Community Perception of Brownfield Regeneration through Urban Rewilding
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is interesting. Comments are as the followings:
1. The survey was conducted by an online survey system. How to insure the randomness of the population. It is said by “shared via social media account and also sent as a recruitment email with the online survey link” (lines 162-163). Does the survey population confine to the main circle of the authors which makes the opinions of them more the same? The authors discuss this point in the 4.4.1, any suggestion for future survey?
2. Some examples of photo-elicitation survey can enrich this paper.
3. Why choose the division of ages as shown in Fig. 1? Any meaning? 18 years is an adult by its definition in UK? And above 65 years are labeled as old people? The main concern is that 31-50, why not 31-40, 42-50?
4. Figure 3 adopts 1 to 8 for the importance level for each regeneration options. Do they can choose the same level more than once? For example, they can choose “Urban Wilderness” and “Nature Experience Areas” both to 1s. The total number of the all options are not the same. Dose that mean not everyone choose levels for each option? If so, the result may be biased if a few people just choose the more important ones for them and some just choose the least important for them, and let the other options blank. Why not just include the results for those who choose every option?
5. Figure 4 shows the Regeneration “A” and “B” in a cumulative bar chart, as the total number of each column are not the same. It’s recommended to switch to a separated bar charts for easily comparison.
6. Figure 5 shows most people want a medium wildness. But Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 suggest that more wildness is more preferable. Any explanation?
7. Some of the colors of the pie chart of Fig. 6 is too close to clearly see the difference. Please change similar colors or add the text on the slice.
8. In discussion section, the authors stated that “it was found that only 55 percent of people were familiar with the concept of urban regeneration of brownfield land and 45 percent of respondents were unaware of it.” Since about half of them are unaware of it, does the necessary information provide to them?
9. “Urban wilderness is an issue that is increasingly gaining attention internationally [50,52,54,55].” Do those study have the similar questionnaire to yours? If so, what are their results comparing to yours? More likes this is suggested to add in the discussion section.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the work raised an important aspect regarding the perception of restoring brownfields to nature and their revitalization. I would like to ask what is the novelty of the presented work in relation to the works already published on similar issues?
Is the research group sufficient to draw far-reaching conclusions?
Why do the authors not describe the area of research and generally do not geolocate them?
As I understand it, the work concerns urban areas located in the UK? If so, at least a location drawing and a keyword referring to the location of the study area should be added.
In addition, there are many works on the transformation of urban space after cities entered the post-industrial phase. The authors of such works analyze in detail the so-called naturalization of the space of these cities, perhaps it would be worth referring to at least a few such works, for example:
Solarski, M.; Krzysztofik, R. Is the Naturalization of the Townscape a Condition of De-Industrialization? An Example of Bytom in Southern Poland. Land 2021, 10, 838.
and expanding the literature review.
Author Response
Reviewer 2: The authors of the work raised an important aspect regarding the perception of restoring brownfields to nature and their revitalization. I would like to ask what is the novelty of the presented work in relation to the works already published on similar issues?
Response: We want to thoroughly thank Reviewer #2 for the valuable comments. In response to your question, we believe that the novelty of our work lies in the comprehensive examination of the perception of local communities on the topic, specifically in relation to community participation in the UK. Little research has been carried out into this aspect so far. Our study utilized photo-elicitation as a method of data collection, which allowed us to capture the respondents' perspectives in a unique and meaningful way. Additionally, our survey was conducted in the UK, providing valuable insights into the views and attitudes of local communities in this region.
While there are some studies on wildness or urban rewilding, our study specifically focuses on the restoration of brownfields using a rewilding approach. To our knowledge, there have been few studies that have specifically examined the perception of local communities on this topic. Our study fills this gap in the literature and provides a more nuanced understanding of the complex attitudes and views of these communities.
This study was specifically conducted to understand the public’s perception of brownfield regeneration and the perceived benefits these regenerations could provide if regenerated as urban green spaces as part of rewilding initiatives. The aim was to understand peoples’ priorities for brownfield regeneration, the benefits of urban rewilding, and the importance of biodiversity in urban areas. We believe that our findings have the potential to inform future brownfield restoration and revitalization efforts by considering the perspectives of the communities that are most affected and the importance of community participation.
Is the research group sufficient to draw far-reaching conclusions?
Response: Thank you for your comment. In response to your question, while our study used snowball sampling as a method of recruitment, we recognize that this method may not be representative of the larger population. Our results should be interpreted with caution and viewed as exploratory rather than generalizable to the entire UK population (this has been included in our limitations).
However, we believe that our study provides valuable insights into the attitudes and views of local communities in the UK towards brownfield restoration and revitalization and can inform future research in this area. We acknowledge that future studies should aim to use probability sampling methods that are more representative of the larger population, in order to draw more far-reaching conclusions. Specifically, we included “Therefore, future research should use appropriate sampling methods to ensure that ethnic minorities are adequately represented in the research”.
Reviewer 2: Why do the authors not describe the area of research and generally do not geolocate them?
As I understand it, the work concerns urban areas located in the UK? If so, at least a location drawing and a keyword referring to the location of the study area should be added.
Response: the reason we did not describe the specific area of research and did not geolocate the respondents is due to the nature of our sample recruitment method. Our study used snowball sampling as a method of recruitment, which relies on networking and referrals from participants. This method is not designed to be representative of a specific geographic area or population, but rather to obtain insights into the attitudes and experiences of a specific group of individuals.
However, we included in the revised manuscript that “The majority of respondents (39%) were from Southeast England”.
Reviewer 2: In addition, there are many works on the transformation of urban space after cities entered the post-industrial phase. The authors of such works analyze in detail the so-called naturalization of the space of these cities, perhaps it would be worth referring to at least a few such works, for example:
Solarski, M.; Krzysztofik, R. Is the Naturalization of the Townscape a Condition of De-Industrialization? An Example of Bytom in Southern Poland. Land 2021, 10, 838.
and expanding the literature review.
Response: Agree. Thank you for this suggestion. We have expanded our literature review and included the reference you proposed, Solarski and Krzysztofik (2021), in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All the comments are addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to most of my suggestions, so I believe that the text can be accepted for publication.
