Influence of Urban Park Pathway Features on the Density and Intensity of Walking and Running Activities: A Case Study of Shanghai City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is well organized and presented. It is interesting to detect the factors that impact urban walking and running activities. Some comments to the authors:
(1) This paper focuses more on the statistical aspect, and the spatial sound is slightly limited. I would suggest the authors use more words or figures to describe the space aspects.
(2) The authors applied the OLS model in this paper, which I think may not reflect the spatial factor influence very well. Why choose this model, and what is the advantage of applying this model in this study?
(3) Innovation is not very convincing for me. All the data and the model could also be used on the urban and regional scale, so what are the differences in this article? I think the author should focus on this, provide us with insightful explanations, and show us the novelty.
In general, this paper is a good paper. I would like to recommend a publication after the authors address my concerns.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and we also appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled " Influence of Urban Park Pathway Features on the Density and Intensity of Walking and Running Activities: A Case Study of Shanghai City " (Manuscript ID: land-2790998).
We revised the manuscript according to these comments and suggestions. In general, we have tried our best to revise our manuscript and provide the point-by-point responses. All changes were marked in red using the “Highlight” function in the revised manuscript. Attached please find our responses to your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper "Influence of Urban Park Pathway Features on the Density and Intensity of Walking and Running Activities: A Case Study of Shanghai City" explores how different physical features of urban park pathways impact walking and running activities. The study uses field observations and OLS regression models to analyze the effect of vegetation, path type, and security facilities on these activities. The study aims to inform urban park design with a health-oriented perspective, providing insights for enhancing physical activity in urban settings.
The data for the study "Influence of Urban Park Pathway Features on the Density and Intensity of Walking and Running Activities: A Case Study of Shanghai City" was collected in 2021, a year significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study conducted 12 on-site observations over 24 days in Shanghai's urban parks throughout the year. The authors acknowledge the unique circumstances of the pandemic and its potential influence on outdoor activities. However, the study must explicitly discuss detailed strategies for mitigating these influences in their analysis. This omission might be a point to consider in the review regarding how the pandemic may have affected the park usage patterns and the generalizability of the study's findings.
The quality of some maps is not optimal. Specifically, several maps lack a readable scale, which is critical for accurately understanding the spatial data. I recommend that the authors improve the clarity and readability of these maps by ensuring that scales are included and visible. This enhancement is essential for effectively presenting and interpreting the research findings.
The methodology section of the paper does not specify the software tools used for data analysis. Detailing the software is crucial for ensuring replicability and understanding the analytical process. I recommend the authors include this information to enhance the methodological transparency of the study.
The paper should comprehensively compare its results with similar studies in its results or discussion sections. While it briefly acknowledges previous research in its introduction, the main focus is on their own findings and analysis. This could be an area for further development in the paper, as comparing and contrasting their results with existing literature could strengthen the study's context and relevance within the field.
The paper does not specify the datasets used to create the maps. This information is essential for evaluating the spatial data's accuracy and the maps' validity. I recommend that the authors include details about the datasets to enhance the credibility and reliability of their visual representations.
The research provides insights into how different features of park pathways, like vegetation coverage, path type, and security facilities, impact walking and running activities. By understanding these relationships, urban planners and landscape architects can make informed decisions to design park pathways that encourage physical activity and meet the needs of the public.
The authors could enhance their study by applying their findings to create an optimal urban park pathway design. This practical application would demonstrate the utility of their research and provide a tangible example of how their findings can be translated into real-world solutions. It would be valuable for the paper to include such a design, perhaps as a case study or a hypothetical model, to illustrate how their research can directly inform urban park development.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is understandable and of good quality.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and we also appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled " Influence of Urban Park Pathway Features on the Density and Intensity of Walking and Running Activities: A Case Study of Shanghai City " (Manuscript ID: land-2790998).
We revised the manuscript according to these comments and suggestions. In general, we have tried our best to revise our manuscript and provide the point-by-point responses. All changes were marked in red using the “Highlight” function in the revised manuscript. Attached please find our responses to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReading the entire article and paying close attention to the figures and tables, I can see that this is a well-written paper.
However, there are two additions that the authors need to revise:
The abstract should be a maximum of 200 words in total, please shorten it a bit.
In the introduction, emphasize the main conclusions at the end of the chapter.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and we also appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled " Influence of Urban Park Pathway Features on the Density and Intensity of Walking and Running Activities: A Case Study of Shanghai City " (Manuscript ID: land-2790998).
We revised the manuscript according to these comments and suggestions. In general, we have tried our best to revise our manuscript and provide the point-by-point responses. All changes were marked in red using the “Highlight” function in the revised manuscript. Attached please find our responses to the referees’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors provided a well-organized and structured manuscript, which is worth publishing. However, it contains a set of shortcomings that need to be addressed and revised, as outlined in the following comments.
1. In the Abstract, it is not clear which methods were adopted for this study.
2. Page 2, line 58-60, the authors provided a “Pathways within urban parks, as a form of green open space, can be examined based on three aspects: organization, place, and perception”. This is a dubious statement. This does not make sense as a comprehensive statement. In addition, its reference is totally in Chinese, and the website doesn’t work in Europe. This is very crucial, since your theoretical and methodological framework shaped based on that.
3. Can you provide me with evidence indicating which part of reference number 14 mentions that organization, place, and perception are influential factors in measuring urban green space?
4. There are some statements in the paper without sufficient evidence and citations; they need to be supported by proper references.
5. In the method section you declared that “Spatial organization features encompass both spatial topology and accessibility. Spatial place features include spatial form, natural elements, and facilities. Spatial perception features include aesthetic perception and safety perception”. How did you come to this conclusion—haphazardly or through a systematic process?
6. ‘Selectivity’ is not a variable in Depthmap; the true term is ‘Choice’. The authors need to be more sensitive in using terminologies of space syntax when translating them to English. They must be double-checked by the authors after translating.
7. There is no Institutional Review Board (IRB) statement in the method section.
8. The investigated attributes in Table 1 are not supported by adequate evidence through reviewing literature. For instance, how did you understand that sky view ratio is an important factor in spatial perception?
9. It would be much better if the authors delineate the process of adopted methods in the form of a flow chart.
10. Why the authors did not assess the accessibility through syntactical analysis? Evaluating accessibility through time recorder is not a robust instrument. How did you measure the speed of participants?
11. Surprisingly, the authors did not mention 'space syntax' in their paper at all. While Depthmap is the name of the software, the method itself is distinct. Furthermore, there is a lack of nuanced explanations regarding the usage of this method that needs to be addressed. Moreover, it should be included in the list of your keywords.
12. It might be helpful for readers if you define the terms: strolling, slow walking, brisk walking, jogging, and running within your literature.
13. Where are your syntactical graphs? They need to be displayed. What analysis did you perform—axial or VGA?
14. Provide a summary of your Discussion in the form of a flow chart.
15. Highlight the original part of your findings in the conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and we also appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled " Influence of Urban Park Pathway Features on the Density and Intensity of Walking and Running Activities: A Case Study of Shanghai City " (Manuscript ID: land-2790998).
We revised the manuscript according to these comments and suggestions. In general, we have tried our best to revise our manuscript and provide the point-by-point responses. All changes were marked in red using the “Highlight” function in the revised manuscript. Attached please find our responses to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is acceptable now for publishing.
Author Response
Appreciate your valuable comments on our paper, it has improved our paper a lot, thanks again!
