Exploring the Relationship between the Sentiments of Young People and Urban Green Space by Using a Check-In Microblog

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study addresses relevant issues and challenges related to the necessity of greening urban areas and how to apply present scientific knowledge.

My main point, besides other comments - see below - is the Discussions section. This section should be rewritten in a more concise way. For instance, in L405 - L406 authors talk specifically about young people, but 4.4. is the paragraph that makes this explicit. Moreover, the first part of 4.5 (in the text this is 4.4. too, L467) is also a repetition of earlier mentioned issues. The whole discussion section can be reduced to 2 1/2 pages max.

A methodological question is about the ethics of the getting the data. It is not clear if the people whose internet use through Weibo was detected and used, gave permission to do so. This point should be addressed cleared. If not, it is questionable if the paper can be published.

Other comments:

- L46. How did the authors draw the conclusion that - L 46 - studies 7 and 8 were inadequate ? 

- First time use of term GVI - L 50 - has to be explained. 

- Be aware not to interpret the data in the Results section; L272 - L275.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your kindly comments on our manuscript entitled “Exploring the relationship between young people's sentiment and urban green space by using a check-in microblog” (Manuscript ID: forests-2936452). There is no doubt that these comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. In what follows, we would like to answer the questions you mentioned and give detailed account of the changes made to the original manuscript.

Comments 1: My main point, besides other comments - see below - is the Discussions section. This section should be rewritten in a more concise way. For instance, in L405 - L406 authors talk specifically about young people, but 4.4. is the paragraph that makes this explicit. Moreover, the first part of 4.5 (in the text this is 4.4. too, L467) is also a repetition of earlier mentioned issues. The whole discussion section can be reduced to 2 1/2 pages max.

Response 1: Agree. This suggestion of yours will greatly improve the quality of our discussion.We have streamlined the discussion by removing sections L405-406 and keeping only 4.4; The repetitive statements in 4.5 and the previous paragraph are deleted; And remove the recommendation for mixed land at the end of 4.2, which has a duplication with 4.4. “[In Chapter 4.2, Chapter 4.3,Chapter 4.5]”

Comments 2: A methodological question is about the ethics of the getting the data. It is not clear if the people whose internet use through Weibo was detected and used, gave permission to do so. This point should be addressed cleared. If not, it is questionable if the paper can be published.

Response 2: Thank you for your attention. The data used in our study is ethical. The text data we capture is information that users voluntarily share with the public and the media, and is public data. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethic Board Committee of College of Forestry and Biotechnology of Zhejiang A & F University.

Comments 3: L46. How did the authors draw the conclusion that - L 46 - studies 7 and 8 were inadequate ?

Response 3: Agree. This is where we have not expressed this clearly enough. What we mean is that studies 7 and 8 have pointed out the shortcomings of previous studies. Now we have revised this text.“[In Chapter 1, L44-L46]”

Comments 4: First time use of term GVI - L 50 - has to be explained.

Response 4: Agree.we have explained the full name of GVI “Green View Index (GVI)”.“[In Chapter 1, L47]”

Comments 5: Be aware not to interpret the data in the Results section; L272 - L275.

Response 5: Agree. We removed the part that explained it and kept only the results.“[In Chapter 3.1，L270]”

We thank you again for your valuable advice, your expertise is essential to our articles.We believe that as a result of these changes, the quality of the papers has improved significantly and is more in line with the requirements of forests journals.

If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to have more discussions and exchanges with you.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. REN Yuan, Ph.D.

State Key Lab of Subtropical Silviculture, Zhejiang A&F University, 666 Wusu Street, Hangzhou 311300, PR China

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study topic in the manuscript is worthy of investigation. Generally, the manuscript presents a coherent and logical framework, providing comprehensive details on the methodology, data collection and processing. These draw to a few interesting findings and practice implementations. The limitations of the study are also clarified, making the results convincing.

Suggestions for further improvement:

1) Given the “limitations” of the Weibo data and the focus of the study (the young population), it would be advisable to refine the research questions to be more precise and targeted.

2) Figure 1 – It lacks clarity, necessitating the provision of a higher-resolution version to enhance readability.

3) The sentence on line 108 of Page 3 appears awkward and requires rephrasing to ensure clarity and flow.

4) Figure 2 – It can be further improved to link the three parts (data collection, sketch map, and data processing) to make it more logical and consistent.

5) Figure 3 – captions and images/maps are not matched, please double check.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your kindly comments on our manuscript entitled “Exploring the relationship between young people's sentiment and urban green space by using a check-in microblog” (Manuscript ID: forests-2936452). There is no doubt that these comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. In what follows, we would like to answer the questions you mentioned and give detailed account of the changes made to the original manuscript.

Comments 1: Given the “limitations” of the Weibo data and the focus of the study (the young population), it would be advisable to refine the research questions to be more precise and targeted.

Response 1: Agree. Your suggestion will highlight our research features significantly. According to your suggestion, we focus on the youth group in research question 3 and reply to it in Conclusion 3.“[L92-93，L486-487]”

Comments 2: Figure 1 – It lacks clarity, necessitating the provision of a higher-resolution version to enhance readability.

Response 2: Agree. We have improved the clarity of the map of China in Figure 1.“[In Chapter 2.1, L103]”

Comments 3: The sentence on line 108 of Page 3 appears awkward and requires rephrasing to ensure clarity and flow.

Response 3: Agree. For line 108 of Page 3, we have rephrased the sentence.“[In Chapter 2.2, L108]”

Comments 4: Figure 2 – It can be further improved to link the three parts (data collection, sketch map, and data processing) to make it more logical and consistent.

Response 4: It is quite meaningful for us that you have raised this point, and we have tried to adjust Figure 2 to show the logic of the data acquisition process more clearly. However, the interleaving between technical lines is more serious, and when we try to compose, it is often difficult to maintain the beauty of the picture. At this point, we want to keep the original picture. 

Comments 5: Figure 3 – captions and images/maps are not matched, please double check.

Response 5: Agree. We have corrected it.“[In Chapter 2.3, L201-202]”

We thank you again for your valuable advice, your expertise is essential to our articles.We believe that as a result of these changes, the quality of the papers has improved significantly and is more in line with the requirements of forests journals.

If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to have more discussions and exchanges with you.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. REN Yuan, Ph.D.

State Key Lab of Subtropical Silviculture, Zhejiang A&F University, 666 Wusu Street, Hangzhou 311300, PR China

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic and the idea of the study is very interesting and innovative. The presentation of all stages is much developed, there are only some small weaknesses to be improved.

Main comments and suggestions for Authors:

1. The title is clear and well formulated. Key words are well selected and in line with the topic. 

2. The Abstract is well organized and includes main results of the study.

3. The Introduction is much developed and Authors mention most important aspects related to the conducted study, what creates wide and valuable background. The current state of the research has been clearly presented, also literature cited is well selected. The aim of the study is clear and includes main research questions.

Suggestion: the term GVI (line 47) should be used in full form for the first time and only as an abbreviation in following sentences in the manuscript, to avoid misunderstanding.

4. Section 2. Material and Methods is generally well developed, has appropriate order and includes most important elements explaining how the research has been conducted.

The main aspects listed at the beginning of the paragraphs in subsection 2.3 Data acquisition (such as: Sentiment classification, NDVI measurements, GVI measurements) should be bolded to make them more visible and easy to find in the text.

The presentation of used methods (subsection 2.4. Data processing and analytical methods) has rather a form of a continuous text, what may be a bit difficult to understand by readers. My suggestion is to make it more clear by highlighting more the main stages of the study step by step.

5. Section 3. Results includes main and important information, and is supported by graphs and tables. The used order is clear, also the wide description and main interpretation of results in all sections is well organized.

6. Section 4. Discussion is very well prepared and deep, following the main studied aspects, and also questions formulated in the part with the aim of the study.

7. Section 5. Conclusions is valuable, however the form and scope of presentation need some revision/improvement. Conclusions should clearly answer the three main research questions listed in the Introduction; e.g. the general answer for research question no. 1) is missed in my opinion, and the remaining two require some clarification, etc.

Summing up, the study is very valuable, the presentation of most stages is well developed and clear, only selected elements of the manuscript needs some small improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your kindly comments on our manuscript entitled “Exploring the relationship between young people's sentiment and urban green space by using a check-in microblog” (Manuscript ID: forests-2936452). There is no doubt that these comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. In what follows, we would like to answer the questions you mentioned and give detailed account of the changes made to the original manuscript.

Comments 1: Suggestion: the term GVI (line 47) should be used in full form for the first time and only as an abbreviation in following sentences in the manuscript, to avoid misunderstanding.

Response 1: Agree. We use the term GVI in its full name and only abbreviate it in subsequent sentences of the manuscript.“[L47，L171]”

Comments 2: The main aspects listed at the beginning of the paragraphs in subsection 2.3 Data acquisition (such as: Sentiment classification, NDVI measurements, GVI measurements) should be bolded to make them more visible and easy to find in the text.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for your advice. We have bolded what you highlighted above.“[In Chapter 2.3, L126,L138,L151]”

Comments 3: The presentation of used methods (subsection 2.4. Data processing and analytical methods) has rather a form of a continuous text, what may be a bit difficult to understand by readers. My suggestion is to make it more clear by highlighting more the main stages of the study step by step.

Response 3: Agree. Your suggestion is of great significance to us. We have made logical and progressive changes to the statement of the analytical method. Firstly, it points out the use of buffer zone, secondly, it points out the defects of previous research methods, and then leads to our research methods.“[In Chapter 2.4,L207-L244]”

Comments 4: Section 5. Conclusions is valuable, however the form and scope of presentation need some revision/improvement. Conclusions should clearly answer the three main research questions listed in the Introduction; e.g. the general answer for research question no. 1) is missed in my opinion, and the remaining two require some clarification, etc.

Response 4: Agree. Our present conclusion clearly answers question 1 and clarifies conclusions 2 and 3.“[In Chapter 5,L482-L486]”

We thank you again for your valuable advice, your expertise is essential to our articles.We believe that as a result of these changes, the quality of the papers has improved significantly and is more in line with the requirements of forests journals.

If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to have more discussions and exchanges with you.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. REN Yuan, Ph.D.

State Key Lab of Subtropical Silviculture, Zhejiang A&F University, 666 Wusu Street, Hangzhou 311300, PR China

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf