Behavioral Conflicts in Urban Greenway Recreation: A Case Study of the “Three Rivers and One Mountain” Greenway in Xi’an, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To begin with, I would like to point out that the article is well-structured, its aim is clearly formulated, and the research methodology and findings are sufficiently described. The conclusions are well supported by the results of the study. Therefore, I only suggest that the authors reconsider the following issues:

• In the "Introduction" section, reference Charles Little (and his book Greenways for America, 1995) as one of the forerunners of the "greenways" idea.
• The recommendation to "divide the greenway into walking paths, cycling paths, camping areas, etc., according to the purposes of different recreational groups, thereby reducing conflicts" falls into the category of suggestions that are sound in theory but extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement in the limited space of a city. It would therefore be usefull to have some commentary on the problems related to the implementation of this recommendation.

Author Response

Response to the reviewers’ comments on manuscript:land-3084085

Title: Behavioral Conflicts in Urban Greenway Recreation: A Case Study of the "Three Rivers and One Mountain

We appreciate the constructive suggestions of the two reviewers. We have revised our manuscript after reading the reviewers’ comments and found them very helpful. Additionally, inspired by the reviewer's comments, we have comprehensively improved the entire article to enhance its quality. Please refer to the Highlight Version.

• In the "Introduction" section, reference Charles Little (and his bookGreenways for America, 1995) as one of the forerunners of the "greenways" idea.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have cited Charles Little and his book Greenways for America as one of the pioneers of the greenway concept.sentence.

Revised: “Charles Little's seminal work, Greenways for America, provides an excellent overview and summary of this movement [18-20].”

More details can be seen on page 2, lines 45 to 47.

• The recommendation to "divide the greenway into walking paths, cycling paths, camping areas, etc., according to the purposes of different recreational groups, thereby reducing conflicts" falls into the category of suggestions that are sound in theory but extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement in the limited space of a city. It would therefore be usefull to have some commentary on the problems related to the implementation of this recommendation.

Response: Thanks for your nice suggestions. We have made changes to the manuscript to make it more feasible.

Revised: “Detailed guidelines for greenway recreation should be established to reduce user group conflicts. Prohibited behaviors, such as littering, allowing pets off-leash, and cycling at excessive speeds, should be clearly defined. Additionally, promoting these guidelines through online media, on-site explanations, and brochures, along with enforcing penalties for violations, is essential to fundamentally reduce conflicts on greenways.”

More details can be seen on page 12, lines 388 to 393.

References

18. Fábos, J.G. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 68, 321-342, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.07.003.
19. Little, C.E. Greenways for america; JHU Press: 1995.
20. Horte, O.; Eisenman, T. Urban Greenways: A Systematic Review and Typology. Land 2020, 9, doi:10.3390/land9020040.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic is quite interesting and suitable for China's greenway development context. There are some issues that need clarification.
1. It is necessary to review the case selection and data collection sections to ensure they align with the research process.
For instance, in the case selection section, have you classified the types of activities involved in each case selection, or have you simply selected based on personal perception? Similarly, in the data collection section, have you gathered information to categorize the cases? It is crucial to clearly outline this process, as failure to do so could lead to confusion about the initial steps and subsequent actions.
2. To facilitate simple comprehension of the information, it's critical to provide a table of the respondents' information during the interview.
3. Need to clarify the grounded theory methodology; and why choose Nvivo 12 as a tool instead of something else?
4. How do you identify factors in behavioral conflict perception?
5. Clarify how you use Nvivo to create findings.

Author Response

Response to the reviewers’ comments on manuscript:land-3084085

Title: Behavioral Conflicts in Urban Greenway Recreation: A Case Study of the "Three Rivers and One Mountain

We appreciate the constructive suggestions of the two reviewers. We have revised our manuscript after reading the reviewers’ comments and found them very helpful. Additionally, inspired by the reviewer's comments, we have comprehensively improved the entire article to enhance its quality. Please refer to the Highlight Version.

• It is necessary to review the case selection and data collection sections to ensure they align with the research process.For instance, in the case selection section, have you classified the types of activities involved in each case selection, or have you simply selected based on personal perception? Similarly, in the data collection section, have you gathered information to categorize the cases? It is crucial to clearly outline this process, as failure to do so could lead to confusion about the initial steps and subsequent actions.

Response: Sorry for the confusion. As noted above, there are several important issues that need to be addressed, and we have responded to the comments at a time. In the case selection section, we conducted a field survey before the formal interviews. Based on the actual conditions and the literature review, we identified the types of recreational groups. Similarly, in the data collection section, we gathered information on respondents' main activities to facilitate subsequent case classification.

Revised: “At the end of the field study, a semi-structured interview outline and identification of the types of recreation groups to be interviewed were developed based on the findings of the study and the literature review. On-site interviews were conducted along the greenway in Xi'an. ”

“In addition, we collected information on the main types of activities of the interviewees in order to subsequently categorize the interview cases.”

More details can be seen on page 3, lines 132 to 135 and 141 to 143.

• To facilitate simple comprehension of the information, it's critical to provide a table of the respondents' information during the interview.

Response: Thank you for your comments. This is great for improving our article quality. We have added a table of respondents' information in the text to enhance the understanding of this article.

Revised:

Table 1. Respondents' information

Recreation Group Types	Number	Proportion
Walkers	60	53.57%
Mountain Bikers	21	18.75%
Joggers	13	11.61%
Campers	18	16.07%
Conflict Perception	Number	Proportion
Perceived conflicts and provided suggestions	61	54.46%
Did not perceive conflicts but provided suggestions	51	45.54%
Gender Distribution	Number	Proportion
Male	62	55.36%
Female	50	44.64%
Identity	Number	Proportion
Residents	72	64.29%
Tourists	40	35.71%

More details can be seen on page 4, line161.

• Need to clarify the grounded theory methodology; and why choose Nvivo 12 as a tool instead of something else?

Response: Thank you. We have revised that section in the manuscript.

Revised: “Grounded theory is a method for developing substantive theory from the bottom up. This approach identifies core concepts reflecting phenomena based on case interview information. The relationships between these concepts are then used to construct the relevant theory. It is widely applied by scholars [26,41,42].”

“Additionally, NVivo 12 offers a workspace and tools for managing, shaping, and understanding interview text information. It efficiently manages large volumes of interview text, facilitating the discovery of new insights. The software's ability to perform detailed coding and categorization of interview content is essential for grounded theory methodology.”

More details can be seen on page 4, lines 165 to 169 and 173 to 177.

• How do you identify factors in behavioral conflict perception?

Response: Thank you for your comments. Using the NVivo 12 code query feature, we analyzed key factors that influence conflict perception. We have already made additions and changes in the manuscript.

Revised: “Subsequently, the NVivo 12 coding query function explored the relationship between perceived conflict types and case attributes. Query results reflected how demographic characteristics influenced the perception of behavioral conflicts.”

More details can be seen on page 5, lines 183 to 185.

• Clarify how you use Nvivo to create findings.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have already revised the sentence.

Revised: “NVivo 12 software was used to store interview responses as "cases" and to record respondents' demographic information as attributes for each case. The original descriptive statements were coded and compared using a three-level system of "conflict type-conflict evaluation-conflict description statements." This process identified types of behavioral conflicts among urban greenway users, forming preliminary theories. Subsequently, the NVivo 12 coding query function explored the relationship between perceived conflict types and case attributes. Query results reflected how demographic characteristics influenced the perception of behavioral conflicts. The authenticity and accuracy of the coding were verified using original data and field research findings [28]. This approach aids in understanding respondents' experiences and perspectives, reducing limitations in analysis and conclusions [28,43].”

More details can be seen on pages 4 and 5, lines 178 to 188.

References

26. Ferguson, M.D.; Caraynoff, A.R.; Ferguson, L.A.; Barcelona, R.J.; Evensen, D.; Knox, H.; Pytlik, S.; Grosz, D. Whether They Return: Modeling Outdoor Recreation Behaviors, Decision Making, and Intention-to-Return in Congressionally Designated Wilderness. Forests 2022, 13, doi:10.3390/f13071018.

28. Marzano, M.; Dandy, N. Recreationist behaviour in forests and the disturbance of wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation 2012, 21, 2967-2986, doi:10.1007/s10531-012-0350-y.

41. Birks, M.; Hoare, K.; Mills, J. Grounded Theory: The FAQs. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2019, 18, doi:10.1177/1609406919882535.

42. Turner, C.; Astin, F. Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study? European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 2021, 20, 285-289, doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvaa034.

43. Charmaz, K.; Thornberg, R. The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2020, 18, 305-327, doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf