions regarding PUGS. However, a fundamental flaw lies in the lack of clear definitions and comparisons among different park typologies, such as parks and gardens, playgrounds, lakes, and forests, which can vary significantly in size and usable areas, impacting activities and their roles.

The methodology would benefit from further rigor in terms of explicitly describing the reasons behind the survey design, including the list of eight activities and the open-ended option as well as defining the four categories used for classification. Additionally, the inclusion of Spearman's correlation results and highlighting of significant relationships is crucial. The Mosaic plot, while visually interesting, lacks scientific clarity and should be accompanied by a more informative presentation of the data.

 

Overall, while the research findings appear valid, the study could enhance its impact by providing clearer explanations of the research methods to convince readers of the meaningfulness of the findings. 

Minor comments include :

·        inconsistencies in terminology (PUGS vs. UGS),

·        unreadable figure legends, t

·        he need for contrasting colors in Figure 2,

·        small labels in the mosaic plot.

·        In Figure 8, the heatmap illustrating responses to PUGS characteristics in a geographical context is challenging to comprehend without an explanation of its implications and potential reasons based on the context of the location.

·        In-text citations can be limited to approx. 3 max. No need for a longlist for each citation. 

 

 

Overall, the language used in the paper is appropriate for the intended audience and effectively conveys the research findings.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your suggestions to address the issues raised.

We appreciate your attention to detail and your insightful comments, which have helped improve the clarity and quality of our work. We have incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, indicated by purple text.

Reviewer 1#

• In this study, the authors investigated the demands of urban dwellers for public urban green spaces (PUGS) in the rapidly urbanising city of Nagpur, India. This study aimed to provide insights into the factors influencing PUGS usage, preferred activities, and negative perceptions, with the goal of assisting local authorities in effective planning and management. One notable strength of this study is the use of social surveys to capture the qualitative aspects of visitors' preferences and perceptions regarding PUGS. However, a fundamental flaw lies in the lack of clear definitions and comparisons among different park typologies, such as parks and gardens, playgrounds, lakes, and forests, which can vary significantly in size and usable areas, impacting activities and their roles.

--Thank you for your feedback. We agree to the point made, we would like to clarify that a comprehensive study on PUGS typologies was conducted and discussed in detail in Lahoti et al., 2019 (reference provided). This study served as the basis for the thematic maps of PUGS used in our current research. We apologize if this connection was not clearly stated in the previous text. We have revised the text to explicitly refer to the detailed information in Lahoti et al., 2019, to ensure clarity and transparency.

--Further, thematic map is added as Appendix B.

With regard the PUGSs studied, the definition by Coles and Grayson (2004) is used, that considers access and function criteria to define UGS. Accordingly, the study focused on neighborhood PUGS which are accessible, covered by vegetation and used for recreation purpose by the locals at ward level to enhance their quality of life. The neighborhood PUGS typologies considered in the study were the four classes of recreational PUGS as identified in the city development plan (Parks and gardens, Playground, Lake, Forest) and thematic maps (refer Lahoti et at., 2019), please refer to APPENDIX B. The fifth class is excluded, as the quality of the water in the river flowing in Nagpur (Nag river) is deteriorated and not considered for any recreational benefits. However, the green routes (avenue plantation) and local institutional greens are included in the survey to gauge overall preference toward accessible green spaces. As in Lahoti et al. (2019), most of the neighborhood parks and gardens (PUGS) share a similar design layout but differ in size and maintenance level. These PUGS are under the maintenance of the NMC (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) and are accessible for approximately 3 to 4 hours during the day and evening. The parks and gardens feature well-maintained landscapes including mowed lawns, pruned shrubs, shady trees, and flowering plants. On the other hand, the playgrounds within these areas have compacted lands with minimal peripheral vegetation. The neighborhood PUGS generally conform to the guidelines of the Urban and Regional Development Plan Formulation Implementation (URDPFI) in India, with a typical unit area of 0.5 hectares. For further information, please refer to Lahoti et al. (2019).

• The methodology would benefit from further rigor in terms of explicitly describing the reasons behind the survey design, including the list of eight activities and the open-ended option as well as defining the four categories used for classification.

-- Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your observation, and we have taken it into consideration. In response, we have included a new section in the study that focuses on the research framework. By doing so, we aim to provide clearer explanations of our research methods, which we believe will help persuade readers of the significance and relevance of our findings. Check section 2.1 Research framework (page 3).

--For more clarity on the questions, we have added the questionnaire in Appendix A.

Additionally, the inclusion of Spearman's correlation results and highlighting of significant relationships is crucial. The Mosaic plot, while visually interesting, lacks scientific clarity and should be accompanied by a more informative presentation of the data.

--Mosaic plots are primarily graphical representations of categorical data, and their scientific rigor lies in their ability to display the distribution and relationships between categorical variables accurately. While Spearman's correlation is good for any two continuous or ordinal variables, it is not directly applicable to categorical variables typically represented in a Mosaic plot.

--Further, the Pearson residual value was earlier not clear in the mosaic plot, it is now revised. The p-value shows the independence or association between categorical variables.

• Overall, while the research findings appear valid, the study could enhance its impact by providing clearer explanations of the research methods to convince readers of the meaningfulness of the findings. 

-- Thank you for your feedback. We suppose adding a research formwork would make it clearer now.

• Minor comments include:

• inconsistencies in terminology (PUGS vs. UGS)

--Thank you for pointing this out, this has now been corrected, we have used PUGS term for our research related findings. While UGS appears 7 times in the text in introduction and discussion, where the references are cited.

• unreadable figure legends,

--Thank you, we agree, we have revised most of the figures in responses to review comments by other reviewers. In the revised figures, the legends are clearer.

• the need for contrasting colors in Figure 2.

--Apologies but we would stick to the same figure, changes are not possible as we do not have access to ArcGIS software.

• small labels in the mosaic plot.

--Thank you, we agree, we have revised and it clearer.

• In Figure 8, the heatmap illustrating responses to PUGS characteristics in a geographical context is challenging to comprehend without an explanation of its implications and potential reasons based on the context of the location.

--The perceived satisfaction level (graphically represented through the heatmaps) with regard to neighborhood PUGS characteristics holds several implications; Usage and engagement: Satisfaction with PUGS characteristics influences the frequency and level of engagement of residents with these spaces. Higher satisfaction levels are likely to encourage greater utilization and participation in activities. Understanding the factors that contribute to higher satisfaction levels can help guide the development and maintenance of PUGS that meet residents' needs and preferences.

--Some the context specific implication are disused in (4.3. Local perceptions and satisfaction)

For example, below, the Map help identify those areas, and it can be potentially used by PUGS manager

The findings signal towards high perceived safety in the city; which is observed in the western side of the globe (Beaney, 2009; Thompson, 2002). However, perceived safety is identified as major barrier for use and access in other developing countries (Berney, 2010; Parra et al., 2010; Wendel et al., 2012). Overall, the locals have positive perception about safety, with few exceptions in the periphery where it is considered as a barrier to access. Occasionally, people mentioned avoiding certain PUGS due to inappropriate behavior and issues with litter and vandalism, but it is not linked to perceived safety. The earlier findings about lacking activities is resonated (though not evidently) through neutral perceptions for activities catering to all age groups. Further dissatisfaction against access varies among the respondent signaling disparity in provisions as identified in benchmark assessment (Lahoti et al., 2019).

•  In-text citations can be limited to approx. 3 max. No need for a longlist for each citation. 

--We omitted few as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

• Title need revision and it is long and well represent the paper contents.

 

• Keyword need revision, it not well represents the paper content.

 

• In the abstract “We attempt to assist local urban authorities in better understanding of the provisions for planning and managing PUGS that can fulfil the growing PUGS needs of urban dwellers. What is the urban local urban authorities here?

 

• All the measured factor should be discussed in literature with their different definitions.

 

• Figure 3 not clear

 

• Define the green area spaces in the neighborhood, green area map should be shown, and the evaluated area should be indicated in the map.

 

• What are the questions given to the users, APPENDIX A was not provided? How you evaluate the green spaces, or what the criteria that used to decide this is an urban green space or not.  

 

• The design of the methodology is not clear, the validity of the result is not clear. Research framework as a chart is needed to explain the steps for the methodology used.

 

• How much the number of the people in the case study? Based on what methodology you decide the number of the sample is enough to contact the study, please provide any previous research on that or any study related to evaluating the urban spaces. How can the result of this study have accepted without filtering the total result of the questionnaires?

 

• What is the design characteristic of the urban green spaces (playground area, parks, garden) what is the size, the amenities available and how much the green is available there and what time is open, and the location of this area should be defined in the map? Working days and weekend days should be taken in consider during the survey and analysis.

 

• Figure 7 not clear. legend is not clear

 

• Need English proof read there is typo errors check 4. 1.. some citation does not have year, Check 4.1. Local preferences, Visitation, and Usage. the discussed section should be linked to the literature review that written in but not out the paper.

 

• Why the mobility was not considered which is one of the factors to measure the urban green spaces (accessibility, walkability). Quality of the urban green spaces should be used as a terminology throughout the paper. And intensity and diversity should be used as a tool to measure the urban space.
• Please check this and follow the theory of the public urban spaces https://edepot.wur.nl/572050
• Need numerical values in the abstract and conclusion
• Which factor is the most influence in the urban green spaces, I suggest to you to put all factors results together in one graph or table to be readable and to show the influence each measured factor? 

need improvement

Author Response

• Title need revision and it is long and well represent the paper contents.

--Thank you, we agree that the title was long. It is now revised and shortened as suggested by the reviewer. New title "Preferences and perception influencing usage of neighborhood public urban green spaces in fast urbanizing Indian city"

• Keyword need revision, it not well represents the paper content.

--We have now revised the keywords and added three more keywords.

• In the abstract “We attempt to assist local urban authorities in better understanding of the provisions for planning and managing PUGS that can fulfil the growing PUGS needs of urban dwellers. What is the urban local urban authorities here.
• We omitted the word urban and just used local authorities, here local authorities mean the local governing bodies who are responsible for planning and managing the public UGS (in this case it is called as Nagpur Municipal Corporation-NMC).

 

• All the measured factor should be discussed in literature with their different definitions.

• Thank you for your feedback. After careful consideration and revising the title, we agree that the focus of the study should not be solely on factors. Instead, we have shifted the emphasis towards preferences and perceptions, aligning with the research questions we have formulated.

  In the literature review section, we have thoroughly discussed the existing studies on preferences and perceptions. We have explored how these aspects are examined in the context of our research topic.

  Additionally, we have incorporated a research framework as per your comment. To provide a clear explanation of our approach, we have added a new section dedicated to outlining and detailing this research framework.

  Thank you for your valuable input, and we believe that these revisions enhance the clarity and coherence of our study.

To obtain local social data and better understand the demand, this study utilized the framework proposed by Stodolska et al. (2011) and Farhani and Malller (2018) to develop a research framework (shown in Figure 1). The derived framework aims to encompass several factors: (1) individual characteristics, (2) individual preferences to comprehend usage patterns and preferred activities, and (3) perception regarding these characteristics by assessing satisfaction levels. It is important to note that preferences and perceptions of PUGS, may differ among individuals, as each person experiences spaces uniquely (Schipperjin et al., 2010). Therefore, individual characteristics such as age, gender, family structure, and employment status are recognized as crucial components that are linked to both preferences and perceptions.

Preferences and perceptions provide insights into how individuals engage with PUGS, allowing for the identification of local data on preferred usage patterns and activities. Preferences represent individual choices, providing an understanding of preferred behaviors and activities. On the other hand, perceptions reflect sensory experiences of current spaces, providing insights into existing conditions, settings, safety, accessibility, vegetation, and facilities that can improve interactions and encourage visitation. Both preferences and perceptions offer different perspectives on the usage of greenspaces, with preferences directly influencing behavior and perceptions helping identify factors that can enhance usage. Simultaneously investigating both preferences and perceptions enables an interdisciplinary approach to capturing local demand and planning for future PUGS provisions.

• Figure 3 not clear 
• We apologize for any confusion caused by the recent updates. As a result of adding the research framework figure, the numbering throughout the document has shifted by one number. Specifically, Figure 4 has been updated with a new high-resolution image. Additionally, we have made revisions to Figures 5, 6, and 7 to ensure accuracy and clarity. Thank you for your understanding, and we apologize for any inconvenience caused by these changes.

 

• Define the green area spaces in the neighborhood, green area map should be shown, and the evaluated area should be indicated in the map.
• We appreciate your feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have made additional revisions to the text. We have included a new section below and have also added Appendix B, which consists of a map displaying the Parks and Urban Green Spaces (PUGS) within the city. This map serves as the foundation for our study.
• ----
• With regard the PUGSs studied, the definition by Coles and Grayson (2004) is used, that considers access and function criteria to define UGS. Accordingly, the study focused on neighborhood PUGS which are accessible, covered by vegetation and used for recreation purpose by the locals at ward level to enhance their quality of life. The neighborhood PUGS typologies considered in the study were the four classes of recreational public UGS as identified in the city development plan (Parks and gardens, Playground, Lake, Forest) and thematic maps (refer Lahoti et at., 2019), please refer to APPENDIX B. The fifth class is excluded, as the quality of the water in the river flowing in Nagpur (Nag river) is deteriorated and not considered for any recreational benefits. However, the green routes (avenue plantation) and local institutional greens are included in the survey to gauge overall preference toward accessible green spaces.

• What are the questions given to the users, APPENDIX A was not provided? How you evaluate the green spaces, or what the criteria that used to decide whether this is an urban green space or not.  

• Thank you for your inquiry. We apologize for the oversight in not providing Appendix A earlier. It has now been included for your reference.

  Regarding the evaluation of green spaces, we followed the methodology outlined in a published research paper by Lahoti et al. (2019), which is available in MDPI. In this paper, we thoroughly explain the process of generating the thematic classification of Parks and Urban Green Spaces (PUGS). The research utilized the city development plan/master plan and thematic maps as the foundation for identifying neighborhood PUGS.

  For a more detailed explanation, please refer to the section titled "2. Methods and Materials" and specifically to "2.1 Case study - Paragraph 2," where we provide further insights into our approach.

   Lahoti, S., Kefi, M., Lahoti, A., & Saito, O. (2019). Mapping Methodology of Public Urban Green Spaces Using GIS: An Example of Nagpur City, India. Sustainability, 11(7), 2166. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072166

• We have now added this map as Appendix B.

• The design of the methodology is not clear, the validity of the result is not clear. Research framework as a chart is needed to explain the steps for the methodology used.

Thank you for your feedback. We understand your concern, in response to your feedback, we have included a research framework in the paper, as previously mentioned. This framework serves to provide a clear visual representation of the steps involved in the methodology used. We hope that this addition will address your concerns and improve the understanding of the research process. 

• How much the number of the people in the case study?
• The population of the city is 2.4 million (as per the 2011 census). This is now added as below:

In terms of its physical extent, it encompasses a land area of 217.65 square kilometers and is inhabited by a population of 2.4 million people, as recorded in the 2011 census. 

• Based on what methodology you decide the number of the sample is enough to contact the study, please provide any previous research on that or any study related to evaluating the urban spaces.
• For reliable results, a minimum 400 sample size was suggested based on Slovin’s formula with 0.05 degree of variability and 95% confidence level (Galero-Tejero, 2011), however we collected 756 surveys. This indicates the sample size was enough. 
• Solvin's formula is used by several researchers to determine the sample size. 

 

• How can the result of this study have accepted without filtering the total result of the questionnaires?
• The questionnaire used in this study consisted of multiple components, specifically addressing city greens and the river rejuvenation project. However, for the purposes of this paper, we have chosen to concentrate solely on the component related to neighborhood PUGS (parks and urban green spaces), while excluding the city-level UGS (urban green spaces). For further details, please refer to Appendix A. It is important to note that the analysis does include other demographic-related data. 

 

• What is the design characteristic of the urban green spaces (playground area, parks, garden) what is the size, the amenities available and how much the green is available there and what time is open, and the location of this area should be defined in the map?Working days and weekend days should be taken in consider during the survey and analysis.
• Apologies for missing this, and very rightly pointed out. We didn't want to be repetitive, but now we have added very briefly about the aspects you mentioned.

As in Lahoti et al. (2019), most of the neighborhood parks and gardens (PUGS) share a similar design layout but differ in size and maintenance level. These PUGS are under the maintenance of the NMC (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) and are accessible for approximately 3 to 4 hours during the day and evening. The parks and gardens feature well-maintained landscapes, including mowed lawns, pruned shrubs, shady trees, and flowering plants. On the other hand, the playgrounds within these areas have compacted lands with minimal peripheral vegetation. The neighborhood PUGS generally conform to the guidelines of the Urban and Regional Development Plan Formulation Implementation (URDPFI) in India, with a typical unit area of 0.5 hectares. For further information, please refer to Lahoti et al. (2019).

• Figure 7 is not clear. legend is not clear
• Our apologies; we have changed Fig. 7. 
• Need English proof read there is typo errors check 4. 1.. some citation does not have year, Check 4.1. Local preferences, Visitation, and Usage. the discussed section should be linked to the literature review that written in but not out the paper.
• We have now read the whole section to avoid such errors. We have added the year 2017 in the pointed reference. 
• Why the mobility was not considered which is one of the factors to measure the urban green spaces (accessibility, walkability).

Thank you for highlighting the importance of access as a key determinant. You are absolutely correct in recognizing its significance. In a related publication on the case-study city, in journal "Urban Forestry and Urban Greening," we have already addressed the topic of access to PUGS. The findings and insights from that article serve as a starting point for the research presented in this paper. We referenced that and build upon the previous publication to provide a comprehensive understanding of access within the context of our study.

• --
• The identified deficit in recreational green spaces by the city development plan (MoUD, 2015a, 2015b) resulting in supply gaps in UGS provision (Lahoti et al., 2019) makes Nagpur a good case study. Despite being considered one of the green cities, the high disparity in UGS provisions in terms of per-capita availability and accessibility (Lahoti et al., 2019) highlights the need to capture the local social data and aspects to understand urban dwellers' perspectives about the relevance of the existing PUGS. 

 

• Quality of the urban green spaces should be used as a terminology throughout the paper. And intensity and diversity should be used as a tool to measure the urban space.Please check this and follow the theory of the public urban spaces https://edepot.wur.nl/572050
• We used the term "Public urban green spaces (PUGS) are publicly owned and accessible open spaces within urban and peri-urban areas, partially or fully covered with considerable vegetation ". Various publications back this. 
• Thank you for recommending this dissertation. This is a great study, but the focus is completely different, in this study the disparity in provision and accessibility aspects is already identified. The research focuses on the next step to guide policymaking by considering local social data. 
• However, we will study it carefully for our other research work. 
• Need numerical values in the abstract and conclusion
• Thank you for your feedback. We prefer to keep the abstract and conclusion generic without emphasizing specific numerical values. The main purpose is to highlight the overall concept and findings of the study rather than specific numerical measurements.
• Which factor is the most influence in the urban green spaces, I suggest to you to put all factors results together in one graph or table to be readable and to show the influence each measured factor? 
• Thank you for your feedback. Based on your input, we have now revised our approach, from factors, we shifted the focus of the discussion towards preference and perception, as mentioned in our previous reply (research framework). We believe that this revised version, incorporating your inputs provides a stronger structure and greater clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

First, allow me to commend you on a very well-written and fresh piece of research. The idea itself is very worthy and I quite enjoyed reading it, having said that, below are some suggestions to incorporate:

*In Figure 5a, you mention in the text that there were 8 options, however, in the figure's ruberic only 7 are written and in the figure itself, there is a 1% that is unaccounted for, kindly clarify what that 1% represents.

*I suggest that you add a segment in the introduction emphasizing the importance of PUGS on health and well-being and how that will affect the livability and quality of life of the citizens around them, it would also fit in well if you mention the health benefits associated with PUGS, especially that you mention in briefly in the discussion,

* Also, think about incorporating the SDGs in the introduction not only in the recommendations part.

* I also think the following references may be a good fit for this paper:

-https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127105

-Social Barriers for the Use of Available and Accessible Public Green Spaces (doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.744766)

-Conceptualizing Walking and Walkability in the Smart City through a Model Composite w2 Smart City Utility Index (https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238193)

-https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104575

*  

Author Response

First, allow me to commend you on a very well-written and fresh piece of research. The idea itself is very worthy and I quite enjoyed reading it, having said that, below are some suggestions to incorporate:

--Thank you for your kind words and positive feedback on our research. We are open to incorporating your suggestions to further enhance the quality of our research.

*In Figure 5a, you mention in the text that there were 8 options, however, in the figure's ruberic only 7 are written and in the figure itself, there is a 1% that is unaccounted for, kindly clarify what that 1% represents.

--We apologize for the oversight, we have now rectified this by updating the Figure. 7 (now Fg. 8).

We received reviewer comments that prompted us to add an extra figure to the paper. As a result, the numbering of the figures has shifted by one. We apologize for any confusion caused by this change.

*I suggest that you add a segment in the introduction emphasizing the importance of PUGS on health and well-being and how that will affect the livability and quality of life of the citizens around them, it would also fit in well if you mention the health benefits associated with PUGS, especially that you mention in briefly in the discussion,

-- Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree that emphasizing the importance of PUGS on health and well-being in the introduction will enhance the understanding of their significance for the livability and quality of life of urban dwellers. We have added this earlier but revised and rewritten to be more specific.

--

PUGS offer significant benefits to individuals, families, and communities by promoting physical and psychological rejuvenation, fostering social cohesion, and enhancing overall well-being (Shackleton & Blair, 2013; Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2003; F. Kuo et al., 1998; Grilli et al., 2020). These spaces contribute to improved physical and mental health, positively impacting the surrounding environment by enhancing air and water quality. Furthermore, PUGS play a crucial role in fostering social connections, community engagement, and a sense of belonging (Kabisch et al., 2015; Neema et al., 2013; Pauleit et al., 2019). Considering these numerous health and well-being benefits, the provision of PUGS has become increasingly important in urban planning efforts, PUGS are a promising planning tool for tackling urbanization-related issues

* Also, think about incorporating the SDGs in the introduction not only in the recommendations part.

We agree. To address this, we added below sentence in Introduction:

Further, PUGS contribute to the realization of SDG 11 target 11.7, ensuring that cities are more livable, sustainable, and inclusive for all residents (United Nations, 2015).

* I also think the following references may be a good fit for this paper:

Thank you for suggesting these papers, we have added two references as indicated below       

Limited understanding and generic approach on usage patterns and perceptions of PUGS lead to a mismatch between public demands and their provision (Jim & Chen, 2006; Haq, 2021; Ugolini et al., 2022 )

--

While PUGSs exist as physical environments, they undergo constant social assessment, and influenced by individuals' demographics, social needs, and living environments, making the process context-dependent (Noel et al., 2021).

- doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127105 –

- doi.org/10.3390/en14238193)

-doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.744766) – Reference added

- doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104575 – Reference added

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the effort made in addressing the comments. However, I remain unconvinced that a valid comparison can be made between park preferences and perceptions when the parks being studied exhibit different typologies. While it is worth mentioning the study conducted by Lahoti (2019), which focuses on per capita Public Urban Green Spaces (PUGS) and provides insights into disparities in provided spaces, it does not require to delve into understanding the characteristics of urban parks. Therefore, to strengthen the results and enhance the persuasiveness of the study, I strongly urge the authors to incorporate additional controlling measures specifically tailored to the parks being studied, taking into account their unique characteristics. For instance, it would be beneficial to compare parks of the same type but varying in facilities, or vice versa, in order to provide a more convincing and robust result.

Author Response

Our apologies, if we do not understand you questions clearly. Our reply below in three points:

1. Our study aims to capture local social data on Public Urban Green Spaces (PUGS), including individual characteristics, preferences, and perceptions. We believe that analyzing this local social data will provide insights into the demand for neighborhood PUGS. It is not intended as a direct comparison between parks but rather as an exploration of the factors which influencing their usage.
2. We strongly believe that the characteristics of UGSs do influence their usage, and this has been studied extensively by various authors. Accordingly, our intention was to build upon characteristics by capturing local satisfaction level, to contribute to a deeper understanding of PUGS in the local context.
3. We apologize if our writing did not clearly convey our objectives. The study aims to provide valuable information based on local social data to address the shortage of and conflicting demands for PUGS as addressed in Lahoti et al. 2019. It aims to guide local authorities in effectively allocating limited resources by understanding the influencing factors that determine and limit usage. The results capture preferences and perceived satisfaction separately, and in the discussion, we highlight the holistic understanding of local demands.

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion regarding the inclusion of additional controlling measures specific to the local context and park types. While we agree that this would be valuable, we regret to inform you that it is challenging to incorporate these measures into the current manuscript.

Nevertheless, we sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable input, and we will keep their suggestion in mind for future research endeavors. Thank you for taking the time to review our work and provide insightful feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 2 and figure 9 and their legends are not clear. After improving the figures, the paper can be published.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the revised version. We have made improvements to the legends of figures 2, 3, and 9 to enhance clarity. However, rather than including them in the Word file format, we have attached a PDF file containing all the figures for your convenience. See the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf