Sustainable Management Decisions for Urban Historical Parks: A Case Study Based on Online Referential Values of Carol I Park in Bucharest, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The provided manuscript titled "Evaluation of Public Interest in Urban Historical Parks through Online Searches: The Case of Carol I Park" addresses the assessment of public perception and interest in historical urban parks, focusing on the case of Carol I Park in Bucharest. The manuscript uses online search data as a means to gauge public knowledge, interest, and potential visitation to the park. While the manuscript contributes to understanding how online search behavior can reflect public interest in such urban spaces, there are several areas that could benefit from improvement and clarification:

1. Introduction and Research Gap: The introduction mentions that previous studies have focused more on the patrimonial and historical aspects of urban historical parks and less on public perception and use. However, it could provide more context about what existing studies have covered and how the current research attempts to address the identified research gap more effectively.

2. Research Objectives and Questions: The research questions are stated, but they could be formulated more precisely and concisely. Clear research questions are essential to guide the study and ensure the results directly address the stated objectives.

3. Methodology Section Clarity: The methodology section is quite detailed but may be difficult to follow due to its extensive technical terminology. Providing a clearer, step-by-step breakdown of the methodology with simpler explanations of concepts would improve the reader's understanding.

4. Data Collection and Analysis: The manuscript primarily focuses on the methodology and the numerical results obtained. However, it could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the specific trends and insights obtained from the data. The significance of the results and how they contribute to the understanding of public interest and potential strategies could be elaborated upon.

5. Comparative Analysis: The manuscript mentions that the validation of the data was carried out using the GoogleAds platform, but it doesn't provide a comprehensive comparison of the results obtained from both platforms. A thorough comparison could enhance the credibility of the research and the methodology used.

6. Limitations and Future Directions: The limitations of the study are briefly mentioned but could be expanded upon. Discussing potential sources of bias, limitations in data collection methods, and other potential factors affecting the research's validity would provide a more well-rounded view of the study's scope.

7. Implications and Practical Application: The manuscript touches on the implications of the research for park administration and decision-making, but it could delve deeper into how the insights gained from online search data could practically inform management strategies, visitor engagement efforts, and urban planning decisions.

8. Conclusion: The conclusion section could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive summary of the findings and their implications. It could also discuss the broader significance of the study within the context of urban planning, park management, and public engagement.

 

9. Language and Structure: The manuscript could benefit from clearer structuring of sections and paragraphs. Using clear subheadings, bullet points, and concise sentences would make it easier for readers to follow the logic of the research.

10. Citations: While the manuscript provides citations for previous studies, some statements could benefit from more direct references to the specific literature or sources that support those claims.

By addressing these areas of improvement, the article could become more accessible and impactful, offering valuable insights into how online search behavior can be used to understand and enhance public engagement with historical urban parks.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the article "Sustainable Urban Historical Parks Management Decisions Based On Online Referential Values: Carol I Park In Bucharest, Romania, As A Case Study". The subject taken is interesting and the research has been developed with a well-conducted and methodologically structured scientific approach; the bibliography is very broad. 

The possible future development of the research and also the possible practical applications could be interesting if the application of the algorithm and the proposed method were extended to other parks, even minor, both of the same city and other similar in size and representativeness.  It might also be interesting to apply the method to other areas of research.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript!

 The authors are very grateful for the Reviewer appreciation and express their thanks!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript following the indications of my first report.