Attraction and Retention Green Place Images of Taipei City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The research entitled "Attraction and Retention Green Place Images of Taipei City" presents an interesting perspective on the topic of urban green space exploring physical and psychological concepts like sense of place and place identity, but also place brand, visual image, and place reputation which were less explored in the literature.

I appreciate the depth of your investigation and I consider that this is an interesting study for different fields of research (geographers, urban planners or psychologists).

However, I would like to provide some feedback on your manuscript, particularly regarding language clarity and content organization.

General and specific observations:

The authors offer a broad picture of the concept of Greenspace Place Image, providing an insight into previous published research, pointing out the novelty of the present study.

The section 2.2 Four Types of Urban Greenspaces presently included in Literature Review fits better in the Methodology section, as the authors identify and describe the four types of urban green spaces from Taipei city that are used in the present analysis. 

On the Methodology section, you should also mention the time interval and days of the week when the field survey was conducted during the three months’ time interval. A clearer time setting may be useful in explaining the larger share of young females, having at least an undergraduate degree, as the predominant visitors/ users of the four types of urban green spaces.

There is no mentioning how the subjects for the survey were selected. Where they randomly chosen? If you chose them randomly, describe how participants are being selected to ensure randomness. Random sampling techniques could include simple random sampling, stratified sampling, or cluster sampling.

When using a survey to gather data from random people, it is important to consider the sample size (for example in relation to the entire population of the city) and ethical concerns to ensure the validity and integrity of the research. You should clearly state the rationale behind the chosen sample size. Whether it is based on statistical calculations to achieve a desired level of confidence or simply based on practical considerations like time and resources. Also, explain any biases that might be present in the sampling method and how they are being addressed.

Regarding the ethical concerns the authors should clearly outline the purpose of the survey and how the data will be used. Participants should be explained why their input is being sought and what it will be used for. Also ensure participant anonymity and confidentiality. Explain how their responses will be anonymized and how their privacy will be protected. You should mention if any incentives are being offered or not for participation and disclose this information.

Besides the limitations pointed out in the Discussion section another one is linked to the increased share of female participants. The emotional and psychological differences between genders may influence the outcome of your study. I also consider that a more equal representation of the age structure and study levels should be more appropriate when conducting research studies that imply collecting survey data and analysis based on these data.

The Discussion should include a comparison of your results with previous studies, and linking them to the past literature (which is done inconsistently). Discuss any similarities or differences and explain potential reasons for them.

The manuscript should be revised to improve the clarity of the English language, as there are a few sentences throughout the text that could use some attention.

Overall, your research addresses an important topic and I consider that should be publish once minor issues are addressed.

Sincerely,

The Reviewer

English language should be checked before a final version of the manuscript is resubmitted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your prompt and insightful feedback. Following your recommendation, we have made revisions to the manuscript. Please kindly review these updates.

1. Sample distribution: In response to your request for detailed information about the specific times and days the field surveys were conducted, we regret that this data was not captured during our study. The design of our study was intended to examine broader usage patterns across typical weeks without specifying exact dates or times. We, however, have expanded the description of our data collection to clarify this point, which can now be found in the highlighted sections on pages 7-8 and in Table 2 (Lines 326-334).

2. Ethical approval: We have included the following sentence in our manuscript on page 7 (Lines 313-316), "Prior to the commencement of the study, ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the National Taiwan Normal University (case number: 202308HS011). Participants provided informed consent and were briefed on the objectives of the study before participating."

3. Gender differences in spatial perception: We appreciate your insightful comments regarding the representation of gender in our study. It is important to acknowledge that gender differences could significantly affect the perception and use of urban greenspaces. However, our study primarily focused on the influence of various types of greenspaces on place images, and the predominantly female composition of our sample was not aimed at exploring gender-specific responses. Recognizing this, we have included a note in the limitations section of our manuscript (p. 13, Lines 520-526) to state that the findings might not adequately reflect gender-specific perceptions and to suggest that future research could explore these differences more thoroughly with a more balanced gender representation.

4. Improved readability: The readability of the manuscript has been improved during the formatting process to fit the journal's template. This adjustment was carefully reviewed by the authors to ensure clarity.

Again, thank you very much for your time and guidance. 

Sincerely,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "Attraction and Retention Green Place Images of Taipei City" presented for review is characterized by a reliable, scientific approach to research. It is set in a topic that is quite popular today, dealing with "attachment to place" and the so-called green product. It should be noted that the authors reviewed the literature with academic accuracy and described the results. However, I have a few comments on the work. What seems mandatory is to place the research question or research hypotheses at the end of the "Literature Review" chapter. In this chapter, at the end, the advantages of the study and their practical application are described, and there is a place for this in the conclusions.

The methodology must describe on what days the surveys were collected (non-working days or working days), how many points there were where the surveys were collected, how these points were designated, and how many in each green area. This is completely undescribed.

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are already a result and should be included in this section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your prompt and insightful feedback. Following your recommendation, we have made minor revisions to the manuscript. We kindly request your review of these updates.

1. The last paragraph from the Literature Review section discussing the Four Types of Greenspace has been relocated to the Methodology section and expanded with detailed information on data collection. Please refer to the highlighted sections on page 8 (lines 326-334).

2. The description of the data collection process has been further elaborated in the highlighted text on pages 7-8, as well as in Table 2 (p. 8; lines 326-334).

3. We have verified the accuracy of all table and figure numbers for precision.

4. The manuscript has been formatted according to the official template of the journal Forests.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Sincerely,
Authors