Assessing Spatial Heterogeneity in Urban Park Vitality for a Sustainable Built Environment: A Case Study of Changsha

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article on the spatial vitality of urban green spaces (UGS) is of vital importance for the future of cities, both in terms of urbanity and dynamism, and in terms of sustainability. Although the subject has been dealt with in the past, the paper's originality lies in improving the statistical technique for characterizing urban vitality through the use of the geographically weighted multiscale regression model (MGWR). The latter was the result of a well-developed argument. The author began by reviewing the old methods based on questionnaire surveys, whose limitations he highlighted, followed by a more precise method such as geographically weighted regression, underlining their limitations, to arrive at the method that seems to give satisfaction, namely: the "Multiscale Geographical Weighted Regression (MGWR)" model, which extends the "Geographical Weighted Regression (GWR)" model by incorporating multiscalar elements.

We find the results interesting, as they reveal distinctive spatial variations in the factors impacting park vitality in different urban areas, highlighting dependencies with surrounding residential communities and the internal provision of commercial facilities. The significance of the study is ambivalent: it represents a powerful tool for characterizing spatial vitality, and a decision-support tool available to urban planners and policy-makers for developing tailored strategies that take into account the unique socio-economic attributes of each urban area.

Author Response

Thank you a lot for your insightful comments on my article regarding the spatial vitality of urban green spaces. We really appreciate your recognition of the originality and significance of our work, especially in the use of the geographically weighted multiscale regression model (MGWR).  We have incorporated your suggestions and further refined our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is well written. The starting points, the methodological descriptions, and the presentation of the results are promising. However, it is provincial. Expanding the international relevance in the introduction and conclusion would be necessary. Furthermore, it would be helpful to formulate a crystal clear objective in the introduction. Even the first chapter could be shortened, and the study's primary purpose and the manuscript's structure should be emphasized better.

 The study deals with an exciting topic, but the implementation requires some revision. The most striking error is that the authors do not sufficiently place the questions of their investigations, nor the results, in an international context. International experience is lacking. It would have been interesting to compare individual country groups from different continents: North America, EU, Australia, Asia.

The authors do not orient the reader toward the concepts indicated in the title. A definitive explanation of the concepts indicated in the title is missing.

A shorter introduction focusing much more on the topic and the main questions is recommended, with a presentation of preconceptions, starting points, and a research hypothesis. Then, to inform the wider readership, a literature review would be necessary to clarify the role of urban planning and parks with international relevance.

Some recommended literature:

Ibes, D. C. (2014). Sustainable urban park systems. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 7(2), 8.

Mouratidis, K., & Poortinga, W. (2020). Built environment, urban vitality and social cohesion: Do vibrant neighborhoods foster strong communities?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 204, 103951.

Zhu, J., Lu, H., Zheng, T., Rong, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, W., ... & Tang, L. (2020). Vitality of urban parks and its influencing factors from the perspective of recreational service supply, demand, and spatial links. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(5), 1615.

Chen, Y., Yu, B., Shu, B., Yang, L., & Wang, R. (2023). Exploring the spatiotemporal patterns and correlates of urban vitality: Temporal and spatial heterogeneity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 91, 104440.

Yigitcanlar, T., & Teriman, S. (2015). Rethinking sustainable urban development: towards an integrated planning and development process. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12, 341-352.

The results of the Chinese case study should be interpreted accordingly in the discussion.

Author Response

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the reviewer for affording us the opportunity to make revisions. The revision has been completed using track changes, and we have meticulously addressed each of your comments with detailed responses as outlined in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This article takes Changsha City as an example to integrate the MGWR model with multi-source big data at the urban scale to study the spatial vitality of urban green spaces. To analyze the various factors influencing the spatial vitality of urban green spaces, the authors compare the results of three analysis models: OLS model, GWR model, and MGWR model, to obtain the optimal results. The study reveals significant spatial heterogeneity in the factors affecting urban green space vitality, providing insights into complex spatial patterns and dependencies among park vitality, residential communities, and commercial facilities. While the research content of the article is innovative and practical, with a clear research approach, there are some issues that need modification.

Here are some key points for modification:

1.The abstract should highlight the innovation of this study, but the significance of the research occupies too much space.

2.It is recommended to add a legend to Figure 2.

3.Figures 5-7 need to be adjusted for layout.

4.The formatting of "(See Figure 2)" in section 2.2.1 and "(see Figure 3)" in section 2.2.2 needs to be adjusted for font format and capitalization.

The overall English language of the article is fluent, and no inappropriate words or grammar were found.

Author Response

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the reviewer for affording us the opportunity to make revisions. The revision has been completed using track changes, and we have meticulously addressed each of your comments with detailed responses as outlined in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The evaluation of the spatial heterogeneity of Urban Park Vitality is an intriguing topic; however, the current manuscript requires substantial modifications. While the comparison utilizing OLS, GWR, and MGWR is noteworthy, the overall organization between paragraphs and within them appears awkward. Scientific writing conventions should be adhered to, avoiding expressions typical of literary or newspaper articles. Engaging native English speakers for manuscript editing seems imperative.

A comprehensive overhaul of the Introduction and Methodology sections seems necessary. Additionally, the authors should adjust the citation style in line with the journal's author guide (e.g., [1], [2], [3] -> [1-3]) and rectify any typos.

Clarifications are needed regarding the definition of Urban Park Vitality (i.e. dependent variable), and the methodology used for its quantitative estimation. Presenting descriptions of dependent and independent variables in a table format would enhance clarity. Confusions surrounding the selection of research sites should be addressed.

Regarding Figure 4, clarification is needed on the Focused Research Areas (n=11). Understanding the results presented in Figure 5 requires elucidation. In Table 2, it would be beneficial to include p-values to assess the significance of variables.

Overall, the manuscript needs to be rewritten to be concise and easy to understand. And it is necessary to check the details again.

Please see the above comments.

Author Response

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the reviewer for affording us the opportunity to make revisions. The revision has been completed using track changes, and we have meticulously addressed each of your comments with detailed responses as outlined in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The revision has been adequately addressed to some extent based on the suggested comments. However, there are still some lingering issues such as the typo (2.2*?), spacing errors, and incorrect table citation (external determinants (Table 3) -> Table 4). I kindly request the authors and their other colleagues to thoroughly review and revise the manuscript.

It's much better than before, but I'd like the authors and their other colleagues to take a look again.

Author Response

We extend our sincere apologies for the lingering issues present in our manuscript, particularly the spacing errors and the incorrect table citation. We have diligently worked to rectify these shortcomings in our revision and remain dedicated to upholding the highest standards of quality in our work.

Your guidance in identifying these issues is greatly appreciated, and we are thankful for your ongoing support and valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx