Scenic Influences on Walking Preferences in Urban Forest Parks from Top-View and Eye-Level Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and authors

The conducted research addresses a compelling topic. However, to achieve the quality required for publication in a reputable journal, several revisions are necessary, which are suggested below. The authors should review these recommendations and revise the manuscript accordingly or respond to the provided comments.

1. In the first line of the abstract, provide some background on the topic.
2. Select keywords that differ from the title of the article.
3. In line 29, the term "functions" is correct.
4. In line 29, provide examples of cognitive functions and positive emotions.
5. There are instances of repetition or lack of coherence. For example, lines 30 and 40 could be merged into the introductory lines of the first paragraph, and line 56 may be better positioned after line 55. Overall, it is advisable to reconsider the paragraph structure of the text.
6. Lines 56 to 99 can be summarized.
7. The content from line 111 onward requires a section on theoretical implications at the end of the article. This section should be written in the present simple tense rather than the past tense. In the conclusion of the introduction, clearly state the objectives and justify the reasons for conducting the study.
8. In general, I recommend strengthening the introduction and the entire article with more recent references. Approximately 30% of your sources are from before 2020.
9. It would be better to first describe the study area before presenting the study protocol.
10. Typically, figures and tables should follow the textual explanations (e.g., Figure 1).
11. The numbers mentioned in the study area section require references.
12. I did not fully understand your sampling method and the study population.
13. Were the data collection days selected for any specific reason?
14. I believe the article needs rearrangement. For instance, some results are mentioned in the methods section, which requires revision.
15. The article needs a separate section titled "Theoretical Implications." In this section, you should articulate your research's contribution to enhancing existing knowledge.
16. The conclusion appears to be lengthy and should convey a concise message.

 

wishes for authors with revision

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful to your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we would show the details as follows:

 

Comment 1.  In the first line of the abstract, provide some background on the topic.

Response: We are very appreciative for the reviewer to highlight this issue. We have added background information to the first line of the abstract as suggested.

 

Comment 2. Select keywords that differ from the title of the article.

Response: We have revised the keywords in this revision. Specifically, we changed the ‘urban forest park’ to ‘urban forest planning and management’, the ‘walking preference’ to ‘walking activity’ and added a new keyword ‘scene characteristics’

 

Comment 3. In line 29, the term "functions" is correct.

Response: We apologised for the inadvertent error. We have modified the wrong word ‘function’ to ‘functions’

 

 Comment 4. In line 29, provide examples of cognitive functions and positive emotions.

Response: We provide a specific example of cognitive functions and some examples of references about positive emotions in line 35-39 page1.

 

Comment 5. There are instances of repetition or lack of coherence. For example, lines 30 and 40 could be merged into the introductory lines of the first paragraph, and line 56 may be better positioned after line 55. Overall, it is advisable to reconsider the paragraph structure of the text.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have reconsidered the paragraph structure in the introduction and made the following modifications:

1. We removed the original first sentence in paragraph 2: “Walking trails are favourable areas for walkers, and can encourage outdoor activities [12,13]. A study from Finland showed that for every 10 kilometres of additional walking trails, the number of tourists increased by 4% [14],” as it was somewhat repetitive.
2. We added a leading sentence, “People are drawn to engage in activities in a well-designed walking environment,” in line 43-44 on page 1. Additionally, we restructured the explanation of urban forest park characteristics’ impact on walking preferences with “on one hand” and “on the other hand,” as detailed in lines 46–52 on page 2.
3. We separated the concluding sentence from the original line 55 into its own paragraph and placed the content from line 56 after it. We also refined the wording of the original line 55, which now appears in lines 65–68 on page 2 as follows: (‘Thus, it is necessary to understand the relationship between fine-scaled scene characteristics and walking preferences in urban forest parks in order to guide the future planning and management. To fill this gap, we summarise the shortcomings of the current research:’)

 

Comment 6. Lines 56 to 99 can be summarized.

Response: We have streamlined certain localized details of the first and second shortcomings in this revision. Specifically, the example in the first shortcoming has been summarized in lines 73-76. Additionally, sentences describing the environmental characteristics from top-view and eye-level perspectives have been condensed in lines 87–91 and 94–100.

 

Comment 7. The content from line 111 onward requires a section on theoretical implications at the end of the article. This section should be written in the present simple tense rather than the past tense. In the conclusion of the introduction, clearly state the objectives and justify the reasons for conducting the study.

Response: We have added a section titled "Theoretical Implications" in section 4.3 at the end of the article (lines 686–705). Additionally, we included a concluding statement in the introduction, where we clearly outline the objectives and the reasons for conducting this study (lines 131–144).

 

Comment 8. In general, I recommend strengthening the introduction and the entire article with more recent references. Approximately 30% of your sources are from before 2020.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We refresh the new references in this revision. We made the following changes:

1. We have added some new references, which have the numbers [5, 6, 7]. These are all after 2020.
2. We have deleted some references from before 2020, which corresponded to the original serial numbers [3, 12, 14, 43, 47, 66].
3. We have replaced the existing reference numbers [26, 44] to ensure that they are all more recent results.

 

Comment 9. It would be better to first describe the study area before presenting the study protocol.

Response: We have adjusted the position of ‘study area’ and ‘study protocol’ in the new text.

 

Comment 10. Typically, figures and tables should follow the textual explanations (e.g., Figure 1).

Response: In the new text, we have revised all figures and tables position to ensure that they follow the textual explanations

 

Comment 11. The numbers mentioned in the study area section require references.

Response: In this revision, we mentioned the numbers A, B, C, D in the study area in line 160 -162

 

Comment 12. I did not fully understand your sampling method and the study population.

Response: We apologize for any confusion caused and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our sampling methodology and study population.

Our study explores how scene characteristics of urban forest parks influence walking preferences, and our sampling methodology and study population focus on three key aspects:

1. Study Population (Walkers): We selected "walking preference" as the study’s dependent variable, so our study population comprises walkers. We sourced data from crowdsourcing websites, specifically GPS data from the 2Bulu and Foooooot platforms, which recorded stopover locations in Gongqing Forest Park. We interpreted these stopover points as walking preferences and created a walking intensity map using kernel density analysis.
2. Study Units (Sampling Points): To obtain study units, we conducted on-site observations. Our team spent roughly two weeks covering Gongqing Forest Park, sampling points every 20-80 meters. The sampling process is detailed in section "2.4. On-site Observation Method," and we ultimately collected 395 study units.
3. Independent Variables (Scene Characteristics): We gathered data on scene characteristics using various methods, including panoramic photo-based semantic segmentation to capture the proportions of scene elements, and drone imagery for mapping the road network and assessing trail variables. Drone imagery also enabled us to measure canopy and waterbody density through deep learning algorithms. The data for subjective perception comes from 200 landscape architecture professionals who scored the scene images. All these data were then aggregated into each study unit for statistical analysis.

In this revision, we clarified the independent and dependent variables in lines 192-193 and line 259, to avoid any potential misunderstandings. Thank you again for your feedback.

 

Comment 13. Were the data collection days selected for any specific reason?

Response: Yes, there were specific reasons for selecting the data collection days. We collected the data on sunny summer days to ensure accuracy and efficiency. First, we wanted to avoid any influence from special weather conditions (such as rain, clouds, or fog), which could affect the scene data and introduce errors. Second, the long daylight hours in summer, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., allowed us to conduct continuous sampling, maximizing our team’s efficiency.

 

Comment 14. I believe the article needs rearrangement. For instance, some results are mentioned in the methods section, which requires revision.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. In previous versions, some results may have been mentioned in the methods, which may cause confusion. In this revision, we have moved some method sentences that may be misleading to the results section, and we have made the following changes:

1. We have placed the results of the previously retrieved GPS data in ‘3.1’ (line 404 - 405)
2. We have revised the expression in line 375-377 so that it is not mistaken for a part of the results.

 

Comment 15. The article needs a separate section titled "Theoretical Implications." In this section, you should articulate your research's contribution to enhancing existing knowledge.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. In response, we have added a section titled "Theoretical Implications" (section 4.3) and expanded on our contribution to existing knowledge, addressing both technical and scope perspectives (lines 686–705)

 

Comment 16. The conclusion appears to be lengthy and should convey a concise message.

Response: We have streamlined the conclusion to convey a more concise message. Compared to the previous version, the revised conclusion is approximately 100 words shorter.

The last but most important, we appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitation. 

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed paper is a good research article addressing the topic of walking preferences in an urban forest. Although the research uses a single case study (Gongqing Forest Park in Shanghai), the research procedure used can be universal. In addition, the numerous references to scientific publications on research in other regions of the world deserve mention. The discussion of the research results and their application relevance is also valuable. Despite an overall very good evaluation of the thesis, I have a few minor suggestions for improvement/additions, which I outline below:

1. The purpose of the paper should be clearly stated, both in the abstract and in the introduction. I would also suggest formulating the research questions so that the reader is fully clear about the purpose of the research. Furthermore, in the introduction it is worth stating when the research was conducted.

2. Figures and tables should follow the text in which the Authors refer to them. Meanwhile, several of them (e.g. Fig.1, Fig.2., Fig.7, Fig.8, Fig.9, Tab.2) are included earlier.

3. Figure 1 should be enlarged as it plays a key role and its readability is questionable.

4. Table 1 does not fit on the page

5. Figure 2a contains the letters A B C D, placed at specific locations on the map. In my opinion, these symbols should be explained. Figure 2c is not signed; besides, in my opinion, it is not needed

6. The source of the statistics should be cited in line 151.

In addition, I have a further general comment. The article deals with the perception of the landscape, considering only visual aspects. Meanwhile, perception is multisensory in nature. Sound or odour nuisance (related to the proximity of nuisance facilities) can influence the choice of walking route. Soundwalks or smellwalks are also being developed. Perhaps it is worth to signal this in the discussion or conclusions and draw attention to these aspects in future research?

Finally, I congratulate the Authors on their interesting work and I am curious to see more.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your recognition of our work. In particular, your final general comment has given us new research motivation and direction. The comments help to improve academic rigor of article. We have corrected the revised manuscript based on your suggestions and request. The specific content is shown as follows

Comment 1. The purpose of the paper should be clearly stated, both in the abstract and in the introduction. I would also suggest formulating the research questions so that the reader is fully clear about the purpose of the research. Furthermore, in the introduction it is worth stating when the research was conducted.

Response: Thank for your valuable comment. We have stated our purpose in the new revised abstract in line 12-14 “This study aimed to develop an ensemble protocol to assess the role of scene characteristics in walking preferences, using Shanghai Gongqing Forest Park as an illustrative example”. Moreover, we conclude a summary at the end of introduction. We clearly state the research purpose, the reasons, the research questions and when the research was conducted. (line131 – 144)

Comment 2. Figures and tables should follow the text in which the Authors refer to them. Meanwhile, several of them (e.g. Fig.1, Fig.2., Fig.7, Fig.8, Fig.9, Tab.2) are included earlier.

Response: Thanks for your reminder, we felt sorry about overlooking these detail issues in the last version. We have corrected the position of the figures and tables (Fig.1, Fig.2., Fig.7, Fig.8, Fig.9, Tab.2).

Comment 3. Figure 1 should be enlarged as it plays a key role and its readability is questionable.

Response: We are very appreciative for the reviewer to highlight this issue. We have redrawn the figure of the Study Protocol (see Figure 2).

Comment 4. Table 1 does not fit on the page

 Response: Thanks, we have adjusted the paper orientation to landscape so that the complete Table 1 can be clearly displayed.

Comment 5. Figure 2a contains the letters A B C D, placed at specific locations on the map. In my opinion, these symbols should be explained. Figure 2c is not signed; besides, in my opinion, it is not needed

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed Figure 2c and explained the symbols A-D in Figure 2a in the main text.

Comment 6. The source of the statistics should be cited in line 151.

Response: Thanks. We have supplemented the source of the data in the text (https://lhsr.sh.gov.cn/gyhd/20210623/e7da767b-26d2-4cf9-b043-e3dc6356ded3.html), see line 153.

Comment 7. In addition, I have a further general comment. The article deals with the perception of the landscape, considering only visual aspects. Meanwhile, perception is multisensory in nature. Sound or odour nuisance (related to the proximity of nuisance facilities) can influence the choice of walking route. Soundwalks or smellwalks are also being developed. Perhaps it is worth to signal this in the discussion or conclusions and draw attention to these aspects in future research?

Response: We agree with you very much, you put forward an interesting future research direction, and we have written it in 4.3 Chapters (Limitations and Future Studies). See line 736-739: “Finally, perception is multisensory in nature. This study was mainly based on the visual level, however, other senses, such as hearing and smell, may also influence the choice of walking route, which deserves further investigation in future studies”. And line 758-759

Lastly, we would like to appreciate for the reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Should you have any questions, please contact us at any moment. 

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and help.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I assert that the peer-reviewed article is one of the most interesting and high quality manuscripts I have reviewed recently for various journals.

The authors address a problem not typical in the field of analyzing preferences for human movement in urban forested parklands. They use state-of-the-art technology: a combination of GPS data, panoramic photographs, drone imagery, and computer vision devices. As part of the work, an original methodology of hierarchical data processing was developed to obtain a map of the intensity of use of certain areas.

The article should be published after elimination of minor comments that contribute to the improvement of the perception of the material.

1. I would consider reformatting the results of regression analysis in Table 4. One can think of a way to better present the estimates without large missing quadrants for variables that are not in Models 1 and 2, respectively.

2. The abstract is well written, but would clearly benefit from adding some numbers and other eye-catching details. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for recognizing our work; it greatly motivates us. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us enhance the rigor of our articles. Based on your suggestions and requests, we have made the following changes:

Comment 1. I would consider reformatting the results of regression analysis in Table 4. One can think of a way to better present the estimates without large missing quadrants for variables that are not in Models 1 and 2, respectively.

Response: Thank for your valuable comment. We have split the original Table 4 into Tables 4 and 5 according to your suggestion (see lines 489-493). This does avoid large missing quadrants for variables and makes Models 1 and 2 appear much clearer, thanks again.

Comment 2. The abstract is well written, but would clearly benefit from adding some numbers and other eye-catching details.

Response: We are very appreciative for the reviewer to highlight this issue. We have recalibrated the content of the abstract to highlight more numbers and details of the findings. See lines 21-25: “(3) Eye-level features explained 43.5% of the variation in walking preference, with a stronger in-fluence on walking preference compared to 22.4% for overhead features. (4) Natural elements were generally more significant than artificial ones, the feature ranking of significant impact was flowers > NACHr1000 > visual perception > water body density > bridge > SVF > retail > entertainment > asphalt.”

Finally, and most importantly, we sincerely appreciate your dedicated efforts and hope that our revisions will meet with your approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us at any time.

Once again, thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx