Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Green Infrastructure: Spatial Differences and Influence Factors in Shanghai, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has great potential and enriches the area of green infrastructure perception by residents of cities. An impressive number of respondents is the advantage of this research , especially from the perspective of readers from Europe and other western countries.

The role of GI is nowadays often considered in the world literature in the context of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are divided into: supporting services, provisioning services, regulating services and cultural services. The article lacks the reference to the term ‘ecosystem services’, even though the authors refer to aspects that are part of ecosystem services. If the article is to be attractive to recipients, it should also refer to this terminology

The presented results are interesting, but they cannot be used without improving the cartographic elements of the article. On the maps (Figure 2 and Figure 5), the authors should indicate the coverage of flood risk as determined by planning records or flood risk maps. On the resulting map (figure 5) there is also a lack of public spaces and private spaces participation. One should at least show the percentage share of public and privat spaces against the background of district boundaries (e.g. in the form of diagrams). This graphic message will make it easier to associate maps with survey results.

I have doubts about the readability of tables 3 and 4. In the tables, presented statistical results of the survey should be grouped by topic. The data presented will be better understood if their order is grouped. Table 3: It is best to group ranges for example by ecosystem services, therefore: Supporting services, Provisioning services, Regulating services, Cultural services. This approach will be better understood by readers without changing the scope of previous research. The results in Table 4 may be consistent with the calculations in the statistical program, but they should also be ordered in a logical sense, for example: Pluvial flooding experience and Perception of pluvial flood risk are related concepts. They should be shown side by side in the table. Some of the elements in Table 4 are shown with completely incomprehensible abbreviations, for example Fac_tecnology, Fac_Support etc. – I would recommend to change. In addition to grouping variables, you should name the extracts in a meaningful way.

If we quote in the text the authors of the articles, it is necessary to provide the initials of the name and indicate that there were co-authors of the study, for example: ".... What is different from Baptiste’s [32] study.", Should be: ".... What is different from A.K. Baptiste’s et al. [32] study. "

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting, approaches an important topic and brings additional knowledge on the practical means of expanding or restoring the green infrastructure based on public participation. The research is deep and well framed in the broad international literature, making the manuscript suitable for publication, as it addresses a broad international audience. However, the readability of the manuscript is hindered by a very low level of the language, unsuitable for the publication of the manuscript in an international journal with such a broad audience like Sustainability. Also, the manuscript would gain from expanding the discussions.

In more details, the most serious language flaws include the lack of articles, be they definite or indefinite, and other connecting words. Only few instances are indicated for exemplification purposes: "Green infrastructure (GI) plays" instead of "The green infrastructure (GI) plays" (line 15), "EPA [8] suggested “Compared" instead of "EPA [8] suggested that “Compared" (line 38), "Despite GI has many merits, the public lacks the motivation to participate" - "Despite GI has many merits, the public lacks the motivation to participate in developing/restoring etc. the GI" (line 48), "closed-ended questionnaire was ued in survey" instead of "a closed-ended questionnaire was used in the survey" (line 98), "Because of capacity of urban drainage system" instead of "Because of the capacity of the urban drainage system" (line 133), "hold higher willingness of participation in GI" instead of "are more willing to participate in the implementation/restoration etc. of the GI" (line 203), "And the regression results shows that the P valueis 0.001, which refuses the null hypothesis, indicating it exists heteroscedasticity" instead of "In the regression analysis, the overall P value is 0.001, indicating the rejection of the null hypothesis and existence of heteroscedasticity" (lines 226-229), use of abbreviations without spelling the name of varianbles out in Table 4 (line 270), "apotential driver" instead of "a potential driver" (line 319), "China starts to implement GI in recent years" instead of "China started to implement GI in recent years" (line 322) "implement GI communities" instead of "implement GI by the communities" (lines 332-333) etc. Generally, the authors should use a clearer phrase than "participation in the GI". GI is a spatially distributed object, an people cannot participate in an object. They can participate in expanding the GI, restoring it if lost, or ensuring its connectivity or preservation. The authors are, therefore, suggested to ask for the assistance of a native speaker or use the MDPI proofreading services.

The manuscript could gain from expanding the discussions by phrasing a clear-cut take home message for the broad international audience of the journal. Some recommendations would be useful, and they could be easily obtained if the findings are taken one step further. For example, the authors have found out the drivers of the willingness to support the development or restoration of the green infrastructure. Starting from here, they could suggest what targeted policies are applicable for each group in order to increase the public participation in the process. Such lessons would help a reader form another country drawing insights for his/her city or region. For example, "Residents with higher cognition of GI and perception of pluvial flood risk have higher willingness to participate in GI" (lines 316-317) suggests that a GI/flood risk awareness campaign geared to the public would increase its participation in the process. In a similar way, other findings could be turned into recommendations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper explores a very relevant topic in GI and nature-based solutions implementation.  Particularly examining the willingness of citizens to implement such measures in the private green spaces, that in many cases can be the most relevant component of the GI. The overall structure of the study and the methodology applied are appropriate and the result relevant to the field.  The paper however should be improved in some areas with more in depth descriptions and the use of a more appropriate and clearer terminology.

In particular considering the importance of the questionnaire in the study, it should be explained and described in more details, especially in the section regarding policy, technology, funding and other influence factors. 

Moreover, while the “willingness to participate in GI in private spaces” it is clearly the willingness to implement GI or nature-based solutions in their gardens /open spaces/roofs, it his not clear what the “willingness to participate in GI in public spaces” is.  I assume it is the degree of agreement with public spending and public landscape transformation, but it should be better explained.

In the illustration of the results the tables should be redesigned to be more readable (example: table 4 the grouping of variables is not completely clear (Fac_x variables are grouped with Pluvial flooding experience).  Indentation and bolding could make a difference).

In the discussion and conclusion section line 329, I would change “This research shows” in “The finding of this research suggest”

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Changes made to the text and additional explanations are understandable and logical. The work is interesting and in its current form should arouse the interest of readers.
Please improve the citation of co-authors in the text. It should be, for example, "T. Matthews et al.", Not "T. Matthews et, el"

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have undertaken a serious improvement effort, increasing the depth of research and broadening the potential audience. All suggestions have been addressed; the ones related to the content were fully addressed, but the ones related to the English level were addressed only partially. The language still needs to be improved (e.g., misspellings like “et el” instead of “et al”).