Restorative Effects of Park Visiting on Physiology, Psychology, and Society and the Factors Influencing Park Visiting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1, It seems that the study purposes are not clear. What does this sentence (the effects of different types of parks on resi-11 dents’ physical, psychological, and social aspects) mean?

2, In the Introduction section, it is necessary to provide a clear rationale for the study purposes and theoretical background.

3, The introduction section is difficult to read. Its logistic structure should be improved.

4, Please follow APA publication manual to prepare the tables.

5, Participant information, study procedure, and study design should be added in the Method section 

6,Detailed information about scales such as reliability, items should be included in the Method section as well.

7, The discussion section is difficult to read as well. The authors should provide a deep discussion about the results.

8, What are the strengths and limitations of the study?

9, It does not make sense for the steps of data analyses.

10, The authors should improve the description of results and the tables

11, Professional English proofreading is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an original and interesting article on factors involved in the frequentation of urban parks.  It is a well presented and documented paper. The scientific question is relevant and well structured.
The analysis of the state of the art could be somewhat more extensive and in-depth, it would be advisable to include a table of references analysed and highlight their contributions to the actual knowledge of the topic.

The proposed methodology should be more extensive in the description of the methods applied and include an outline/figure explaining the phases and processes carried out.
Figures 2 and 3 should be reduced in size as they provide little information.

The discussion is somewhat confused with the results. The statistical tables obtained must be considered as results. 

The comments in the discussion should include references to the international context of the subject analysed.

 A map of the location of the city of Urmqi in the geographic scope of China should be included.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First, it is sometimes necessary to specify the country in which the results were obtained. Indeed, the cultural dimension may have a significant impact on the results. Second, the theoretical framework is a good contextualization of the work and reflects a fairly complete and relevant literature. The factors determining the influence of the parks, the obstacles and motivations of the population and the different effects of the parks on various dimensions are clearly shown. Thus, I believe that the bibliographic sources are complete and that they lead naturally to the questions asked. However, it may be surprising to end this introduction with a series of questions. The objective and sub-objectives should be more clearly specified and defined, and the authors presumably have the means to bring out research hypotheses. Third, in order to answer the various research questions, the authors developed a 5-part questionnaire. One part examines the effects of visiting these parks on 3 dimensions: psychological, physical and social recovery. I think that the "physiological" title is adapted to the questions raised on this dimension. Indeed, concentration, body recovery or relaxation are elements that can be perceived as close to the notion of well-being; this last concept being considered by the authors in a psychological dimension. Thus, I have doubts about the title of these 3 dimensions. Moreover, it would be necessary to explain how these questions could emerge, on what basis? Finally, in this methodological part, it seems that this tool is quite substantial and long and it would be necessary to specify the average duration of the test. Fourth, the authors report performing calculations for Cronbach's alpha. More precision would be needed; were all items tested together? By dimension or part? Fifth, the authors present the results and discuss them in relation to the literature. The results are very complete but a reminder of the hypothesis or at least of the questions initially asked would be useful. Finally, this study is based on a solid theoretical framework and benefits from a rigorous methodology. However, clearly defining the objectives and structuring the discussion on the basis of hypotheses or sub-objectives would improve the reading. To conclude, I am not an English native speaker myself, so I rather refuse to provide detailed corrections about language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf